Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:20AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:20AM (#950434)

    First we need to ignoring the fact that they can never increase the blockages as they can both can use the exact same lists for blocking and both will require resources for memory and processing time. But for examples of conflicting, they could try to inject different surrogates on the page. They could both try rewriting the CSP header to do a csp or script directive in bad ways (similar to how they used to cause problems with early WebEx versions of NoScript). Their respective user styles and DOM rewriting engines may create incompatible changes. You might get caught in a loop as each tries to do something to the DOM which then triggers the other. One could explicitly whitelist certain resources the other would block, causing it to get through unadulterated (rare but has happened). And those are the ones I came up with off the top of my head.

    For a weird example of conflicting plugins, look at the multiple bug reports of HTTPS Everywhere conflicting with uBO/ABP. It is true that it wasn't serious but they had to specifically design around the presence of the other in the same browser to avoid UA warnings.

    The various content blockers have gotten nicer to each other over the years because people use them together and reported the problems. But when they use the same blocking tactics, it is still an example of literally no positives and multiple negatives.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:08AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:08AM (#950459)

    Obviously the solution is to ban all ad blocking plugins. Users just can't be trusted to install software alone.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:43PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:43PM (#950831)

      Where did you get that from? I pointed out that running multiple of the same type of blocker (in this case, publicly-available filter lists and ignoring the fact that uBO has a superset of features) can cause them to conflict and provide no security benefit. They asked how they can conflict and I told them how. I don't care whether they run 2 blockers or 20 blockers of that type on their machine. But that doesn't change the fact that it is literally no benefit to do so and multiple downsides, both real and theoretical.

      And the only real reason I chimed in in the first place is to let everyone else know, as I figured those on a more technically inclined website and that a Palemoon user in particular could handle such information. But, alas, apparently one among us could not handle it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:23PM (#952418)

        I'm guessing he was refering back to the attitude of Mozilla and Chrome, not you. I had a laugh on that account and I'm not giving it back if I'm wrong.