18 replies to this topic

[Drew99GT]

I just got this extension and after using it for a while, on some sites I go to, such as my hotmail account and suprisingly, a webroot site used to varify your version of Spysweeper, about:blank appears in the list of scripts! I've used every tool known to man to check and see if I have any malware and I'm clean (hopefully!). Can someone else with this extension report back and see if they get about:blank scripts trying to run? Thanks

[Normandie]

Drew99GT, on Dec 17 2005, 03:37 AM, said:

I just got this extension and after using it for a while, on some sites I go to, such as my hotmail account and suprisingly, a webroot site used to varify your version of Spysweeper, about:blank appears in the list of scripts!  I've used every tool known to man to check and see if I have any malware and I'm clean (hopefully!).  Can someone else with this extension report back and see if they get about:blank scripts trying to run?  Thanks

I have noticed this too and also on some sites "doubleclick.net" shows up wanting to be activated. These concern me but have not found any help yet.

Have a good day,
Normandie

[BopperBugger]

Nothing to worry about.
Some web pages contain an IFrame that should be filled by JavaScript.
An IFrame with no content yet has URL "about:blank".

[Normandie]

BopperBugger, on Dec 17 2005, 03:08 PM, said:

Nothing to worry about.
Some web pages contain an IFrame that should be filled by JavaScript.
An IFrame with no content yet has URL "about:blank".

Thanks that is comforting, know anything about the other one "doubleclick.net", I have noticed it on wanadoo.fr, a French ISP.

Thanks,
Normandie

[Eldmannen]

I hate doubleclick.net!

And I hate flash-advertisement, and I hate popups, and I hate those annoying DHTML advertisement that float on the screen.

[Normandie]

Well, I gues my question about the isp in France (wanadoo.fr) that shows "doubleclick.net" as wanting to execute javascript is this,

1. Is this a branch or a form of the spyware doubleclick?
2. Is this in your opinion trying to execute something that will harm a computer?
3. Is this in your opinion a form of spyware hidden in a javascript form?
4. Is there reason to worry about this? Why?

I of course never noticted this before using FF with Noscript, I went there often with IE and of course it never shows anything & now I am wondering what this is all about.

Sorry to ask all these questions, but just want to know what to do about this. I have been going to this site for years, have scanned my computer with everything I can find online & offline, it shows clean, so what is the story on this "doubleclick.net"?

Thanks folks,
Normandie

[rridgely]

about:blank is not always bad. It just means nothing has been loaded.(bobber is right).

Doubleclick are adds not spyware. It will put cookies on your pc but thats about it.

Since you using firefox just get adblock with filter set g updater. That should stop the adds completely. In my opininion no script makes surfing unfun because you have to configure it each time you go to a new page.

Adblock
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/morei...ication=firefox

Filter set G

First time you use it manually update it with the update button. make sure you apply the filter as well)
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/morei...ication=firefox

[Normandie]

rridgely, on Dec 17 2005, 06:22 PM, said:

about:blank is not always bad. It just means nothing has been loaded.(bobber is right).

Doubleclick are adds not spyware. It will put cookies on your pc but thats about it.

Since you using firefox just get adblock with filter set g updater. That should stop the adds completely. In my opininion no script makes surfing unfun because you have to configure it each time you go to a new page.

Adblock
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/morei...ication=firefox

Filter set G

First time you use it manually update it with the update button. make sure you apply the filter as well)
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/morei...ication=firefox

rridgely,

Thanks for the information, I will sleep more peacefully now I already use adblock & will add the filter G. I do so appreciate you taking time to help out. It is so nice to know that we can count on good answers from people that can help us!!

Have a great day,
Normandie

[JohnDemolition]

get ablock plus instead

also if you use the NoScript extension, get rid of it. it's crap

[rridgely]

JohnDemolition, on Dec 17 2005, 08:08 PM, said:

get ablock plus instead

also if you use the NoScript extension, get rid of it. it's crap

He obviously likes it if hes using it. Also it seems to be quite popular on the extensions page.(2nd most downloaded).

fileter g and adblock is better than the plus version.

[mfenech]

rridgely, on Dec 17 2005, 07:26 PM, said:

fileter g and adblock is better than the plus version.

Hmm...that's a new take. What makes you say that?

[rridgely]

I think its got a better filter. The filter is being maintained by a seperate group which to me means more work is being done on it. Also the plus version is said to have some bugs with 1.5.

[Greenknight]

rridgely, on Dec 17 2005, 09:53 PM, said:

I think its got a better filter. The filter is being maintained by a seperate group which to me means more work is being done on it. Also the plus version is said to have some bugs with 1.5.

Hate to contradict you, rridgely, but you've got that backwards. The word on the Firefox forums is that Adblock doesn't work with Firefox 1.5, you should install Adblock Plus instead. Don't take my word for it, see: Firefox 1.5: Installation Guidelines & Common Questions
http://forums.mozill...ic.php?t=341279

[rridgely]

That article is old.
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/morei...ication=firefox

[Normandie]

rridgely, on Dec 18 2005, 04:26 PM, said:

That article is old.
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/morei...ication=firefox

I don't know what is the best now, with all of this, Adblock or Adblock+, what is the big difference? Why one over the other?

Thanks,
Normandie

[Tarun]

Adblock does cause a number of problems with Firefox 1.5; including white pages. In fact, the "support" for anything over 1.0.7 is a crock. Adblock is not being developed any longer, so someone took over the project and added more features and fixed the issues it had.

Installing AdBlock+ (which has fixed numerous bugs and works fully with 1.5) resolves all of those issues.

[rridgely]

Maybe I'm wrong but its working perfectly for me.

[Normandie]

rridgely, on Dec 18 2005, 09:34 PM, said:

Maybe I'm wrong but its working perfectly for me.

Well, since there was so much debate on this I decided to try both. I had adblock+ installed on my machine and so I uninstalled it and installed adblock. I can say that it definetly loads pages a whole lot faster now with adblock than with adblock+, there are a few things I miss like being able to right click on the icon to get options and deactivate it if needed, but the speed difference is amazing. So far adblock seems to be running correctly and I will see what happens in the next few days.

Have a good day,
Normandie

[Greenknight]

I don't use either one myself, so I don't know from personal experience. I just know that I've seen a lot of forum threads where Adblock users solved their problems by switching to Adblock Plus.

That thread I linked to is a sticky on the Firefox Help forum maintained by one of the mods there, so it should be kept up-to-date. I think they just haven't changed their views about Adblock in Fx 1.5.