How do you block ads in Opera? They said that Opera 9 has a built in ad blocker but I don't see it.

Yeah its a little hidden and not very developed,meaning you cant download filters you have to manually add in everything you want to block.
Go to tools>Advanced>Blocked Content and then you enter in the things you want to add. Or you can right click and choose to block it.

The easiest way to block ads is to use a host file. Then you can block all ads automatically in all browsers.

Look at this:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Follow all the directions to install it and prevent slow down.

Ah I'll just use Ad Muncher from http://admuncher.com which blocks ads in Opera, IE, and Firefox for a one time fee of $25.

If you have money to blow than go for it. But the host file uses no ram and is free.

Here's a couple of recommended things from the Opera website.

Opera AdBlock

Download this file and save it as urlfilter.ini in the Opera profile directory. On a windows XP machine, that will most probably be at C:\Documents and Settings\User\Application Data\Opera\Opera\Profile

Leave the HOSTS file alone. It is NOT meant to block ads.

Cool link! I didn't think about looking around in the opera file for the filter list. I guess I was just too lazy.(didn't really like opera much anyway.) I wonder why they wouldn't include this in the GUI like adblock. Oh well at least they made it possible this time.


Nope, almost every major pc/security site endorses the idea of using a host file for protection and adblocking. I don't know why exactly your against it but it does work. If its the DNS Client debate that exclusivly makes you not like the idea then fine but I don't think that most users care about that. The first time they open IE and no longer see ads all over the place will outweigh the extra .5 seconds it might take to load a page.

It's another "prefetch cleaning is good" thing.

Are you trying to tell me that you've submitted to the Mastertech school of computing.
No seriously though his site is about the only one that I can find that dosen't recommend the host file.

But I guess if we are going to go buy the "prefetch cleaning is good thing," then I can say that I notice no difference wether I clean my prefetch or not. But I do notice a difference when I open up IE on a computer that I stuck the host file on.

AdMuncher is freeware

I dont think so..
http://admuncher.com/register.shtml

hmm. i thought it was. oh well

30-day free trial, US$24.95 thereafter

Well, if you've looked over his pages recently, most of his information is actually correct.

Large Hosts Files also cause Internet related slowdowns. Oh, was what Microsoft said not enough fact for you? Apparently not. Time to enroll in tech school kiddo.



Source...

Does it make sense yet?



It's not made to block ads. So don't be stupid when it comes to the HOSTS file. Use it sparingly, only to block certain websites that ABSOLUTELY HAVE to be blocked. Why are HOSTS files being used to block ads all over the net? Because uneducated people with no technical experience at all go around propagating that it's a good thing, but it is not. Even Microsoft has said how the misuse of the HOSTS file can and will slow down your computer AND increase network traffic.


As for prefetch, it actually does alter boot time and application load times. If you have it enabled for Boot and App Launch, you get applications loading much, much faster.

Ta for the Ad-Muncher link

Yeah but the article you quoted is talking about IP addresses, not URL's, however I myself don't like the concept of blocking IP addresses because eventually it does lead to a problem.
The line in your quote that's in red (and another incident - wouldn't you like to know) has pretty much made me make up my mind on you - wouldn't you like to know that too? I'm not telling.

It is about time that people who put their opinions on this forum are not ridiculed by others. Calling people uneducated children because they don't happen to have the same opinions as yourself is a bit below the belt.
This is a forum, not a playground.

Wow, it must make you feel really good to try and insult me every time we don't agree on something. I would care if it didn't always backfire and in turn make you look childish and petty. Don't insult me again, I promise you wont like what I post next.

As andavari already stated hosts files like the MVPS Hosts don't block IP addresses they block URL's. The article you quoted uses the same type of logic that we seem to run into a lot on the internet. The "more secure" vs "secure" debate. It seems to think since the Hosts file can't block all bad sites(too many) then you shouldn't use it at all. This as we know could go for about everything on computers and if we went by that logic we would never use any software. About potential slowdown, well I havent noticed any. I even downloaded fasterfox and disabled all of its features except the site load timer so that I could test how fast sites are loading with and without the hosts file and there was no real difference.

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/tutorial51.html
http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-045.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file
http://www.castlecops.com/article-5660-nested-0-0.html

http://wiki.castlecops.com/Malware_Prevent...nt_Re-infection
http://accs-net.com/hosts/what_is_hosts.html(this site found on above link)

These are some of the most respected sites on the internet. But I guess they are all just run by uneducated children.

Furthermore...

Information was taken from MVPS.org:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hostsfaq.htm

Editing the HOSTS file

• IP addresses are invalid as HOSTS file entries. (re: 127.0.0.1 123.456.78.9)

can somebody split this topic or something? the topic is supposed to be about Opera's Ad Blocker and not about the HOSTS file. this discussion is just silly when i look at it.

I guess for some of you, it really is that hard to comprehend what Microsoft said about HOSTS files. That's pretty sad that you wouldn't investigate it at the very source. The place where the people who MADE this stuff would KNOW about it for certain.

Now, here's the really funny part. I cite Microsoft KBs as my sources. Obviously they know how the HOSTS file works best. Everyone else cites unofficial websites that are merely speculating how the HOSTS files work. They tell you a load of crap because they want you to use their HOSTS file to block ads and other stuff that really does not need to be blocked. Steve Gibson of GRC doesn't understand this at all. This is why he too is laughed at by so many from the tech support world. If they knew how to use them properly, you would not see them being used for ad-blocking.

Many of you also continue to talk about URLs. Well, what do you think typing www.google.com does? It contacts a DNS server to get an IP address. That's just like you looking up a store in the phone book to get the phone number. URL's are just a user-friendly name that redirects you to the Google website's IP address. The Internet operates via "dynamic" naming, where a human friendly name (www.google.com) is actually an alias for the real address, which is numeric. Pretty easy, isn't it?



No, that's incorrect. A HOSTS file doesn't block URLs. It redirects them to a specified IP address.

Example. Google's IP address is 64.233.161.104. In your HOSTS file, if you want to be redirected to Google by typing in say pwned.com. So in your HOSTS file you would have the following:
64.233.161.104 pwned.com
Now, when you type pwned.com you are redirected to Google's website. That is what a HOSTS file is for, and that is what it is meant to do.

If you block ads by making them redirect to localhost (that is the IP of 127.0.0.1 which is in the HOSTS file as a redirect also), they will continue to try and connect to your localhost, instead of simply being stopped from loading. They will try to load roughly three times or more before they finally give up. Is this really that hard to understand?

HOSTS files are also not meant to block malware. Using a special HOSTS file to block ads or malware is false security and a waste. Malware can very easily modify your HOSTS file, even if you set it to read only. Frequently malware can edit your HOSTS file to redirect your browser to other unwanted websites. The CoolWebSearch hijackers are masters of altering your read-only HOSTS file. It even says so on Merijns website (see below). Malware can also redirect Windows to use a HOSTS File that has nothing to do with the one you keep updating.


At the top of Merjin's website on the frontpage.


Also, under his download page.

How did it intercept the download? The HOSTS file that it alters. HOSTS files are not meant to be used for ad blocking or added security, because they can very easily be overwritten; even if set to read-only.

To further your education, you can read the following:
Microsoft TCP/IP Host Name Resolution Order - A very good read that teaches you how the HOSTS file truly works and is meant to function.
The History of DNS
Differences Between the HOSTS and LMHOSTS Files in Windows NT

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask.

For the sake of my sanity, i'm going to join in this s***ty conversation


what gave you the idea that it keeps trying to reconnect to localhost? if a URL is redirected to localhost, it will try to go there once and then stop loading. because of the fact that our home computers do not have an HTTP server running, there is nothing on Port 80 which is what it tries to connect to. when there is nothing to connect to, it stops.

Same thing with websites. if you type in, let's say my IP address in the website bar, your computer will try to establish a connection on port 80 with my computer. But, if there is nothing running on Port 80, then the program will stop trying to establish a connection and display a warning after 1 or 2 seconds.


so if we have a specially made HOSTS file that can block the malware from getting to our computers, then how will the malware modify our HOSTS file? In my opinion, the HOSTS file is perfect for blocking ads, malware, and malicious sites because of the fact that it stops them BEFORE they can even get to our computers. It also works with every program on the computer so there's no point in getting expensive or resource hungy programs to do the job when we have 1 simple thing in the palm of our hands. And also if you're so worried about the HOSTS file, then get Spybot or SpywareBlaster. they supposedly have HOSTS file protection of some kind .

Ah, keep up the attitude. That way even more people will ignore you and you will get even less traffic then you already do at that site that you try to spam every chance you get.


Since when was MS the only reliable source? If they had their way we would all only use MS Office, Moviemaker, One Care, Defender, ect. I'm no MS hater but I also don't think their way is the only way.

People have been tweaking, changing, and modifying their windows pcs for as long as they've been available and most of the time the changes they made are better for what they do. You could probably find a MS article on every thing you can do on windows and why they say not to do it but on some things the benefits outweighs the cost. Hell, there might even be a artice of why you should use IE and not FF but obviously people feel that the profit outweighs the cost.


Fine you can say that your being redirected and I'll say that the URL was blocked. Thats just a difference in terminology with the end result being the same: the URL in the host file will not be loaded.

Do I understand why that URL wasn't loaded? Sure, I do. By entering 127.0.0.1 before the URL whenever windows goes to load that site it is redirected to your machine instead of the actuall server.

Example:
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net blocks all files from the DoubleClick Server to the web page you are viewing.


What is the point your trying to make? If this is where your trying to say that using a host file will slow down browsing then I'm not going to argue this. Not because it slows anything down but because you can say it does and I can say it dosent all day long and it wont make a difference. The only way this can be determined is if someone actually uses the MSMVP host file, follows the directions on the site and then reports back on what their opinions are. I put this host file on my winxp, win 98, and my new laptop and I noticed no difference in any of them. I wouldn't use anything myself if it caused pages to load a minute longer than they normally. I tried this on multiple machines and the average change wasn't even in seconds and the difference was probably caused more by web traffic than by the host file.

BTW: Circuit City has an awesome deal on a Toshiba laptop right now.
I just got mine saturday.
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Toshiba-Sat...roductDetail.do




Malware can get past antiviruses, firewalls, and anything else. Nothing is the be all end all and thats why you need layered protection. True the host file can be modified and setting it to read only will not stop all infections but it does stop some of them. Besides even if you didn't have a special host file the host file would be edited by CWS or any other infection that edits the host file anyway. Its not like it singles out the people that use the specialized ones. This is just the "secure" vs "more secure" debate again and I've already been through this once and it goes nowhere. At least now I know where its coming from.

Why would I tell people to use something that was going to slow down their computer? I would get no benefit what so ever from it besides people not thinking I'm credible anymore. I obviously don't want that so why would I do it? Can I be wrong? Sure, no one is perfect but don't try to say that I'm spreading propaganda. Thats more slander on your part than any propaganda on my part.

To avoid that, I run a little app called eDexter. It substitutes a local image (the default is a 1 pixel, 43 byte gif) for blocked/redirected sites. I use it to avoid the "The page cannot be displayed" messages but, theoretically, it also speeds things up to load a very small local file rather than download larger files over the internet.

I've run tests on my VPC along with a firewall to alert me to every single connection attempt made. That included to the web and to localhost. Even a page with one ad, it would sometimes attempt to connect more than once.


As stated in my previous post, malware can still alter and even replace your HOSTS file. Malware is an executable file, just like everything else you use. It sends a command line parameter to change the state of the HOSTS file from a read-only state to writable. After that it replaces it with whatever it wants. All it does is send the ATTRIB command along with -R. See this link on DOS Command: ATTRIB for more information.

That's not very secure if it's that simple to disable the read-only attribute, is it?

For stopping malware the best thing to use are SpywareBlaster for Firefox and IE. If you need more protection, use IE-SpyAd.

For Ad-Blocking in IE you can also block ads with IE-SpyAd. This is a great utility to use, because it will block BOTH malware links AND advertisements in the IE browser! Now, do you need IE-SpyAd? Well, if you use IE and have valid concerns about malware, it would be a good idea. If you never use IE at all, or only use it for Windows Updates, then you probably won't need it. The choice is yours. Best of all, it's based off of the registry by adding domains and IP addresses to the Restricted Domains list. All of this is stored in the registry, so you won't have to worry about it slowing your connection or having any impact on your computer's performance. Awesome huh?

It doesn't stop there! The maker of IE-SpyAd also has a way to block ads with Agnitum Outpost Professional Firewall. It's called AGNIS. AGNIS for Outpost is a ported version (Ported in this case, is that it was for other software and then carried over for another) of AGNIS for AtGuard and Norton Internet Security (and also Norton Personal Firewall). This list will integrate into your Outpost Pro firewall to help block ads of all kinds, including Flash, Javascript, even certain image sizes. You can replace them with the text [ad] or a 1x1 pixel transparent gif image.

For Ad-Blocking in Firefox, you can use AdBlock Plus with FilterSet.G. Now, some of you are probably asking what's so great about AdBlock Plus and FilterSet.G. Well, let's look at the Google text ads, shall we? If you have the AdBlock Plus extension enabled, it actually comments out the Google text ads.



Did you notice these codes above: <!-- and //--> ? Those are HTML comment tags. What those do is hide any text that is between them. That's right, it's just like programming (because HTML is just another programming language after all!)

So, how did it get there? Well, as a page loads, AdBlock Plus checks through a huge list that it has downloaded and enabled, thanks to FilterSet.G. It looks for keywords in URLs and other places within the generated page source code for any webpage. When it finds a match it comments it out. So when your page loads, you get to see the webpage without any nasty ads or bloat. Plus pages will load faster (and some quieter!). What's even cooler about AdBlock Plus is you can set it to automatically disable on certain webpages of your choice.

I hope you've found this informative, John.



My firewall does the same thing Glenn. Outpost Pro will find keywords and even key image sizes. It works wonders and does it so much faster and more efficiently than ZoneAlarm Pro attempted to do. When I was working on dialup years ago and made the switch to Outpost Pro, the pages were loading so much faster it was truly amazing. Over a 75% increase in pageload times.

Reference links:
- IE SpyAd
- AGNIS for Agnitum Outpost Professional Firewall
- AdBlock Plus for Firefox Official website
- AdBlock Plus for Firefox on Firefox Add-Ons
- Filterset.G Updater for Firefox Official website
- Filterset.G Updater for Firefox on Firefox Add-Ons

lol. so you made a post and then made another post and blaming it on lagging? wow . j/k i saw that the previous post was posted twice.

well since i don't use Firefox, i don't care about Adblock or FilterSet.G but you did introduce me to IE-SpyAd as i have never heard about it. was easy to install(although i did have to edit the reg file to work with IE7). but i'm not sure if it works better than Spybot's IE plugin .

IE-SpyAd more-or-less blocks the same s**t that SpywareBlaster does, well SpywareBlaster is missing something like 23 or 38 sites (don't remember exactly).

Yeah splitting threads would be helpful.

Please and thank you.