Blocking Pop-ups at the ISP Level? 108
roXet asks: "I work for a small ISP that offers dial-up and DSL in Louisiana. In the wake of the big boys' new wave of pop-up and spam blocking advertisements, I am looking into providing these services for our customers. I hate the thought of filling my customers machines with proprietary software, if for no other reason than I see it creating a support nightmare for our call center. I have found several options for blocking spam at the network level, but I have yet to find a good solution for getting rid of pop ups. Has anyone found a good method of doing this at the ISP level?"
possibilities (Score:4, Informative)
Blocking website popups at the ISP level would be hard. Sure, you could set up your own http proxy and replace occurances of "open(" with something else, but it's so easy for a web site to obfuscate their popup code to get past such a filter and you would also be breaking countless sites that don't use popup ads.
You can no doubt block gator and a bunch of other insidious adware though. Just block all their domains and executable filenames. Most low end firewall/routers have a url filtering feature that's adequate for this. The people who are hit by the most popups often have one or more of these installed and don't know about it.
Re:possibilities (Score:2)
The kind that don't work - The one's where they try to determine whether or not a popup is an advertisement.
And the kind that work - The one's that block ALL popup's.
Apple's Safari uses the latter kind, as well as the Google Toolbar [google.com] for IE6, which blocks all popups as well.
I've never seen a site get a popup through.
The only argument I've seen against popup blockers that block all popups is that they will block important popups that need to be seen. But you will notic
Re:possibilities (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, three. Konqueror has 'smart' popup blocking where it allows popups that result from an action I take (click a link, keystroke...) and blocks the rest.
It's great because it doesn't break sites that use popups for various legitimate reasons.
Re:possibilities (Score:1)
> an action I take (click a link, keystroke...) and blocks the rest.
This is what Mozilla does as well. It is IIRC Opera (or was last I knew) that
just blocks all new windows. IE, of course, does not have popup blocking built
in, though I speculate a future version will. There are third-party utilities
available to give it this feature, naturally.
Recent Mozilla.org browsers also have the ability to show an icon in the statu
Re:possibilities (Score:1)
Re:possibilities (Score:1)
So, clicking on a button where the window.open() is called from the onClick handler will work. window.open()s in onLoad handlers et al will not work.
At least, thats the way my Safari works (1.1 on Panther).
Although also, in my experience, Mozilla gets it perfect - no naughty popups but ones that I want to happen (even window.open()s in bare script execute
Re:possibilities (Score:2)
The kind that don't work - The one's where they try to determine whether or not a popup is an advertisement.
And the kind that work - The one's that block ALL popup's.
The Proxomitron uses the first kind, and it's very good at blocking only ad popups: I see one or two ad popups a year, and I don't have to turn the filtering off for sites that make honest use of popups.
Re:possibilities (Score:2)
Specifically, the (default) Proxomitron filter replaces window.open with a javascript that only allows opens if they were immediately preceded by a mouse-up (indicating that the user actually clicked on something), and disallows pop-ups immediately after a window load (another filter unilaterally edits out onUnload scripts).
So it's much like the heuristics other posters have noted are used by Konqueror or Safari.
Re:possibilities (Score:1)
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I definitely do not want my ISP monitoring my packets. And yes, I expect many replies to this to say "Oh they watch everything you do". I don't subscribe to that level of conspiracy theory.
propz to GNAA.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Mozilla (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
Re:Mozilla (Score:2)
(damn
Is this wise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this wise? (Score:1)
I agree. I sometimes have to turn off Safari's pop-up blocker (which makes me enjoy the fact that it's a preference that's right in the main menu and I dont have to open any preference panes or anything). For instance, when I do online banking, there's an option to view a scanned image of the check, and it opens in a new window. For some reason, the algorithm used by Safari decides the window is no good and blocks it.
So, your service is only as good as the algorithm. I'd say leave it up to the customer. Ma
Re:Is this wise? (Score:2)
That's why you should use Camino [mozilla.org] instead of Safari. It offers selective pop-up blocking - the ability to allow unrequested pop-ups for a selected sites. (It also offers selective cookie acceptance.. allow them from 'google.com', but not from 'doubleclick.net', for instance).
Re:Is this wise? (Score:2)
All the user would have to do is single-click on the applet and it toggles state from, say, green to red (or back) -- green == popups are blocked; red == "the full Internet experience."
This would allow the ISP to s
Google Bar 2.0 (Score:2, Informative)
and the blocked count is strangely satisfying.... (Score:1)
Use a transparent Squid (Score:1)
Re:Use a transparent Squid (Score:4, Insightful)
Your savvy customers will thank you, and people won't be offended by having the choice taken away from them.
This page [slashdot.org] appears to cover everything you need to know. But I suspect you've been too busy closing random pop ups to be able to use google [google.com]
Re:Use a transparent Squid (Score:3, Informative)
LINK [is-a-geek.net]
~foooo
Re:Use a transparent Squid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Use a transparent Squid (Score:1)
Re:Use a transparent Squid (Score:1)
Re:Use a transparent Squid (Score:2)
> up that customers can "opt-in" to use.
Yes. Try and force your filtering on me and I'll take my business elsewhere.
www.fwtk.org? (Score:2)
The old TIS FWTK had a http-gw proxy that could filter out all activex and javascript. It probably wouldn't be too hard to patch the code to filter only the open() call.
Noble idea but it can't work at the ISP level (Score:1)
1. Strip all javascript popup code from the html as it passes through your proxy.
2. Block all access to specific URLs that the popups try to load. Of course, the popup window will still appear, it'll just be empty.
1 will never work and 2 sucks (plus it'll never work).
I'm happiest with konqueror's 'smart' popup blocking where it doesn't block popups that result from an action I take.
google (Score:2, Informative)
The only answer - Mozilla (Score:3, Interesting)
Do your users a favor. A big favor. Strongly insist that they use a modern, good quality web browser, like Mozilla, and make copies easily available.
Re:The only answer - Mozilla (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to insist; just put it in the Internet Connection Kit that you
send them and have your installer set it as the default browser and change out
the IE shortcuts on the desktop for your approved browser. If the user wants
specifically to use IE, they still can, but most will just click the big fat
shortcut on the desktop and be happy. Make sure you configure it so that
unrequested windows are not loaded by default.
While you're a
replies so far (Score:5, Insightful)
So shaddap about the browsers already!!
But, back to the question at hand, I'm afraid that blocking at the ISP level will be:
A - fairly difficult due to obfuscations. The ISP really isn't going to be doing anything different than a normal pop-up blocking mechanism at the client would in terms of figuring out what is or is not pop-up code and the pop-up people (insert scary mental image here) are already doing their level best to defeat that.
B - potentially a legal problem as any blocking mechanism that the ISP implements at the network level will, in effect, be interfering with the clients' "communication" with the website in question. The FCC might have something to say about that.
However, I'm sure there could be a way to set up a database and have people opt-in for pop-up blocking service. IANAL but I would think that them actually requesting such service would clear most legal hurdles.
As for solutions, I wonder how hard it would be to extract the relevant code from Open Source browsers and make a little routine to rewrite/replace scripts on the fly...? It would almost have to be a proxy though so you could track (and allow) pop-ups which were actually requested.
Re:replies so far (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I'm sure there could be a way to set up a database and have people opt-in for pop-up blocking service. IANAL but I would think that them actually requesting such service would clear most legal hurdles.
I don't think the problem is with the FCC a
Re:replies so far (Score:2)
Good point! I hadn't though of that little twist. (I am obviously NAISP either
Re:replies so far (Score:2)
Re:replies so far (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point! I hadn't though of that little twist.
Indeed. And this is a good excuse for following the other suggestion: Supply your customers with tools that let them do the filtering themselves. The latest mozilla/netscape browser is a good start. But start studying the subject, and try to collect tools to give the customers control. Put together a good web site that they can download from. Try setting up your own mailing list and/or
Re:replies so far (Score:1)
Of course, the devil is in the details, I would venture to say that blocking all unrequested popups would be difficult with more obfuscated javascript code. Of course, the more complicated processing you perform, the more CPU you require. Unless you had a really really big proxy server cluster
Re:replies so far (Score:2)
Re:replies so far (Score:2)
It is technologically feasable to cut a majority of ads from your users browsers. (proxies already rewrite a number of things, it is trivial to make them redirect to a blank image.)
It is technologically feasable to cut a majority of pop-ups from your users sessions. (proxies, yadda yadda.)
It is not, however, technically feasable to filter c
Re:replies so far (Score:2)
This post is not intended to constitute legal advice. If you need such advice, ask a lawyer, not Slashdot.
Proxy (Score:1)
No, dammit (Score:3, Insightful)
ISPs bitch about how they can't provide tiered service. Spam blocking, popup blocking, firewalling, are *all* great things to toss in value-added packages to provide tiered service. They, however, drive many people (who don't
Re:No, dammit (Score:2)
Most browsers will accept a URL to a "proxy.js" in the proxy config options, so the user doesn't have to type in all the hostname/ports for ftp, http, https, ...
eg http://proxy.isp.net/proxy.pac
Inside that goes something like this:
how do browsers do it? (Score:2)
Another problem is that you need to keep some popups -- ones that are generated by clicks -- and toss out others, the ones that show up automatically.
I don't know how browsers solve the problem, but I'd be interested to know.
If I were going to try to implement it, I'd probably s
Re:how do browsers do it? (Score:2, Informative)
The JavaScript interpreter ignores the calls to open the window, depending on how the call was made. This technique would not work on the ISP side, because it would require the ISP's server to parse and edit the JavaScript on every page it sends to the users.
Re:how do browsers do it? (Score:2)
Now that Mozilla has popup blocking, I don't need that part of adzap anymore, but adzaps banner blocking is great, too.
Yes, please do tell... (Score:1, Funny)
um.... (Score:2)
Have them Use Mozilla. (Score:2)
Mozilla Kicks a$$ for blocking pop-up ads.
Either that or Build a custom app for your customers.
Dolemite
_______________
Blacklist (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Blacklist (Score:2)
By providing these helpful links you empower your users while not taking the responsibility to support all these configurations.
Re:Blacklist (Score:2)
Re:Blacklist (Score:1)
Re:Blacklist (Score:1)
I use a method like SurfControl do to kill almost all popups thru my firewall. SurfControl act as a proxy or pass-by filter. It uses a database of advertising sites and blocks them. By applying the same filtering in my firewall, with the Dan Pollock hosts file, I can achieve a very good level of filtering on all my hosts.
To answer the question, by applying filtering thru a proxy (squid for example), you can give your uses a way to choose and if so to block ads/popups.
Offer a well-maintained proxy to your users (Score:5, Informative)
These could probably be configured as a transparent proxy if you don't want to set it up manually on users' computers, but speaking as a power user, I would never sign up with an ISP that stuck me with a proxy I couldn't avoid.
And you must disable them. (Score:3, Interesting)
The way it gets around, say, certain kinds of Javascript, is by rewriting the function text as it goes by. But it doesn't know what is and isn't actually a script. Any webpage containing the word "open" followed by an open parenthesis -- there's one in the comment currently at the top of this page -- gets rewritten to "PrivoxyWindowOpen(..." to defang the Javascript, even when it,
Re:And you must disable them. (Score:2)
code = "window"+"open"+"(extra_open_commands)";
eval(co
Good luck trying to get around all the possible combinations of doing that. In fact, google uses something like this for their ads -- read their JS.
Re:And you must disable them. (Score:2)
No argument from me. I think the good folks at Privoxy are going to have to give up eventually. Alternatively, when users figure out which sites are being assholes about their JS, simply put them on the list of sites for which Privoxy just strips all JS, rather than trying to keep most of it.
Proxomitron (Score:4, Informative)
Proxomitron is a proxy that provides that as well as many other features. Since it is a proxy you could put it on your servers and provide access only for your subscribers. Make it optional. Most good browsers offer easy switching between proxy and non-proxy mode.
Proxomitron offers more then just popup blocking, and also by letting them use the ISP as a proxy they have an additional level of anonymity.
You would need to configure Proxomitron to a useful, but not too invasive level, or offer multiple proxies at different levels of restrictiveness. Then the use can pick which one they want depending on their needs. Document it all really well on your support site.
Re:Proxomitron (Score:2)
Re:Proxomitron (Score:2)
Re:Proxomitron (Score:2)
That wouldn't surprise me. I also noticed that the Proxomitron projects is listed as dead [proxomitron.org].
So use that idea with another proxy server - either off the shelf, or write your own. They are pretty simple really.
Re:Proxomitron (Score:2)
Listing it as "dead" is somewhat misleading. The program itself is no longer being developed, but anyone can write filters for it, and filter development is still quite active. (See proxomitron.info [proxomitron.info])
Re:Proxomitron (Score:1)
As Cybermancer said, just set it up and have your clients use it as a proxy. They will be thrilled!
Webwasher does it. (Score:2)
For those insisting on IE (Score:3, Informative)
Molesting content (Score:2)
I frequent several sites, arstechnica.com would be the most prominent, which ask that you do not block ads or popups, as they are the revenue stream, no matter what personal views you may have on advertising the net.
1: Block popup ads
2: Revenue per popup goes down
3: Popup prices go down
4: More people buy popups for advertising
5: More popups! You Lose!
And I suggest that all of you who will inevitably reply sayi
Re:Molesting content (Score:2)
Don't worry, it's just as easy for me to automatically block two popups as one.
--
Benjamin Coates
huh??? (Score:1)
IANAWebMaster, but I would think that a reduction in the effectiveness of pop-up ads would result in a reduction in the number of pop up ads.
3. If you want to support a site, then *you* can enable the pop-up ads for that site (not hard on mozilla). Don't force everyone on the internet to view ads for a website that only you may like (that'd be like requiring atheists t
Re:Molesting content (Score:2)
Furthermore: an ISP (or its software) can't distinguish between pop-ups a user wants/needs, and those a user doesn't; and blocking ads may force the user to violate their AUP.
I know of several sites that use an auto-pop-up login dialog or have an AUP that prohibits the blocking of ads from the site.
To make matters worse, there are alreay some sites that are using TV-like advertising -- any link click could be replaced by a full-screen on-page animated (flash or image) advert that has Javascript ensuring
Re:Molesting content (Score:2)
Makes no sense to me. (Score:1)
XP Service Pack 2 has IE with popup blocker (Score:1)
Doesn't have to be all or nothing... (Score:3, Interesting)
If my ISP is reading this... (Score:1)
Please, don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I know, your only options are:
* Making the user use some sort of filtering software, e.g. Proximotron or Google Toolbar.
* Making the user use a browser with built-in popup blocking.
* Filtering HTTP requests.
I recently had a big problem getting an XML-RPC based app to work. Turns out that Proximotron had been installed (without my knowledge) on the client system, and was adding it's popup blocking stuff to the XML-RPC response. While this is fine for HTML, it is definitely not ok for XML.
You can argue that XML-RPC/SOAP is a perversion of the HTTP standard, but apps using it are already deployed, and as a network admin I have to deal with it. Please don't make my job harder.
Follow this suggestion (Score:2)
Let users have capability of unmolested connection OR anti-crap proxy filter connection. Everybody's happy.
simple (Score:1)
I can use windows, I can keep it healthy; argue with an idiot and you are an idiot. ; but the public is not ready for it so we have a job market for "the computer guy" , side effect of the American economy IMO. I would hypo
DNS is not bad for a huge ammount. (Score:1)
I doubt anyone you want to find anything in the ads*.doubleclick.com domain
Proxy (Score:2)
thanks for the info (Score:1)
Forcing my users through a proxy server is not going to be an acceptable answer, although the google toolbar may be. I may also think about recommending Pop Up Killer (http://sourceforge.net/projects/puk/).
The only other solution that I thought of was taking one of the pop-up blocking host files that you find out on the internet and putting that in my dns to point those domains to local
Reccomendations are meaningless (Score:2)
Actually, I'd say you got lots of decent ideas (Score:2)
2. Offer different proxies with multiple levels of popup/junk filtering that your savvy customers can opt-into.
3. Send out a CD with free versions of Ad-Aware [lavasoftusa.com], Spybot S&D [safer-networking.org], and so on. Or point them to links like the online version of X-Cleaner [spywareinfo.com] or one [trendmicro.com] of [ravantivirus.com] many [pandasoftware.com] online [symantec.com] virus [bitdefender.com] scans.
4. You could also be a real saint and figure out how to put most of the important Wind
Copyright infringement (Score:2)
In both cases, you can make the argument that you're making things better for your customers. Instead of showing them popups, or lousy ads that they don't care about, you can put your own ads in there which are probably more relevant. After all, isn't it better to see an ad for the local car dealership than one for Gator?
Of course, no matter how noble your intentions, you're still committing c
Privoxy of course (Score:1)
Be warned no matter what scheme you choose, the user m
Google Toolbar (Score:1)
This story interested me because nearly half of our users have come to us requesting pop-up blocking within the company. We use IpCop [ipcop.org] as our proxy/firewall for over 100 users. I'm sure someone could rig Dan's Guardian or some content filter out there to do the job, but we have had very good success with Goggle's latest toolbar for IE. The users can keep using the browser of their choice, the toolbar lets them search quickly, and the toolbar blocks popups. We have also blocked the spyware sites that we are a
Tips (Score:1)
Doing that for a 60 user company is a lot different to doing it for an ISP though, you'll want something like proxomitron [proxomitron.info] but on a much larger scale.