|
|
|
|
|
by 1vuio0pswjnm7
1943 days ago
|
|
I just use an HTTP client that does not automatically load resources nor run Javascript. Using such a client, the user, by voluntarily typing the name of a website or following a URL, decides what to retrieve (a page, e.g., index.html), not the web developer. If the website developer is allowed to decide what the user involuntarily retrieves, then it stands to reason a website seeking revenue through online advertising will make sure the user involutarily retrieves ads, or cookies from a tracker. For example, by letting the ad server or tracker use a subdomain of the website as a "cloak". The fact that the technique relies on a CNAME or some other DNS indirection seems to suggest that the ad server or tracker will have a different IP from the website. That may be another weak point in any effort to conceal the fact that some resources referenced in the page or Javascript files are only necessary for advertising purposes. If both content and ad cruft were being served from a single IP, then that might pose more of a challenge in deciphering what to retreieve. I have yet to see that and doubt I ever will. I am a believer that ultimately whitelisting is more effective than blacklisting. Request what you want, leave the rest. As opposed to letting a browser request everything according to a web developer's wishes, and then you try to block stuff. With extensions, third party assistance, etc. |
|
For interest, what do you use? A standard browser with plugins, or a specialised client?