Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Bypassing Google's big anti-adblock update

    (0x44.xyz)
    1034 points deryilz | 16 comments | 12 Jul 25 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.267s | source | bottom
    1. SuperShibe ◴[12 Jul 25 20:20 UTC] No.44544826[source]▶
    [flagged]
    replies(6): >>44544855 #>>44545234 #>>44546507 #>>44546656 #>>44546983 #>>44547982 #
    2. 4gotunameagain ◴[12 Jul 25 20:23 UTC] No.44544855[source]▶
    Well, in his defense it would have been patched immediately after the first adblocker used it, and he would have gotten nothing at all out of it.

    Oh wait he got nothing at all anyway ;)

    replies(2): >>44544888 #>>44545091 #
    3. freed0mdox ◴[12 Jul 25 20:28 UTC] No.44544888[source]▶
    Not really, this sort of fame farming is what makes candidates stand out in infosec interviews. A bug in Google systems is good for his future career.
    replies(2): >>44546313 #>>44547352 #
    4. m4rtink ◴[12 Jul 25 20:56 UTC] No.44545091[source]▶
    Would be quite different if they patched it and broke important extensions, possibly facing serieous outcry and bad publicity.
    replies(3): >>44545271 #>>44545323 #>>44545582 #
    5. devnullbrain ◴[12 Jul 25 21:19 UTC] No.44545271{3}[source]▶
    That's what they already did.
    6. rollcat ◴[12 Jul 25 21:26 UTC] No.44545323{3}[source]▶
    Important extensions like, dunno, uBlock Origin?
    replies(1): >>44545924 #
    7. deryilz ◴[12 Jul 25 22:03 UTC] No.44545582{3}[source]▶
    I agree that would change things but I can't picture an open-source extension with millions of users pivoting to rely on something that's clearly a bug.
    replies(1): >>44547361 #
    8. eddythompson80 ◴[12 Jul 25 22:59 UTC] No.44545924{4}[source]▶
    Yeah, surely if chrome broke important extensions people will get mad and switch.
    9. lucb1e ◴[13 Jul 25 00:04 UTC] No.44546313{3}[source]▶
    The post says they had another bug with a large bounty in the same year, so it doesn't seem very useful for CV padding either
    10. WD-42 ◴[13 Jul 25 00:46 UTC] No.44546507[source]▶
    The exact wording was:

    > But I don't know how to make an adblocker, so I decided to report the issue to Google in August 2023.

    So why not go to someone that does know how to make a blocker? Nice snitch.

    11. Aurornis ◴[13 Jul 25 02:26 UTC] No.44546983[source]▶
    If a major adblocker used a bug or security vulnerability to work around restrictions, it would have been patched away immediately.

    The uBlock team was never going to ship code that depended on a bug to work.

    replies(1): >>44548870 #
    12. userbinator ◴[13 Jul 25 03:57 UTC] No.44547361{4}[source]▶
    At that point it's a feature, not a bug.

    Having millions of users on your side is great ammunition.

    13. deryilz ◴[13 Jul 25 05:26 UTC] No.44547755[source]▶
    Dude, what.
    replies(1): >>44548372 #
    14. romanovcode ◴[13 Jul 25 06:27 UTC] No.44547982[source]▶
    He was hoping to be a good boy and receive some cash from Google, as per article.
    15. userbinator ◴[13 Jul 25 07:51 UTC] No.44548372{3}[source]▶
    [flagged]
    16. r4indeer ◴[13 Jul 25 09:37 UTC] No.44548870[source]▶
    I fully agree. The original comment and the other replies to it are bewildering. There was nothing to gain here, yet people are throwing ad hominem attacks left and right.