Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Are Ad Servers Bogging Down the Web?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the yes-of-course-they-are dept.

The Internet 387

blackbearnh writes "The work of making high-volume web sites perform well is an ongoing challenge, and one that continues to evolve as the nature of web content changes. According to Google Performance Guru Steve Souders, fat JavaScript libraries and rich content are creating new problems for web site tuning, but one of the biggest problems lies outside the control of web site administrators — ad servers. In an interview previewing the upcoming Velocity Online conference run by O'Reilly, Souders talks at length about the real causes of poor web performance today, and in particular, the effect that poorly performing ad servers are creating. 'We adopted a framework of inserting ads, of creating ads, that's pretty simple. And because it's pretty simple, it's not highly tuned. That's one reason why we shouldn't be too surprised that we see performance issues in third party ads. The other reason is that ad services are not focused on technology. Certainly companies like Yahoo and Google and Microsoft, we're technology companies. We focus on technology. So it's not surprising that our web developers are on the leading edge of adopting these performance best practices. And it's also not surprising that ad services might lag two, three or four years behind where these web technology companies are.'"

cancel ×

387 comments

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271570)

cool4sale!

Kind of Fitting (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271582)

That I should read about this story with an AT&T advertisement next to it done up in Adobe Flash 10 when the exact same thing can be achieved in a few lines of HTML. Seriously, it's an all black background with four lines of white text at h2 and h3 ... then an AT&T logo in the bottom and maybe an icon for the button to "learn more." And the article is wondering if advertisers are slowing down the web?

Give the UI back to the user and leave the flashing marquee tags in Las Vegas. The only reason you would use a swf is to achieve some display interaction/functionality not suitable for HTML+CSS+Javascript. This is common sense yet you willing host ads that urinate on common sense. If you want me to read an article on your site, you don't want moving flashing things annoying my eyes while I try to read text so why serve up only a technology (as all ads on Slashdot seem to be) that is designed just for that? Ah, of course, it's your biggest revenue stream. Well then, I guess I'll just dig in and prepare for the cycle to perpetuate ad infinitum. And these two guys can chat all they want about it but there's no solution; it's never going to end because it's Just the Way Things Are.

Re:Kind of Fitting (1)

ZuluZero (1159015) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271594)

One word: Ghostery There, fixed that.

Re:Kind of Fitting (0, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271624)

swf isn't exactly heavy, and can provide results that are not suited for HTML+CSS+Javascript. And I rather not have ads controlling Javascript, that would be even more annoying. Now you can at least block the .swf file/url pattern if you want to.

And no, ads aren't going away, websites need income to operate. AdSense like text ads are ok, but they aren't suitable everywhere.

Re:Kind of Fitting (2, Informative)

colfer (619105) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272268)

For the Flash cookies, maybe? Dunno what the trade-off is vs. users who block Flash by default.

Also, SWF can uses vector graphics and the animated files are tiny.

Re:Kind of Fitting (1)

smallfries (601545) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272126)

Weird. Don't you get the "Disable Ads" checkbox on the side of your page? It showed up on mine sometime this year, and it's made slashdot much faster and more enjoyable.

Re:Kind of Fitting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272218)

Advertisers using flash because it's not as easily blockable, I would imagine flash also allows advertisers to track users in more sophisticated ways.

Re:Kind of Fitting (2, Informative)

Dr.Syshalt (702491) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272316)

Advertisers using flash because it's not as easily blockable

Uh... FlashBlock? Available now for the Chrome [chromeextensions.org] as well.

HOSTS FILES ARE THE BEST GLOBAL ANSWER (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272320)

"Give the UI back to the user and leave the flashing marquee tags in Las Vegas" - by eldavojohn (898314) * on Monday November 30, @12:27PM (#30271582) Homepage

NO PROBLEM, 110% agreement here on that account... & more (like more speed online AND more security, via a SINGLE EASILY EDITED + POPULATED FILE, called a HOSTS file):

I use a custom HOSTS file, in addition to the tools you noted (which only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products, but don't extend globally to all other webbound applications, & that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize: "GLOBAL COVERAGE", & of ALL webbound apps, not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself...).

HOSTS files can be used to blockout KNOWN "bad" adserves, maliciously coded sites or adbanners, and "botnet C&C servers" too!

You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online, but also for speed!

(More on that later & WHY/HOW (I use reliable lists for that, such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] or those from mvps.org (a good one this one))

I also further populate & keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats, via:

----

A.) Spybot "Search & Destroy" updates (populates HOSTS and browser block lists)

B.) Sites like ZDNet's Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog -> http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

C.) Sites like FireEye -> http://blog.fireeye.com/ [fireeye.com]

D.) SRI -> http://mtc.sri.com/ [sri.com]

----

My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online (by blocking adbanners, which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits (examples below)).

(I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own (30,000 entries), & I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called "APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++". That program also functions to change the default larger & SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, smaller & thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default) or the smallest & fastest 0 "blocking 'IP ADDRESS'" (for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it (& it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000, only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards (& now all these "phunny little bugs" are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall, which ROOTKIT.COM has stated (with code too no less on how it is done) -> http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952 [rootkit.com] [rootkit.com] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK (than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003))

Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage? More speed online, & also more security + reliability (especially in the case of DNS servers today, per folks like Dan Kaminsky &/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now)...

SO, to "CIRCUMVENT" THAT WHICH YOU NOTE & to get more speed online (besides/above potentially hijacked adbanners etc. et al)?

WELL - I use another "technique" called "hardcoding" an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files, for my FAVORITE websites:

This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups, which also would in theory @ least, make me "proofed" vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also.

(Especially since I use external DNS servers too, OpenDNS ones to be specific, that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I can't ping & resolve the ENTIRE internet after all)

This also makes it harder for others to track me...

(Sure, they could do a "reverse DNS lookup" via pings &/or traceroutes & the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest, but that is harder to do, than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server))

ALSO, AS ANOTHER "BONUS" in HOSTS FILES (can't stress it enough, & especially above + beyond adbanner blocking): It speeds you up, or can!

E.G.-> A buddy of mine named Jack says it has (verbatim quote) "DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE, BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE", because he used to get over 200++ viruses a week, now? Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately, & he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly (he is my "lab rat #1" due to his previous infestation rate), & if that "anecdotal evidence" is not enough? See this then, from a published security guru on a respected site for it:

====

RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:

(by Mr. Oliver Day)

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

====

(A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too, because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too & more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below, several examples thereof no less), because you don't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS!

(Again, and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now & others also noting it)

Thus, you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV. SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE (a good thing, but one you may have to periodically alter, easily, via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file & a ping to update their new address (sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices, rare, but they do & MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow, so you can amend a HOSTS file)).

NICEST PART IS, THOUGH, PER YOUR STATEMENT (in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above, alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM)?

I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO, not the router's onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least, because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL, not via my routers' onboard DNS server...

APK

P.S.=> Evidences as to WHY you'd want to add on the "extra layered security protection" of a HOSTS file, which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps, AND, allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well? Ok, here are some documented reasons why like:

a.) DNS servers vulnerable, under attack, failing or being "DNS poisoned" misdirected & more

b.) Security suites failing vs. modern "blended threats" online

c.) javascript being used to do most of this via apps)

d.) adbanners being maliciously coded also...

(Here we go with documented proofs/examples:)

POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERS

The Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]

----

Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211 [slashdot.org]

----

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

----

Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

----

Slashdot | Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214 [slashdot.org]

====

DNS PROBLEMS:

Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/02/15/2118212 [slashdot.org]

----

Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231 [slashdot.org]

----

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=05/08/04/1525235 [slashdot.org]

----

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

----

Another DNS Flaw Found:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240 [slashdot.org]

----

Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/07/23/231254 [slashdot.org]

----

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/08/09/123222 [slashdot.org]

----

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=06/03/16/1658209 [slashdot.org]

----

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/08/21/2343250 [slashdot.org]

----

DNS Root Servers Attacked:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=07/02/06/2238225 [slashdot.org]

----

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&cid=30109858 [slashdot.org]

----

Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks?

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html [networkworld.com]

----

Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC [slashdot.org]

----

DNS users put higher premium on security:

http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/ [techworld.com]

----

BIND, the Buggy Internet Name Daemon:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html [cr.yp.to]

(Where djbdns was found to have flaw, though it was alleged invulnerable, they paid out $10,000 reward)

----

DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520 [zdnet.com]

----

DNS REBINDING ATTACKS: MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability (how to protect yourself):

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

----

Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185 [zdnet.com]

====

SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING:

AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237 [slashdot.org]

----

Most Security Products Fail To Perform:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30114652 [slashdot.org]

----

TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM:

http://secunia.com/blog/29/ [secunia.com]

----

Top security suites fail exploit tests:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top_security_suites_fail_exploit_tests?intsrc=news_ts_head [computerworld.com]

----

Antivirus is 'completely wasted money': Cisco CSO: News - Security - ZDNet Australia:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt_auscert [zdnet.com.au]

----

Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919 [zdnet.com]

----

Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 1 of 2:

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839 [securityfocus.com]

Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 2 of 2:

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2 [securityfocus.com]

----

Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware (2008):

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858 [securityfocus.com]

----

2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679 [infoworld.com]

----

Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks:

http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349_3-5902897.html?part=rss&tag=5902897&subj=news [cnet.com]

&

CISCO "COMES CLEAN" ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/ [eweek.com]

&

Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability:

http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/ [secunia.com]

+

Computer routers face hijack risk - study:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss [www.cbc.ca]

Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers?

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers [slashdot.org]

----

Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&cid=30024078 [slashdot.org]

====

JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS:

Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day, Says Kill JavaScript:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234 [slashdot.org]

----

Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&from=rss [slashdot.org]

----

JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader (4th or 5th time already, if not more):

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953 [securityfocus.com]

----

Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT:

http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/ [trendmicro.com]

----

JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com:

http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349_3-6099891.html?part=rss&tag=6099891&subj=news [com.com]

----

Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secunia

http://secunia.com/advisories/29787/ [secunia.com]

----

New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script_menace/ [theregister.co.uk]

----

Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036 [infoworld.com]

----

Researcher: JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/ [eweek.com]

----

Rise Of The PDF Exploits:

http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits [trustedsource.org]

----

ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF:

http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219 [shadowserver.org]

----

AJAX Poses Security, Performance Risks:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp [eweek.com]

----

Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services:

http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&p=1 [net-security.org]

http://www.cbronline.com/news/web_20_is_vulnerable_to_attack [cbronline.com]

----

Cross Site Scripting (GOOGLE) and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT:

http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html [cgisecurity.com]

----

Why the FBI Director Doesn't Bank Online

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240 [slashdot.org]

MAJOR ATTACKS (only a small sample) of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDED

Is the Botnet Battle Already Lost?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp [eweek.com]

----

IT Pros Say They Can't Stop Data Breaches:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD [eweek.com]

----

Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30185742 [slashdot.org]

----

Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies:

http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots_found_inside_many_big_companies.html [baselinemag.com]

----

Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs:

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495 [securityfocus.com]

----

Bots surge ahead (2007):

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466 [securityfocus.com]

----

Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227 [informationweek.com]

----

CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631 [informationweek.com]

----

Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&cid=19035679 [slashdot.org]

----

Dancho Danchev's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge: Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing:

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html [blogspot.com]

----

Data at Bank of America, Wachovia, others compromised - May. 23, 2005:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank_info/index.htm [cnn.com]

----

Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ [msn.com]

----

Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected_job_search_sites_lead_to_info_theft_for_46_000 [computerworld.com]

----

New Mega-Botnet Discovered:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214 [slashdot.org]

----

I think THAT list ought to "enlighten" ANYONE, as to why "layered security" is & has been considered largely to be "THE WAY TO GO", vs. that list above (which is only a SMALL %-age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes)... HOSTS files help protect vs. those, on several levels - DO consider their usage!

apk

Re:HOSTS FILES ARE THE BEST GLOBAL ANSWER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272362)

caps, bold, wall of text!

Make it a statistic and they'll care (5, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271610)

Having worked for an ad-serving company, I'm pretty confident that the reason they don't care is that they're not measured on the speed at which they serve up ads.

If high-value websites started rejecting ad networks that served ads in less then x milliseconds after the rest of the page was downloaded, you'd see ad servers speed up, quick.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (5, Interesting)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271714)

Since when do ads get loaded after the content? I can't count how many times I've stared for 10+ seconds at a white screen with "connecting to foo.ads.doubleclick.com" is in the status bar at the bottom. I really don't know if its the browser(s), or if the pages in question are designed to load ads first.... either way, its goddamn annoying.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (2, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271966)

Yup. Second biggest offender is usually Google Analytics. Hell, I've often had Firefox hang while trying to pull up something from GA.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (4, Informative)

thesnide (640733) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272196)

Second biggest offender is usually Google Analytics.

That's why it's usually interesting to host the JavaScript file, that seldom changes on your webserver, and only have the img that conveys the data retrieved from the foreign host.

JavaScript loading is usually blocking the rendering whereas img loading usually not.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (5, Informative)

jo42 (227475) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272048)

The solution is simple:
vi /etc/hosts
add:
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 twx.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 googleads.g.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 partner.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 analytics.live.com
127.0.0.1 ads1.msn.com
etc.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (1)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272176)

And that is what we call a work-around, not a solution.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (4, Informative)

RJFerret (1279530) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272262)

The solution is simple:
vi /etc/hosts
add:
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
...
etc.

Even easier, as I thankfully learned from Slashdot a long time ago, this downloadable MVPS hosts file [mvps.org] instantly prevents connecting to ads, spyware as well as other "parasites" and is constantly updated.

Since adopting it, I no longer wait for ad servers and a side benefit is not even being exposed to the ads!

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272296)

'vi' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (1)

Garridan (597129) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272328)

I prefer a whitelist approach -- it's much harder for them to sneak shit in that way.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272342)

unless there's a way to use wildcards with /etc/hosts, then the solution is adblock.

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (3, Informative)

imunfair (877689) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272278)

I believe (from a little experience dabbling in web design) that browsers generally run inline javascript as they encounter it - so since the ads are usually inline JS at/near the top of the page it prevents further loading while it's being handled.

Theoretically if you put the ads in the footer this wouldn't be such an issue since most of the page would load first - most places won't do that though since they want the ads prominently on the top/side of the site so you're more likely to click them (but seriously - who are these people that click ads??)

Re:Make it a statistic and they'll care (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272294)

It doesn't seem like Firefox's status bar message is very accurate. My guess is that it shows the last thing loaded (e.g. Google Analytics) but not necessarily the item which is holding up the page.

Slow ads... (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271612)

Quite often you will be loading a website, and be staring at a blank screen with "making connection to ads.blablabla" at the bottom.... The page itself has loaded, but won't display until the browser has managed to retrieve the ads.

Also you will see ad servers in completely different locations to the site you're viewing, and therefore much slower.

Also, some ads are especially large, especially animated flash ones, and can add a noticeable delay to a page load even if the ad server isn't slow or lagged.

My pet hate btw, are ads which have sound... I find that EXTREMELY annoying and quickly block access to any ad provider which serves such things.

Re:Slow ads... (1)

Zardus (464755) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271750)

It sucks when you have to install Adblock just to have web pages load in without lagging at those "making connection to ads" screens, even when I otherwise wouldn't mind the ads. Advertisers suffer directly as a result of that even more than they do from people blocking ads cause they hate them, IMO. In the latter case, the person wouldn't click on ads anyways, but in the former case, they might have.

Re:Slow ads... (2, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271916)

Worse than even that though are "chained" ads.

You see these primarily on video sites (Hulu, various news channel video sections, etc.) where you have some video content that you want to see, but FIRST they want to display an ad to you.

If you have AdBlock Plus installed, you can NEVER see the video! It is specifically set up so that you cannot get to the video without first viewing the ad. Blocking the ad results in a blacked-out video player and no error message. (Although the observant will usually notice the "attempting to connect to [ad server]" message in the browser status area.)

Worse still, many of the ads are from some of the same places that have had (or currently have) issues with drive-by infection ads. So in order to watch your video, you MUST put your machine at risk.

It's a disgusting abuse of viewers and needs to stop.

Re:Slow ads... (2, Insightful)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271972)

Yes, users should all be easily capable of installing a firefox add on to disable advertisements prior to videos.

In turn you will pay a monthly fee to access content due to the loss of advertising revenue.

Oh wait, you actually thought these things were made and provided for free?

Re:Slow ads... (2, Insightful)

RCGodward (1235102) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272092)

Why is this modded troll? Content costs money to produce and deliver.

Re:Slow ads... (1, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272070)

... where you have some video content that you want to see, but FIRST they want to display an ad to you.

If you have AdBlock Plus installed, you can NEVER see the video! It is specifically set up so that you cannot get to the video without first viewing the ad...

It's a disgusting abuse of viewers and needs to stop.

Are you really saying that it's abuse of viewers when your ad blocking software doesn't manage to block the ads correctly and breaks the video player?

And if you're blocking their ads, they most likely don't care if you can see the video or not. Bandwidth isn't free, and it isn't cheap to run these kinds of sites either.

Re:Slow ads... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272168)

I disagree. If a site offers its content in exchange for your watching the ads. You are taking technical measures to circumvent this, and if those measures don't work correctly then it is your responsibility, not theirs. If you don't think the terms that they have offered are acceptable then you are free to go elsewhere. If I find myself on a site with irritating ads, I add a line to my user CSS file that puts a warning next to links to them, and then avoid visiting the site again. I sometimes email the owner and explain this is why I am not coming back.

If you don't want irritating ads, don't support the companies that use them.

Re:Slow ads... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271998)

Advertisers suffer directly as a result of that even more than they do from people blocking ads cause they hate them, IMO

You would think this would lead to a Darwinian feedback loop in which crappy, intrusive, annoying ads lead to poorer results than more tasteful ones, and ergo are dropped from the next ad campaign by the advertiser. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, judging by the continual fountain of annoying, over-animated crapvertisements littering the internet.

Re:Slow ads... (1, Flamebait)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272084)

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case...

Yes. Another example of the free market working its wonders.

Re:Slow ads... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272292)

I don't think the problem is the free market itself, rather it is either a) marketing drones who are more interested in whiz-bang strobing flash animations than with creating a positive brand awareness, and/or b) somewhere, somehow, for some reason, millions of stupid schmoes actually click on these obnoxious things.

Re:Slow ads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272252)

Advertisers suffer directly as a result of that even more than they do from people blocking ads cause they hate them, IMO

You would think this would lead to a Darwinian feedback loop in which crappy, intrusive, annoying ads lead to poorer results than more tasteful ones, and ergo are dropped from the next ad campaign by the advertiser. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, judging by the continual fountain of annoying, over-animated crapvertisements littering the internet.

Obviously you haven't been watching TV then. Or you have a curious defect in your brain that makes it unable to see auto-dealer commercials.

"Darwinism" isn't what you think it is.

Re:Slow ads... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272366)

I have a curious defect in my brain that causes me to flip to another channel when commercials come on. This allows me 3 benefits: 1) I rarely sit through commercials, 2) I watch a couple shows at once, and 3) I am left to watch TV in peace, because no one else in my family can stand it, and so they leave me be and go do something else.

Re:Slow ads... (1)

rysiek (1328591) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272304)

Maybe the ads should be loaded by JavaScript, AFTER the site's content is loaded? This way it starts to be the ad vendor's problem to get the ads there fast, *before* user clicks on something else. For those users that do not use JS, the ads might be in iframes, so that they still load after the website's content, and asynchronously (as somebody already pointed out).

AdBlock Plus (3, Informative)

anglico (1232406) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271614)

This is the main reason I use Adblock Plus. If the advertisements weren't so annoying then I wouldn't mind them, there are a few text ads I don't block because they aren't intrusive at all. But when I see flash based ads that yes could have been done with HTML or JavaScript then I block those immediately.

Re:AdBlock Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271878)

You should use it on shitty website that use cheap trick too, like spreading an entire text with only one subject over 15 pages with 10+ ads per page, I seriously think most of these website don't deserve that money from their sponsor anyway, I usually don't use them even when everything is blocked by some add-on.

I don't even need to read the summary. (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271618)

Technology: Are Ad Servers Bogging Down the Web?

Yes. Period.

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271724)

Yes. Period.

Can you send that to me in a Flash file?

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (2, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272066)

No, but I took a screenshot of his response, and pasted it in a word file. Can I email that to you?

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272100)

No, but I took a screenshot of his response, and pasted it in a word file. Can I email that to you?

Actually, you need to email it to me and the next ten people in your email list. Break the chain and somewhere a puppy will die!

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271730)

Well, then you missed the part where a guy from Google is making the claim, and saying that it's primarily because ad companies don't have the expertise in-house to keep up with the latest web performance tricks. Of course, technology companies like Google do, so presumably their ad servers don't bog things down like those other companies' servers do. Oh, did we mention Google also just happens to have an ad serving platform that you could use instead of the ones run by these Luddite ad companies that can barely keep a web server running? Let me point you to our AdSense sales team for more information.

The fact that ad servers tend to screw things up is nothing new. This guy's primary purpose is not so much to point that out, but rather to claim that Google's ad servers don't have that problem, so maybe web admins should use them instead.

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (2, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271986)

Even more embarassing for Google - As I mentioned in another post, Google Analytics is one of the biggest offenders in the "makes page load stop and browser freeze for a few seconds" category.

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272080)

The problem is that it doesn't take much to run an Ad Server. I could hack one together with things that are just sitting around in my Parent's Garage, then just upgrade my Internet service to a business line and I'll be good to go.

Now, most web admins simply look at the price. If I can offer a penny more for my slow-you-down-ads, I think more people will choose my service.

When it comes to the ad business, there is no "Quality" gague for rating ads, since everyone who uses the net actually hates Ads.

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271862)

insightful?!

Re:I don't even need to read the summary. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271880)

Anonymous!?!

Are Ad Servers Bogging Down the Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271626)

Yes.

Why? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271632)

I realize that most websites run some version or another of "adverts", but generally speaking, most of those sites are marginal value to start. The sites I frequent usually use text ads, and not the flash (pun intended) graphical ads on some of the more questionable sites.

In fact, I dare say, that if I see lots of flashy or ads that are obtrusive in nature, I discount the nature of the site and tend to leave quicker.

One of the things that pisses me off to no end, are third party ads that are spewing crap/malware to driveby web browsing.

I don't personally get infecgted by them, because I run all the latest anti-malware defenses (adblock, noscript, firefox etc). But I'm in IT, and I see way too many machines compromized by the lastest "Antivirus 2010" styple crap/malware all the time.

Websites that house such malware should be blacklisted. Screw them if they can't make a living without using dubious adverts.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

mjschultz (819188) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271818)

I realize that most websites run some version or another of "adverts", but generally speaking, most of those sites are marginal value to start. The sites I frequent usually use text ads, and not the flash (pun intended) graphical ads on some of the more questionable sites.

That actually reminded me of a short study I did in my English class a number of years ago. I wanted to know if you could get a quick feeling for the quality of a magazine based only on the number of advertisements/glossiness of the publication. Given the limited time and amount of money I was willing to spend I chose "Popular Science" and "Scientific American." PopSci had many more adverts than SciAm and, IMO, this means that SciAm is the better magazine. Yeah, it was a little subjective, but it was only a 5 page paper for an English class.

It's nice to see that the same thinking still applies to websites.

Re:Why? Why not: HOSTS files, give this a read... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272074)

"One of the things that pisses me off to no end, are third party ads that are spewing crap/malware to driveby web browsing. I don't personally get infecgted by them, because I run all the latest anti-malware defenses (adblock, noscript, firefox etc). But I'm in IT, and I see way too many machines compromized by the lastest "Antivirus 2010" styple crap/malware all the time. Websites that house such malware should be blacklisted. Screw them if they can't make a living without using dubious adverts - by Archangel Michael (180766) on Monday November 30, @12:33PM (#30271632)

Archangel Michael, meet "the LORD OF HOSTS" (just in keeping with your nick/handle here, AND the fact that much of what you note is covered by another tool you omitted mentioning that is easily edited, everyone has one (if their OS IP stack is BSD based, most all are iirc), & eats no CPU cycles like a local DNS server can (& are not as security vulnerable either if you protect write access to a HOSTS file also):

I use a custom HOSTS file, in addition to the tools you noted (which only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products, but don't extend globally to all other webbound applications, & that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize: "GLOBAL COVERAGE", & of ALL webbound apps, not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself...).

HOSTS files can be used to blockout KNOWN "bad" adserves, maliciously coded sites or adbanners, and "botnet C&C servers" too!

You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online, but also for speed!

(More on that later & WHY/HOW (I use reliable lists for that, such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file [wikipedia.org] or those from mvps.org (a good one this one))

I also further populate & keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats, via:

----

A.) Spybot "Search & Destroy" updates (populates HOSTS and browser block lists)

B.) Sites like ZDNet's Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog -> http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

C.) Sites like FireEye -> http://blog.fireeye.com/ [fireeye.com]

D.) SRI -> http://mtc.sri.com/ [sri.com]

----

My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online (by blocking adbanners, which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits (examples below)).

(I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own (30,000 entries), & I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called "APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++". That program also functions to change the default larger & SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, smaller & thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default) or the smallest & fastest 0 "blocking 'IP ADDRESS'" (for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it (& it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000, only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards (& now all these "phunny little bugs" are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall, which ROOTKIT.COM has stated (with code too no less on how it is done) -> http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952 [rootkit.com] [rootkit.com] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK (than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003))

Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage? More speed online, & also more security + reliability (especially in the case of DNS servers today, per folks like Dan Kaminsky &/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now)...

SO, to "CIRCUMVENT" THAT WHICH YOU NOTE & to get more speed online (besides/above potentially hijacked adbanners etc. et al)?

WELL - I use another "technique" called "hardcoding" an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files, for my FAVORITE websites:

This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups, which also would in theory @ least, make me "proofed" vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also.

(Especially since I use external DNS servers too, OpenDNS ones to be specific, that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I can't ping & resolve the ENTIRE internet after all)

This also makes it harder for others to track me...

(Sure, they could do a "reverse DNS lookup" via pings &/or traceroutes & the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest, but that is harder to do, than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server))

ALSO, AS ANOTHER "BONUS" in HOSTS FILES (can't stress it enough, & especially above + beyond adbanner blocking): It speeds you up, or can!

E.G.-> A buddy of mine named Jack says it has (verbatim quote) "DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE, BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE", because he used to get over 200++ viruses a week, now? Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately, & he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly (he is my "lab rat #1" due to his previous infestation rate), & if that "anecdotal evidence" is not enough? See this then, from a published security guru on a respected site for it:

====

RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:

(by Mr. Oliver Day)

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

====

(A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too, because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too & more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below, several examples thereof no less), because you don't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS!

(Again, and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now & others also noting it)

Thus, you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV. SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE (a good thing, but one you may have to periodically alter, easily, via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file & a ping to update their new address (sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices, rare, but they do & MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow, so you can amend a HOSTS file)).

NICEST PART IS, THOUGH, PER YOUR STATEMENT (in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above, alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM)?

I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO, not the router's onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least, because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL, not via my routers' onboard DNS server...

APK

P.S.=> Evidences as to WHY you'd want to add on the "extra layered security protection" of a HOSTS file, which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps, AND, allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well? Ok, here are some documented reasons why:

POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERS

The Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]

----

Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211 [slashdot.org]

----

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

----

Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

----

DNS PROBLEMS:

Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/02/15/2118212 [slashdot.org]

----

Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231 [slashdot.org]

----

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=05/08/04/1525235 [slashdot.org]

----

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

----

Another DNS Flaw Found:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240 [slashdot.org]

----

Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/07/23/231254 [slashdot.org]

----

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/08/09/123222 [slashdot.org]

----

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=06/03/16/1658209 [slashdot.org]

----

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/08/21/2343250 [slashdot.org]

----

DNS Root Servers Attacked:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=07/02/06/2238225 [slashdot.org]

----

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&cid=30109858 [slashdot.org]

----

Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks?

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html [networkworld.com]

----

Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC [slashdot.org]

----

DNS users put higher premium on security:

http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/ [techworld.com]

----

BIND, the Buggy Internet Name Daemon:

http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html [cr.yp.to]

(Where djbdns was found to have flaw, though it was alleged invulnerable, they paid out $10,000 reward)

----

DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520 [zdnet.com]

----

DNS REBINDING ATTACKS: MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability (how to protect yourself):

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

----

Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185 [zdnet.com]

SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING:

AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237 [slashdot.org]

----

Most Security Products Fail To Perform:

http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30114652 [slashdot.org]

----

TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM:

http://secunia.com/blog/29/ [secunia.com]

----

Top security suites fail exploit tests:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top_security_suites_fail_exploit_tests?intsrc=news_ts_head [computerworld.com]

----

Antivirus is 'completely wasted money': Cisco CSO: News - Security - ZDNet Australia:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt_auscert [zdnet.com.au]

----

Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919 [zdnet.com]

----

Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 1 of 2:

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839 [securityfocus.com]

Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 2 of 2:

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2 [securityfocus.com]

----

Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware (2008):

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858 [securityfocus.com]

----

2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679 [infoworld.com]

----

Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks:

http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349_3-5902897.html?part=rss&tag=5902897&subj=news [cnet.com]

&

CISCO "COMES CLEAN" ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/ [eweek.com]

&

Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability:

http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/ [secunia.com]

+

Computer routers face hijack risk - study:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss [www.cbc.ca]

Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers?

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers [slashdot.org]

----

Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&cid=30024078 [slashdot.org]

----

Slashdot | Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214 [slashdot.org]

JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS:

Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day, Says Kill JavaScript:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234 [slashdot.org]

----

Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&from=rss [slashdot.org]

----

JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader (4th or 5th time already, if not more):

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953 [securityfocus.com]

----

Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT:

http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/ [trendmicro.com]

----

JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com:

http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349_3-6099891.html?part=rss&tag=6099891&subj=news [com.com]

----

Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secunia

http://secunia.com/advisories/29787/ [secunia.com]

----

New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script_menace/ [theregister.co.uk]

----

Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036 [infoworld.com]

----

Researcher: JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/ [eweek.com]

----

Rise Of The PDF Exploits:

http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits [trustedsource.org]

----

ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF:

http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219 [shadowserver.org]

----

AJAX Poses Security, Performance Risks:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp [eweek.com]

----

Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services:

http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&p=1 [net-security.org]

http://www.cbronline.com/news/web_20_is_vulnerable_to_attack [cbronline.com]

----

Cross Site Scripting (GOOGLE) and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT:

http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html [cgisecurity.com]

----

Why the FBI Director Doesn't Bank Online

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240 [slashdot.org]

MAJOR ATTACKS (only a small sample) of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDED

Is the Botnet Battle Already Lost?

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp [eweek.com]

----

IT Pros Say They Can't Stop Data Breaches:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD [eweek.com]

----

Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30185742 [slashdot.org]

----

Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies:

http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots_found_inside_many_big_companies.html [baselinemag.com]

----

Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs:

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495 [securityfocus.com]

----

Bots surge ahead (2007):

http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466 [securityfocus.com]

----

Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227 [informationweek.com]

----

CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631 [informationweek.com]

----

Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&cid=19035679 [slashdot.org]

----

Dancho Danchev's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge: Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing:

http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html [blogspot.com]

----

Data at Bank of America, Wachovia, others compromised - May. 23, 2005:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank_info/index.htm [cnn.com]

----

Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ [msn.com]

----

Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected_job_search_sites_lead_to_info_theft_for_46_000 [computerworld.com]

----

New Mega-Botnet Discovered:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214 [slashdot.org]

----

I think THAT list ought to "enlighten" ANYONE, as to why "layered security" is & has been considered largely to be "THE WAY TO GO", vs. that list above (which is only a SMALL %-age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes)... HOSTS files help protect vs. those, on several levels - DO consider their usage!

apk

Yup (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271636)

You also have to consider, we're not really customers on most sites anymore, we're just consumers. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc, we're their customers, they have us to impress and want to be fast, because that's how we decide if we wanna use them in part, and they need to be impressive. Ad companies and sites like Facebook? Not their customers!

So yeah, a site will improve it's speed to get more consumers who view ads which makes their REAL customers (the ad companies) happy. The ad companies, their customers aren't the websites that host their ads, they're the people who purchase the ads, and those people really don't care about optimizing the ad delivery architecture, that's a problem that the ad companies just don't care about.

So the people who suffer longer load times are us, who no one in this chain really cares about as long as they have our eyeballs. Then you have the server admins on the websites, who see no problems because their site is optimized with a small load and all the hard load goes on the ad servers. Lastly, you have the ad companies, who adapt only as necessary, and have enough money it probably doesn't make economic sense to optimize their ad delivery system.

So we end up with long load times.

Most definitely yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271646)

The way most pages are written, the ad sites are hit multiple times before the page fully renders. So, even though a place can have immense bandwidth, but their pages are limited to what the ad slingers can do, and since bandwidth is a cost center for them, serving up 10 meg Flash ads will be done through as poor a connection as possible.

Solution? Either firefox/adblock/noscript/Ghostery, Privoxy, some descendent of the Proxomitron (R. I. P. Scott), and the like. Of course, some advertisers try to start an arms race, but unless they put their complete site in a Flash app (which web schools are training people to do), this can be manually dealt with.

Pot calling the kettle black (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271664)

Google is not on the leading edge of adopting performance best practices, at least not for their ad and statistics services. The ad scripts are designed to be in the middle of the document and they load uncacheable scripts, which stops page rendering completely on a network interaction with a far away server. If this is supposed to be "best practices", I shudder to see what they think is bad practices.

"outside the control"? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271668)

one of the biggest problems lies outside the control of web site administrators

So, who's choosing to put these slow third-party ads on their websites again?

Re:"outside the control"? (2, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271734)

The folks in the marketing and accounting cubes. I'm sure most web admins would be delighted to ditch all the ads and associated hassles.

no-script (3, Insightful)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271676)

no-script for the win, yet again.

Re:no-script (1)

savanik (1090193) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271890)

Yeah, seriously... you guys see ads?

A friend of mine has a little micro-webserver application he drops on his computer that changes the routing table for these sites to point at itself, and then serves up a 1x1 transparent png. Works pretty well from what he says.

Re:no-script (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272346)

Yeah, seriously... you guys see ads?

A friend of mine has a little micro-webserver application he drops on his computer that changes the routing table for these sites to point at itself, and then serves up a 1x1 transparent png. Works pretty well from what he says.

Then he should GPL and release it on source forge. :-)

Re:no-script (1)

CNTOAGN (1111159) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272370)

Agree completely. No script is perhaps the finest add on ever. If a page doesn't load properly, then I don't go to that site. There are some sites that have upwards of 30 scripts from all over running - to this, even google is a problem - how many sites are running googleanalytics or googlesyndication, or the 10 other weird little google scripts?

Security? (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271684)

Surely the ads are in iframes, and so load entirely asynchronously. If they're not, then you're giving third-party content access to your site's security zone, which is a terrible idea.

Re:Security? (2, Insightful)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271900)

When the ads were in iframe? Very seldom. Not 10 years ago, and not today. I am telling you as a web-admin who manage ad-supported free hosting 10 years ago.

The advertiser wants the real estate. They wants floating icon and panels all over the web. For example, those turn page effect to reveal an Ad, or mouse over the flash to show a bigger floating DIV...these couldn't be done in iframe.

Plus, I heard google does no evil right? So people are so comfortable in inserting the adsense javascript tag right into the page.

Yes it's a very bad idea. Security-wise, performance-wise.

Flash Ads (3, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271708)

Nothing bogs down a site like Flash.

Case in point: Boing Boing [boingboing.net] .

Several months ago, Boing Boing got a new layout. The old layout worked fine, was easy to read, easy to scroll. The new Boing Boing stutters when scrolled ... it's annoyingly easy to lose your place and scroll way down or way up by mistake. Grrr ....

A worse site (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271882)

Dilbert.com

The entire site screams PHB. It takes five minutes to load a single gif comic with all the extra crap and flash and popups that go along with it.

Seriously - it's like an act of self parody. I just picture Scott Adams sitting in a cube somewhere trying to draw comics while tearing his hair out and a PHB over his shoulder saying "We'll call it Dilbert.com BETA! And we'll have MASHUPS! OooooOOOooo!!"

Re:Flash Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272008)

i think you'll find that most of the flash on boing boing is inline video. what makes web pages stutter and scroll badly is css.

anyone who knows anything on this subject will know that css weighs sites down a lot more than swf content. looks crap as well.

people with the brains to use flash go ahead and use it to make their sites, ads etc. those without don't, and moan a lot about it.

inline video and css (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272214)

i think you'll find that most of the flash on boing boing is inline video. what makes web pages stutter and scroll badly is css.

Thanks, this is useful info.

Re:Flash Ads (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272236)

I don't mind flash. I use a click-to-flash plugin so I never actually see flash objects unless I click on them. If you use flash for ads, then you're paying to show me a grey rectangle. If you use it for content, then you need something around the edges to convince me to click on it. The problem with JavaScript is that it lacks modularity, so I can't distinguish the bit of JS that's needed for the site and the bit that's needed to irritate me. Any site that uses those awful ads that underline random words and pop up some crap when you mouseover them get blacklisted and never visited again.

Click-to-flash plugin (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272352)

I use a click-to-flash plugin so I never actually see flash objects unless I click on them.

This is useful info -- thanks!

Uselful (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271716)

But ads are useful.

There are lots of possible solutions. One that comes it mine is to let the site with the ads server the ads along with the regular content.

Also its an unfair race. You enter http://example.com/ [example.com] in the browser and example.com starts loading then it asks for its ads. So, of course, the ads arrive after the example.com content.

Re:Uselful (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271844)

I have yet to find a use for a website's ads. You are correct that it is an unfair race but wrong about why. It is unfair because example.com content won't appear until the ads have loaded or timed out an will often be rendered before the example.com content.

Re:Uselful (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271944)

The ads are not for you. The ads are to keep the website up and not having to make a paywall. It is pathetic how many people these days love stealing from websites (and yes, by copyright law, bypassing ads is considered theft.)

And we wonder why Murdoch wants to lock things down. News and investigative reporting from sites like Fox News and others don't come free, ya know.

Re:Uselful (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271934)

But ads are useful.

What planet do you live on?

./ users be thankful! (1)

stakovahflow (1660677) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271720)

We, as ./ users, have the ability to disable advertising on ./ forums, etc. Not that this is relevant, but the rest of the world (fark, anyone?) does have serious lag time. Be thankful, guys! Back to the subject matter, though. Is this a "new" revelation? --Stak

Re:./ users be thankful! (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272284)

./ ? Where is dot slash?

Block 'em all... (2, Insightful)

rshol (746340) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271726)

...let God sort 'em out. At least that's my policy.

Re:Block 'em all... (1)

DrHappyAngry (1373205) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271898)

I'm inclined to agree. I know ads pay for a lot of things, but when it makes the page load so much slower, I'm not going to wait for it. Flashblock and adblock are pretty much mandatory for me, and every computer I set up for someone else.

This isn't new (2, Insightful)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271744)

Every single time I end up thinking "Geez, this website is taking forever to load", I glance down at the status bar and see "Waiting for adserver3.adcompany.com". Then, I hit refresh and get another ad from another round robin'ed server, and the page loads sucessfully. It's very frustrating to know that the only reason the page is still blank or half-rendered is because of a third party ad.

In this regard, AdBlock makes a significant difference if you tell it to not download ads at all, but I am not comfortable with denying revenue streams to the websites I visit, after all, they are providing me with a service I enjoy, for free.

I just wish that all ads could be loaded last in a manner that doesn't affect the rendering of the website you're trying to view...

On a related note, the same applies to external javascript. Two transactional websites I maintain are sometimes slowed down to a crawl because of the crappy external Javascript marketing made us insert in the page header to track stuff. It's always very frustrating when things end up being slow because of third parties. I wish there was a simple way to cache these things.

Re:This isn't new (2, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271908)

In this regard, AdBlock makes a significant difference if you tell it to not download ads at all, but I am not comfortable with denying revenue streams to the websites I visit, after all, they are providing me with a service I enjoy, for free.

That's why I use a targetted DNS black hole instead. I don't block ads until they cause a noticeable disruption in my browsing behavior. As soon as they add more than a second or so to a page load time, that particular ad server gets blocked permanently, and my caching DNS server returns a bogus response directed at 127.0.0.1 or a host not found, depending on the subdomain/host part. All of the various google-analytics domains are on my block list because they consistently fail to have adequate performance. Similarly, most of the larger ad networks are blocked for the same reason. The smaller ad networks, which usually have a more sane load average per server, are generally not blocked until they get too big for their breeches. This serves three purposes: reduces page load times, punishes ad servers that have slow performance, and promotes competition by encouraging the use of smaller ad networks.

Always the ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271758)

Most of the time I see a page taking a long time to load, my status bar tells me it's trying to contact some ad server or another.

Google Analytics (1)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271774)

Slows things down for me most of the time. I'll be loading a page and see that at the bottom of the browser.

[John]

Re:Google Analytics (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271886)

This.
A thousand times this.
And nothing works right if I block it.

Re:Google Analytics (1)

cnvandev (1538055) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271960)

That's VERY true, I've seen "Waiting for analytics.google.com" in the status bar one too many times for Steve Souders, performance guru, to complain about something like this. He keeps flopping back and forth between coming off as genuinely interested in the well-being of the internet, and boosting another Google service...although they're free services, and Google's been excellent about data liberation, so I don't quite know what I'm complaining about.

Slow Ads by Contract? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30271778)

Even Slashdot is falling prey to slow ad servers. And to answer TheRaven64's presumption -- no, it used to be the case that ads loaded asynchronously, but today it seems that many, if not most sites delay loading the content you actually came to see until the ads load. I am guessing this is part of the contract between sites and advertisers. (Would any admin for Slashdot care to comment?)

-Coward

Implement client-side prioritization (1)

gblues (90260) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271812)

The issue is that the browser is only allowed to use a handful of requests at a time, and with a 3rd-party server some fraction of those requests are going to someone else's server. Therefore the goal should be to make sure that your content gets loaded first. This can be done in the browser--and may already be done; I'm not in the mood to parse FireFox's sourececode--using a simple prioritization algorithm:

  1. Content from the page host gets first priority (tech.slashdot.org)
  2. Content from the same domain gets second priority (*.slashdot.org)
  3. Content from anywhere else gets lowest priority.

And of course, there are HTML tricks that can be used to boost render time, like using absolute hight/width attributes on every image and avoiding the use of relative metrics against dynamic portions of the page. In other words, don't define the width of your main body element as a percentage of your advertising banner's width!

Still, I can't help but think this just 1998 again, "Now with more JavaScript!"

Re:Implement client-side prioritization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272280)

The number one cause of adserver whitescreen is putting a <script src="http://slowassad.com/50MBscript.js?session=randomidheretopreventcaching"> in the page's <head>. The browser must immediately stop rendering the rest of the page in order to download and parse that script just in case it's needed for rendering the page (eg onload functions, DOM manipulation, etc). As much script as possible should be located at the end of the webpage in order to allow it to render the page then load the javascript (eg conversion of <ul> link trees to fancy menus should be done at the top or users will see the link tree before the javascript is run. Code that inserts an ad into a designated div should run at least after the div if not at the bottom of the page).

I'm looking at you, Slashdot (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271838)

I've mentioned the ad bottleneck before. Slashdot is an especially bad offender. Pages use several ad servers, and they use "document.write" to stall the page load until the ad comes up. Even if you have the ad images blocked, some of the junk JavaScript still needs to run.

Some sites are just slow at serving pages. Behind my SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] system there is a specialized web crawler which looks for a business name and address on each web site. It never looks at more than 20 pages, and it's looking for pages like "About", "Contact", and about 40 other words which might plausibly lead to contact info. This process runs about 5-15 seconds for a well-implemented site. I log sites where it takes more than 45 seconds. About 5-10% of sites run overtime. In the last hour, the slowest site is "www.airsmaxkey.com", at 159 seconds to read 10 pages. (Yes, they're a bottom-feeder. Not only is there no business address on the site (a criminal offense in the European Union), they have logos from Verisign, PayPay, Verified by Visa, and MasterCard SecureCode, none of which are actually clickable to do the claimed verification. Nor does their shopping cart checkout use SSL. The whole site may be a scam. SiteTruth gives them a "Do Not Enter" rating.)

Some of the social networking sites have so much Javascript that Firefox will time out. (Facebook had that problem for a while. They fixed it.)

"Rich" content? That is rich... (2, Insightful)

knarf (34928) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271946)

I propose a change of term for this sort of stuff. Instead of "rich" content call it "obese" content or "overloaded" content or "bloated" content. That "rich" term sounds desirable while often the opposite is true. Call the real useful stuff "enhanced" content or something similar...

HOST file (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 3 years ago | (#30271952)

I personally use adblock in addition to the hosts file from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts2.htm [mvps.org] It just redirects known bad/ad domains to loopback. Some affiliate sites (like bing cashback) are affected, but its easy to find them and comment out those entries. Quite often Ill find an ad that adblock misses and it just loads up a blank window because it was blocked by the host file.

Simple solution ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272102)

add Adblock Plus to Firefox. Works wonders :-)

Why would an ad server slow down a site? (1)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272106)

I don't understand how an ad server can make a site slow, even if the ad server is slow in serving up an ad. So you have one externally loaded element (the ad) that is an image or a flash element. The browser allocates the space for the image or flash element in the location where it'll be rendered. When it finishes loading your browser draws it in the appropriate place. So it takes a little longer for one or two images to appear in the already displayed page. I don't see what the problem is for the end-user.

Re:Why would an ad server slow down a site? (1)

Kral_Blbec (1201285) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272210)

Often the entire page is delayed until it has been fully cached, meaning it COULD display that empty box and fill it in when it gets the info but insteads it decides to make you wait for it all at once.

Re:Why would an ad server slow down a site? (2, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272224)

The last time I profiled some topsites in Firefox, well north of 50% of the CPU time was spent dealing with the Flash ads (as in, 50% of the time the CPU was busy during the pageload the program counter was inside the Flash plugin). Given the typical latency of the ad networks, I'd estimate over 40% of total load time on those sites was taken up by the ads.

Re:Why would an ad server slow down a site? (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272230)

I think most website waits for an acknoledgment from the ad service to display the content of the page.

Re:Why would an ad server slow down a site? (1)

DNX Blandy (666359) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272326)

I've seen ads delaying page loads numerious times, classic is what they have said further up this page, white screen with "connecting to foo.ads.doubleclick.com" in the status bar >:( The page data should be rendered anyway and then the images loaded, but it's not always the case.

Ads? What Ads? (0, Redundant)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272142)

Seriously.. what ads? I'm amazed whenever I have to fire up a default browser and i'm like "There are ads on this page?".. not to mention every now and again /. says "Hey you've been nice.. we can turn off ads for you".. "um.. there are ads?"

Adblock.. I love you.

(unfortunately it makes FF start up slower :/ )

Hell yeah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272204)

On my little Sony VAIO with a Pentium M 1.2GHz processor some websites are incredibly slow on Windows 7 and XP. The only thing that makes it run quick is Firefox with noscript and adblockplus installed.

Ads, scew you!! (1)

DNX Blandy (666359) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272272)

Firefox + ABP = No ads.

External crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30272318)

Ads are part of the problem, but a more general description of the issue is that, for various reasons (most of them contrary to users' interests), web sites often embed crap from other websites. Sometimes they're ads, sometimes they're "follow us on facebook/twitter" widgets, etc (the thinking is that once someone follows you on twitter, and if they ever stop visiting your site, then maybe some day they'll see your spew on twitter and then come back to you). And then there's even the fairly benevolent stuff, like Google Maps.

Once you start doing this, page load times start to leave your control. And you'll start to have weird problems that don't come up in your test environment, like maybe you're embedding something that a lot of WebSense users can't load, but it doesn't degrade gracefully.

Two good approaches seem to be: 1) load it after the page, using javascript 2) load it in an iframe. Actually, I'm starting to really like the idea of using iframes, since I sometimes have ads that do horrible things (sometimes modifying the DOM outside of their container), and iframes tend to more compartmentalize misbehavior.

I'm doing my part... (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272340)

I'm on a pretty pathetic DSL line, so I've tried to optimize things on my end. First, I've setup my "hosts" file to loopback on about 16,000 websites. And I also use a plugin that blocks Flash (unless you click on it). My browsing experience has never been smoother.

It is under your control (4, Interesting)

gdshaw (1015745) | more than 3 years ago | (#30272360)

one of the biggest problems lies outside the control of web site administrators, ad servers.

Nonsense! I for one have chosen to keep my websites ad-free, hence no ad servers and no slowdown. The same goes for untold thousands of other webmasters.

If you've chosen differently then ... well, I suppose it's your website and your decision — but please don't come whining to us about the consequences.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...