zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. Spoom+(OP)[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:23:48
AdNauseam silently clicks the ads as you mention, so they're actively messing with Google's ad statistics. If I was Google, I would consider it an attack too.
replies(4): >>m-p-3+z3 >>xigenc+F4 >>jstanl+x7 >>fixerm+lj
◧
2. m-p-3+z3[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:45:20
>>Spoom+(OP)
Yup, basically an distributed attack on their ad networks. Hopefully they'll also release a Mozilla Firefox add-on.
replies(1): >>kome+u4
◧◩
3. kome+u4[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-01-05 15:50:18
>>m-p-3+z3
They have it: https://adnauseam.io/
◧
4. xigenc+F4[view] [source] 2017-01-05 15:51:45
>>Spoom+(OP)
Then why doesn't Google find some terms or change their terms or policy that clearly indicates why they are taking down the extension? It doesn't make sense to mislead the extension developers by giving them a nonsense reason for taking it down. Obviously, they believe the extension is destructive. So, they should use that as their rationale in taking it down.
◧
5. jstanl+x7[view] [source] 2017-01-05 16:09:43
>>Spoom+(OP)
It is an attack on Google, but if they want people to perceive Chrome as benevolent, they must leave this extension alone.

By blocking the extension (and, no less, actively removing it from places it was already installed!) they just reveal that the Chrome store exists primarily to serve their own interests and is not for the benefit of the user.

◧
6. fixerm+lj[view] [source] 2017-01-05 17:11:53
>>Spoom+(OP)
Is it just ad statistics, or is there actually risk to the client in having the extension silently forwarding client-side information to any page content that politely asks for it? Feels like that basically circumvents XSRF protection, right?

We may be overthinking this. Google may have blocked it as malware because it's malware, even if it's not intended to be.

[go to top]