Just bought iOS-wide ad blocker AdBlock, by FutureMind - mini review.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Just bought the iOS-wide ad blocker 'AdBlock' (terribly unoriginal name)
by FutureMind, and while it doesn't always manage to block ad
placeholders, at least the worst I now see is inoffensive white space.

Plus of course no more annoying ad banners and the like inside other
apps, not just Safari or web browsers with built in ad block like
Dolphin Browser.

So easy to install and setup, and a piece of cake to turn off for times
when I want ads (say to view them in apps in return for rewards).

The security conscious will want to know it works by creating a faux VPN
setting, but actually no data is rerouted. Their other product - WeBlock
only works on WiFi. But AdBlock functions for cellular usage, too.

And unlike actual VPN or proxy filtering, AdBlock (and WeBlock too)
works off of frequently updated rules - just like a Safari content
blocker or browser addon. Thus AdBlock also blocks ads served via secure
connections, which proxy services cannot manage.

Finally and surprisingly WeBlock works as far back as iOS 6, and AdBlock
from iOS 8 on up, with a promise to extend support backwards for future
releases!

So, all told I'm very happy for only a couple dollars spent.

<https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/adblock/id691121579?mt=8>
<https://www.adblockios.com/>
<https://www.weblockapp.com/>

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Jolly Roger]

Sounds very promising.

I've been running a proxy server called privoxy at home and have our
devices configured to connect to it for ad blocking. It works fairly well,
but it's a little buggy (sometimes stops responding and needs to be
restarted), a real pain to configure due to the syntax and number of
configuration files, and in order to use it away from home requires keeping
a port open on the firewall which introduces a potential security attack
vector.

I think I'll give Adblock a spin. Thanks for the review. : )

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Lewis]

In message <d91o0n...@mid.individual.net>

Except the way these blockers work is by creating a proxy which means
that all your secure communication is no longer secure.

It's all a matter of how much your trust the author of the utility.

--
"I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." - Groucho
Marx

[Jolly Roger]

Not this one. Did you not read about it in the links above?

> It's all a matter of how much your trust the author of the utility.

That goes without saying, but the author does state specifically that
traffic is not routed:

"AdBlock uses iOS VPN OnDemand feature. It installs a dummy VPN profile
with a predefined list of domains. The list of domains is controlled
using AdBlock app. Every time some app tries to communicate with one of
the domains it automatically tries to connect via a non existing VPN
server. This makes the connection impossible and will will result in ads
being blocked in different apps.

AdBlock does not affect the security of your connection in any way. It
DOES NOT act as a VPN server and we DO NOT proxy or route any of your
traffic. Since there is no proper VPN server to route connection with
the ad server, the ads are not being served. Everything happens right on
your iDevice."

[Lewis]

In message <d924u7...@mid.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2015-10-24, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <d91o0n...@mid.individual.net>
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/adblock/id691121579?mt=8>
>>>> <https://www.adblockios.com/>
>>>> <https://www.weblockapp.com/>
>>
>>> Sounds very promising.
>>
>> Except the way these blockers work is by creating a proxy which means
>> that all your secure communication is no longer secure.

> Not this one. Did you not read about it in the links above?

>> It's all a matter of how much your trust the author of the utility.

> That goes without saying, but the author does state specifically that
> traffic is not routed:

> "AdBlock uses iOS VPN OnDemand feature. It installs a dummy VPN profile
> with a predefined list of domains. The list of domains is controlled
> using AdBlock app. Every time some app tries to communicate with one of
> the domains it automatically tries to connect via a non existing VPN
> server. This makes the connection impossible and will will result in ads
> being blocked in different apps.

Sure, if the list of domains doesn't include something like my bank
which is then routed to pass through a proxy instead.

I'm not saying that AdbBlock is untrustworthy, but giving someone this
level of access to your connection *is* a security risk. And this ad
blocking doesn't play by the same rules as the adblocking in Safari
under iOS 9.

--
I CAN BE ROBBED BUT NEVER DENIED, I TOLD MYSELF. WHY WORRY? 'I too
cannot be cheated,' snapped Fate. SO I HAVE HEARD.

[Jolly Roger]

That's just not true. There is no VPN or proxy server. It's a dummy
configuration with no VPN server defined. So connections to any domain
in the list aren't routed anywhere - they just don't happen.

> I'm not saying that AdbBlock is untrustworthy, but giving someone this
> level of access to your connection *is* a security risk. And this ad
> blocking doesn't play by the same rules as the adblocking in Safari
> under iOS 9.

A quick look at the VPN configuration shows a bogus VPN address. Seems
legit to me.

[Lewis]

In message <d92c79...@mid.individual.net>

That assumes that they are doing what they say they are doing it.

If this was a random developer would you trust this addon to do exactly
what it says it does?

Allowing someone to get in the way of all your connections is a large
risk and requires a great deal of trust.

--
At night when the bars close down
Brandy walks through a silent town
And loves a man who's not around

[78lp]

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnn2o6io....@amelia.local...

It isn't hard to check if the traffic goes thru their
proxy server or never makes it out of the phone.

> If this was a random developer would you trust this addon to do exactly
> what it says it does?

Easy to check what it does.

> Allowing someone to get in the way of all your connections is a large
> risk and requires a great deal of trust.

Nope, at most some checking of what they claim.

[Jolly Roger]

Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> Just bought the iOS-wide ad blocker 'AdBlock' (terribly unoriginal name)
> by FutureMind, and while it doesn't always manage to block ad
> placeholders, at least the worst I now see is inoffensive white space.

Looks like it doesn't block some ads in the MacDailyNews app or the
Flipboard app.

[Wilf]

On 25/10/2015 5:56 am, Jolly Roger wrote:
> Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>> Just bought the iOS-wide ad blocker 'AdBlock' (terribly unoriginal name)
>> by FutureMind, and while it doesn't always manage to block ad
>> placeholders, at least the worst I now see is inoffensive white space.
>
> Looks like it doesn't block some ads in the MacDailyNews app or the
> Flipboard app.
>

Well, it's not perfect but on the whole it seems to me to be pretty
good. I wish it could close up some of the white space more often

--
Wilf

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Yeah, I'm viewing AdBlock and WeBlock (which has the downsides of being
WiFi only and requiring a quick copy and paste setup for every new WiFi
connection; but does have whitelisting which the newer AdBlock is yet to
receive, and will work with VPN connections) as a 'better than nothing'
solution. A _lot_ better than nada, IMO - especially if you're still
pre-iOS 9! :-)

Note that you can use them at the same like as Safari content blockers
and third party web browser own adblockers enabled, with no ill effects
IME the past few days.
In which case if AdBlock/WeBlock doesn't remove the web ad's placeholder
or container, the other blocker gets a second chance to finish the job.

Heck, even if AdBlock/WeBlock failed to handle any web ads at all (and
I've now bought both, so I can tell you they nail almost all web ads,
barring some ad placeholders), I'd _still_ call a couple dollars worth
removing the majority of in-app ads. Since I began testing I've run
about a dozen apps that have in-app ads, and only one had some ads that
survived the filtering.

Something I discovered since my original post - Google Chrome has a bug
with VPNs that prevents AdBlock from affecting web ads in it.

Also Opera mini's data compression via it's own built in proxy still has
it's ads stripped by AdBlock, which is great - the best of both worlds,
as I'd been looking for ad block plus data compression for when I'm on a
low bandwidth connection or data cap. Let me tell you - webpages load
blindingly fast with both these technologies running at once! Beats
Safari even with a content blocker, hands down.

One presumes if Chrome wasn't bugged, it's own data compression would
also work with AdBlock, but for now Opera mini fills the void (I use
Chrome on the desktop, so prefer it on mobile for the password,
bookmarks, and tabs sync).

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-10-24, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> > In message <d924u7...@mid.individual.net>
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> On 2015-10-24, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >>> In message <d91o0n...@mid.individual.net>
> >>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>> Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <https://itunes.apple.com/nz/app/adblock/id691121579?mt=8>
> >>>>> <https://www.adblockios.com/>
> >>>>> <https://www.weblockapp.com/>
> >>>
> >>>> Sounds very promising.
> >>>
> >>> Except the way these blockers work is by creating a proxy which means
> >>> that all your secure communication is no longer secure.
> >
> >> Not this one. Did you not read about it in the links above?

No, of course Lewis didn't. He got excited because he thought I was
wrong, and his mania took over.

> >>> It's all a matter of how much your trust the author of the utility.
> >
> >> That goes without saying, but the author does state specifically that
> >> traffic is not routed:
> >
> >> "AdBlock uses iOS VPN OnDemand feature. It installs a dummy VPN profile
> >> with a predefined list of domains. The list of domains is controlled
> >> using AdBlock app. Every time some app tries to communicate with one of
> >> the domains it automatically tries to connect via a non existing VPN
> >> server. This makes the connection impossible and will will result in ads
> >> being blocked in different apps.
> >
> > Sure, if the list of domains doesn't include something like my bank
> > which is then routed to pass through a proxy instead.
>
> That's just not true. There is no VPN or proxy server. It's a dummy
> configuration with no VPN server defined. So connections to any domain
> in the list aren't routed anywhere - they just don't happen.

<https://www.adblockios.com/faq/#question-2>

I just watched my network traffic in my router as I browsed and blocked
ads with AdBlock. Nothing suspicious or out of the ordinary I can
discern.

Also FutureMind has had their WeBlock product on the App Store since
2012, and AdBlock since 2014. If something dodgy was being done, I
reckon someone would have noticed it by now out of the hundreds of
thousands of customers. That or the dev is playing one hell of a long
game :-)

> > I'm not saying that AdbBlock is untrustworthy, but giving someone this
> > level of access to your connection *is* a security risk. And this ad
> > blocking doesn't play by the same rules as the adblocking in Safari
> > under iOS 9.
>
> A quick look at the VPN configuration shows a bogus VPN address. Seems
> legit to me.

And WeBlock uses a dummy proxy setup that points to Google's DNS server
(used since it simply ignores non-DNS queries, which is the desired
outcome in this situation), or more politely to Google lets the user
define their own choice for a server that will ignore non-DNS traffic
(though I expect WeBlock dummy traffic is a drop in the network bucket
for Google). <https://www.weblockapp.com/faq/#question-6>

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-10-25, Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-10-24, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> >
>> > Sure, if the list of domains doesn't include something like my bank
>> > which is then routed to pass through a proxy instead.
>>
>> That's just not true. There is no VPN or proxy server. It's a dummy
>> configuration with no VPN server defined. So connections to any domain
>> in the list aren't routed anywhere - they just don't happen.
>
><https://www.adblockios.com/faq/#question-2>
>
> I just watched my network traffic in my router as I browsed and blocked
> ads with AdBlock. Nothing suspicious or out of the ordinary I can
> discern.

Yep, I've monitored traffic and haven't seen anything questionable
either. I'll probably do a little more monitoring, but won't waste too
much time with it.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-10-25, 78lp <78...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
> news:slrnn2o6io....@amelia.local...
>>>>

>>>> Sure, if the list of domains doesn't include something like my bank
>>>> which is then routed to pass through a proxy instead.
>>
>>> That's just not true. There is no VPN or proxy server. It's a dummy
>>> configuration with no VPN server defined. So connections to any domain
>>> in the list aren't routed anywhere - they just don't happen.
>
>> That assumes that they are doing what they say they are doing it.
>
> It isn't hard to check if the traffic goes thru their
> proxy server or never makes it out of the phone.

I've monitored traffic and don't see anything concerning so far, which
makes sense considering the IP address used for the VPN service is a
bogus address; so nothing is routed off the phone at all.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> Yeah, I'm viewing AdBlock and WeBlock (which has the downsides of being
> WiFi only and requiring a quick copy and paste setup for every new WiFi
> connection; but does have whitelisting which the newer AdBlock is yet to
> receive, and will work with VPN connections) as a 'better than nothing'
> solution. A _lot_ better than nada, IMO - especially if you're still
> pre-iOS 9! :-)

Actually I tell a lie... sort of.

One can setup a "VPN Configuration" (as opposed to "Personal VPN") e.g.
VPNBook's PPTP service <https://www.vpnbook.com/freevpn> (1), as well as
run the dummy AdBlock VPN. Thus requests for ads get routed into nothing
(because again there is no actual AdBlock VPN server), and all other
traffic passes through the real VPN, safe and secure.

The specific downside of AdBlock is one cannot use easy to setup OpenVPN
and the like that configure connections themselves, at the same time as
AdBlock's dummy VPN.

If this sounds confusing, just open 'Settings->VPN' in iOS and take a
look to see VPNs are split into the two types.

AdBlock (and WeBlock for that matter) is a kludge, but a darn useful
one. And now I've worked out how to use it and real VPN at the same
time, I'm even happier! :-)

(1) Not that I necessarily recommend VPNBook, though there are far worse
free VPN providers. Their PPTP service just makes a useful example I had
on hand. If I was going to recommend free VPN for casual use (say when
briefly on insecure public WiFi while in transit), it would be the free
version of SurfEasy <https://www.surfeasy.com/en/> who are owned by
Opera (of the browser fame) - an entirely reputable company.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 25.10.2015 um 02:49 schrieb 78lp:
>
>
> "Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
> news:slrnn2o6io....@amelia.local...

>> Allowing someone to get in the way of all your connections is a large
>> risk and requires a great deal of trust.
>
> Nope, at most some checking of what they claim.

The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose
to do in the future. I understand that they have full control over this
bogus VPN connection. Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who
tells you that the developer won't choose (for whichever reason) to
change that tomorrow? Or with the next update?

Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!

Best regards,

Michael

[78lp]

"Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message
news:n0ko8r$egu$1...@news.sap-ag.de...

> Am 25.10.2015 um 02:49 schrieb 78lp:
>>
>>
>> "Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>> news:slrnn2o6io....@amelia.local...
>
>>> Allowing someone to get in the way of all your connections is a large
>>> risk and requires a great deal of trust.
>>
>> Nope, at most some checking of what they claim.
>
> The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose to
> do in the future.

Easy to check if they are doing something different later.

> I understand that they have full control over this bogus VPN connection.
> Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who tells you that the developer
> won't choose (for whichever reason) to change that tomorrow? Or with the
> next update?

Easy to check if they are doing something different later.

> Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!

No have to about it.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 26.10.2015 um 09:32 schrieb 78lp:
>
>
> "Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message
> news:n0ko8r$egu$1...@news.sap-ag.de...
>> Am 25.10.2015 um 02:49 schrieb 78lp:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnn2o6io....@amelia.local...
>>
>>>> Allowing someone to get in the way of all your connections is a large
>>>> risk and requires a great deal of trust.
>>>
>>> Nope, at most some checking of what they claim.
>>
>> The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose
>> to do in the future.
>
> Easy to check if they are doing something different later.

You're going to check that thing out each and every day (or, if you're
paranoid enough, even several times a day)?

>> I understand that they have full control over this bogus VPN
>> connection. Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who tells you
>> that the developer won't choose (for whichever reason) to change that
>> tomorrow? Or with the next update?
>
> Easy to check if they are doing something different later.

You're going to check that thing out each and every day (or, if you're
paranoid enough, even several times a day)?

>> Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!
>
> No have to about it.

You're going to check that thing out each and every day (or, if you're
paranoid enough, even several times a day)?

If you're not going to go there, then you have to put exactly the kind
of trust in them that I mentioned. Having the possibility to check is
way different from actually checking... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[Jolly Roger]

Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>
> The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose
> to do in the future. I understand that they have full control over this
> bogus VPN connection. Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who
> tells you that the developer won't choose (for whichever reason) to
> change that tomorrow? Or with the next update?
> Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!

You are assuming the app is updated frequently, and that we all allow apps
to automatically update without bothering to read about what was updated.

Just to put this into perspective, there has been exactly ONE update for
Adblock since the initial release on March 2014:

<http://imgur.com/0CO1SXf>

And their other app, Weblock, has been around since 2012. How long do you
think this company is waiting to catch their customers off-guard risking
that if just one customer sees the address change they will post a review
and end the shenanigan for them?

Checking the VPN address is as simple as tapping Settings > General > VPN
and looking at the IP address. Simple.

[Lewis]

In message <d971n8...@mid.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose
>> to do in the future. I understand that they have full control over this
>> bogus VPN connection. Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who
>> tells you that the developer won't choose (for whichever reason) to
>> change that tomorrow? Or with the next update?
>> Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!

> You are assuming the app is updated frequently, and that we all allow apps
> to automatically update without bothering to read about what was updated.

> Just to put this into perspective, there has been exactly ONE update for
> Adblock since the initial release on March 2014:

> <http://imgur.com/0CO1SXf>

> And their other app, Weblock, has been around since 2012. How long do you
> think this company is waiting to catch their customers off-guard risking
> that if just one customer sees the address change they will post a review
> and end the shenanigan for them?

My argument was not about AdBlock specifically, but rather that this
type of blocking requires a lot more trust than the Safari content
filters. Not saying don't trust Adblock, just pointing out that it is a
risk.



--
She floats like a swan
Grace on the water

[Jolly Roger]

And my point is the risk of this particular app is much slammer than one
that actually *does* rout traffic to some strange server.

[Jolly Roger]

*smaller

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

And given web browser ad blocking extensions have a far larger installed
base, with automatic updates virtually always on for extensions, I'd be
more concerned about them than AdBlock or WeBlock.

Seriously - why do so many people automatically trust web browser
extensions? Especially given ones with malicious code are found every
month, and removed from official addon libraries.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 26.10.2015 um 17:12 schrieb Jolly Roger:
> Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose
>> to do in the future. I understand that they have full control over this
>> bogus VPN connection. Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who
>> tells you that the developer won't choose (for whichever reason) to
>> change that tomorrow? Or with the next update?
>> Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!
>
> You are assuming the app is updated frequently,

I'm not assuming anything.

> and that we all allow apps
> to automatically update without bothering to read about what was updated.

You're assuming that such a change would be listed in the update
description. And you're assuming that an app update would be necessary
in the first place to change the behavior of the app.

> Just to put this into perspective, there has been exactly ONE update for
> Adblock since the initial release on March 2014:
>
> <http://imgur.com/0CO1SXf>

Which is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.

> And their other app, Weblock, has been around since 2012. How long do you
> think this company is waiting to catch their customers off-guard risking
> that if just one customer sees the address change they will post a review
> and end the shenanigan for them?

I'm not making any assumptions about the plans of the developers. From
my point of view these guys are most likely perfectly legitimate and not
doing any harm. However I'm not automatically assuming (like you are)
that a good person/company today will be a good person/company for all
times. Things can change, companies (or products) are bought every day
and nobody can predict whether (or when) this will happen in the future.
Nor in which way things may change.

And, to make that perfectly clear one more time: I don't want to stop
anybody from installing these tools, neither do I think that they are
dangerous. For all I know (and have read here) they appear to me as a
nice tool which can help out quite well. BUT I want to raise awareness
that there is no way to prove that this might not change any minute from
now. If you feel ok with that (most probably very small) risk - fine
with me! If not, leave the tool alone. That's all I wanted to say.

> Checking the VPN address is as simple as tapping Settings > General > VPN
> and looking at the IP address. Simple.

And you do that how often? How good is a security tool that is there
(and easy to use) if you don't use it? How good are brakes on your car
if you never use them? ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[78lp]

"Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message

news:n0ncq7$gb0$1...@news.sap-ag.de...

Completely trivial to automate that particular check.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 27.10.2015 um 09:50 schrieb 78lp:

> Completely trivial to automate that particular check.

How would you do it? Care to tell us?

Michael

[78lp]

"Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message

news:n0nfel$j07$1...@news.sap-ag.de...

> Am 27.10.2015 um 09:50 schrieb 78lp:
>
>> Completely trivial to automate that particular check.

> How would you do it?

Write an app to do that, completely trivial.

> Care to tell us?

Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:

> And, to make that perfectly clear one more time: I don't want to stop
> anybody from installing these tools, neither do I think that they are
> dangerous. For all I know (and have read here) they appear to me as a
> nice tool which can help out quite well. BUT I want to raise awareness
> that there is no way to prove that this might not change any minute from
> now. If you feel ok with that (most probably very small) risk - fine
> with me! If not, leave the tool alone. That's all I wanted to say.

Unless you're Woz or the like, virtually all information technology is
made by someone else. I put my privacy in the hands of dozens of
companies every day. Even using encryption, I have to trust the people
who designed and implemented it.

I take your point on board, but at this point it is like saying the sky
is blue :-)

[Michael Eyd]

Am 27.10.2015 um 20:49 schrieb 78lp:
>
>
> "Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message
> news:n0nfel$j07$1...@news.sap-ag.de...
>> Am 27.10.2015 um 09:50 schrieb 78lp:
>>
>>> Completely trivial to automate that particular check.
>
>> How would you do it?
>
> Write an app to do that, completely trivial.

Writing an app is a trivial task? You make me laugh! It might be trivial
to you (though I doubt that you have any real clue about this), and I
know that I could do it (though I've never written an app so far), but
it certainly isn't to by far most of the iOS users out there.

>> Care to tell us?
>
> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

Exactly one. However I see a good chance that the number is different
looking at you...

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

Am 27.10.2015 um 21:01 schrieb Jamie Kahn Genet:
> Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>
>> And, to make that perfectly clear one more time: I don't want to stop
>> anybody from installing these tools, neither do I think that they are
>> dangerous. For all I know (and have read here) they appear to me as a
>> nice tool which can help out quite well. BUT I want to raise awareness
>> that there is no way to prove that this might not change any minute from
>> now. If you feel ok with that (most probably very small) risk - fine
>> with me! If not, leave the tool alone. That's all I wanted to say.
>
> Unless you're Woz or the like, virtually all information technology is
> made by someone else.

Correct. But not all information technology (apps i.e.) go out and
reroute potentially all you internet traffic through their site. I'm
sure you agree that in order to allow an app to do so requires a good
deal of trust into the author of the app as well as into the operator of
the intermediate (VPN) server. If you don't care about that then you
implicitly trust those guys. However if you care for your privatsphere,
date privacy, ..., then you will take an active decision whether to
allow such a re-routing or not.

> I put my privacy in the hands of dozens of
> companies every day. Even using encryption, I have to trust the people
> who designed and implemented it.

Right. Just that when it comes e.g. to security software you're aware of
the risks involved. Here we're talking about 'just blocking ads',
something many users would not directly consider as security relevant
(actually, it can arguably even be seen as an enhancement of the data
security and privacy). What many will not know (or see) is the risk that
only a small tweak can turn this around by 180°. If you're aware of that
risk (as already mentioned: I see this in the case at hand only as a
very small risk) and are willing to take it - fine with me! If not, as
well fine with me. As long as you understood what the risk is...

> I take your point on board, but at this point it is like saying the sky
> is blue :-)

For you this might've been obvious from the first moment on, but I bet
for many (if not to say almost all) iOS users this is certainly not the
case. And for them this is not a 'the sky is blue' situation.

Enough said, I think I made my point, it's up to each and everybody on
their own to come to their own conclusions. I will stop arguing here. :-)

Best regards,

Michael

[78lp]

"Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message

news:n0pukq$dhf$1...@news.sap-ag.de...

> Am 27.10.2015 um 20:49 schrieb 78lp:
>>
>>
>> "Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message
>> news:n0nfel$j07$1...@news.sap-ag.de...
>>> Am 27.10.2015 um 09:50 schrieb 78lp:
>>>
>>>> Completely trivial to automate that particular check.
>>
>>> How would you do it?
>>
>> Write an app to do that, completely trivial.

> Writing an app is a trivial task?

For doing that, yep. You can get some indian to do that for peanuts.

> You make me laugh!

Your problem, as always.

> It might be trivial to you

Yep, and for hordes of indians too.

> (though I doubt that you have any real clue about this),

Written a hell of a lot more than a very simple app like that thanks.

> and I know that I could do it (though I've never written an app so far),
> but it certainly isn't to by far most of the iOS users out there.

So all they have to do is get some indian to do that for them for peanuts.

>>> Care to tell us?

>> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?

> Exactly one.

Then why the shit about 'us' ?

I realise that english isn't your first language.

[78lp]

"Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message

news:n0pvam$eao$1...@news.sap-ag.de...

> Am 27.10.2015 um 21:01 schrieb Jamie Kahn Genet:
>> Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>>
>>> And, to make that perfectly clear one more time: I don't want to stop
>>> anybody from installing these tools, neither do I think that they are
>>> dangerous. For all I know (and have read here) they appear to me as a
>>> nice tool which can help out quite well. BUT I want to raise awareness
>>> that there is no way to prove that this might not change any minute from
>>> now. If you feel ok with that (most probably very small) risk - fine
>>> with me! If not, leave the tool alone. That's all I wanted to say.
>>
>> Unless you're Woz or the like, virtually all information technology is
>> made by someone else.
>
> Correct. But not all information technology (apps i.e.) go out and reroute
> potentially all you internet traffic through their site. I'm sure you
> agree that in order to allow an app to do so requires a good deal of trust
> into the author of the app

Nope, you are free to check what their app does.

> as well as into the operator of the intermediate (VPN) server.

There is no intermediate (VPN) server.

> If you don't care about that then you implicitly trust those guys.

Nope, you are free to check what their app does.

> However if you care for your privatsphere, date privacy, ...,

You are free to draw the curtains...

> then you will take an active decision whether to allow such a re-routing
> or not.

Or check what their app does.

>> I put my privacy in the hands of dozens of
>> companies every day. Even using encryption, I have to trust the people
>> who designed and implemented it.

> Right. Just that when it comes e.g. to security software you're aware of
> the risks involved. Here we're talking about 'just blocking ads',

Where you are free to check what their app does.

> something many users would not directly consider as security relevant
> (actually, it can arguably even be seen as an enhancement of the data
> security and privacy). What many will not know (or see) is the risk that
> only a small tweak can turn this around by 180°. If you're aware of that
> risk (as already mentioned: I see this in the case at hand only as a very
> small risk) and are willing to take it - fine with me! If not, as well
> fine with me. As long as you understood what the risk is...

Nope, you are free to check what their app does.

>> I take your point on board, but at this point it is like saying the sky
>> is blue :-)

> For you this might've been obvious from the first moment on, but I bet for
> many (if not to say almost all) iOS users this is certainly not the case.
> And for them this is not a 'the sky is blue' situation.

Their problem.

> Enough said, I think I made my point,

You never had a point.

> it's up to each and everybody on their own to come to their own
> conclusions.

And they are free to check what their app does.

> I will stop arguing here. :-)

Great, there is only so much of your mindless
silly shit anyone should have to put up with.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 28.10.2015 um 09:34 schrieb 78lp:
>
>
> "Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message
> news:n0pukq$dhf$1...@news.sap-ag.de...
>> Am 27.10.2015 um 20:49 schrieb 78lp:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Michael Eyd" <inv...@eyd.de> wrote in message
>>> news:n0nfel$j07$1...@news.sap-ag.de...
>>>> Am 27.10.2015 um 09:50 schrieb 78lp:
>>>>
>>>>> Completely trivial to automate that particular check.
>>>
>>>> How would you do it?
>>>
>>> Write an app to do that, completely trivial.
>
>> Writing an app is a trivial task?
>
> For doing that, yep. You can get some indian to do that for peanuts.
>
>> You make me laugh!
>
> Your problem, as always.

I like to laugh, so no problem here - for me... :-)

>> It might be trivial to you
>
> Yep, and for hordes of indians too.

And why would I care?

>> (though I doubt that you have any real clue about this),
>
> Written a hell of a lot more than a very simple app like that thanks.

If you say so...

>> and I know that I could do it (though I've never written an app so
>> far), but it certainly isn't to by far most of the iOS users out there.
>
> So all they have to do is get some indian to do that for them for peanuts.

You're getting better all the time! First it was a trivial task to do,
now I should go out and find some Indian programmer to do it for me. Go
on, what's your next move? Have an Indian programmer write a generator
to write such apps?

>>>> Care to tell us?
>
>>> Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
>
>> Exactly one.
>
> Then why the shit about 'us' ?

You might not have noticed, but there are more people reading (and
writing) here than just the two of us... :-)

> I realise that english isn't your first language.

Nope, it isn't. But in this case I chose the term on purpose. :-)

Michael

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-10-27, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
> Am 26.10.2015 um 17:12 schrieb Jolly Roger:
>> Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose
>>> to do in the future. I understand that they have full control over this
>>> bogus VPN connection. Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who
>>> tells you that the developer won't choose (for whichever reason) to
>>> change that tomorrow? Or with the next update?
>>> Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!
>>
>> You are assuming the app is updated frequently,
>
> I'm not assuming anything.

Seems like you may be.

>> and that we all allow apps
>> to automatically update without bothering to read about what was updated.
>
> You're assuming that such a change would be listed in the update
> description. And you're assuming that an app update would be necessary
> in the first place to change the behavior of the app.

No. I'm a software developer and have talked with the developers of
Adblock. The bogus VPN server address is hard-coded into the app, which
means an app update is the only means to change it. And the IP address
is clearly displayed in Settings > General > VPN.

>> Just to put this into perspective, there has been exactly ONE update for
>> Adblock since the initial release on March 2014:
>>
>> <http://imgur.com/0CO1SXf>
>
> Which is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Not really. If the app is updated, a quick visit to Settings > General >
VPN is all that is needed to ensure the IP address has not been changed.
The app is not updated often, and won't happen if the user doesn't allow
updates to happen.

>> And their other app, Weblock, has been around since 2012. How long do you
>> think this company is waiting to catch their customers off-guard risking
>> that if just one customer sees the address change they will post a review
>> and end the shenanigan for them?
>
> I'm not making any assumptions about the plans of the developers. From
> my point of view these guys are most likely perfectly legitimate and not
> doing any harm. However I'm not automatically assuming (like you are)
> that a good person/company today will be a good person/company for all
> times.

That's untrue. I've made no such assumption. In fact, I've had an open
dialog with the developers about the potential trust issues, and they
have been very open in return about it.

> Things can change, companies (or products) are bought every day
> and nobody can predict whether (or when) this will happen in the future.
> Nor in which way things may change.

Of course. The same can be said of any product we use though.

> And, to make that perfectly clear one more time: I don't want to stop
> anybody from installing these tools, neither do I think that they are
> dangerous. For all I know (and have read here) they appear to me as a
> nice tool which can help out quite well. BUT I want to raise awareness
> that there is no way to prove that this might not change any minute from
> now. If you feel ok with that (most probably very small) risk - fine
> with me! If not, leave the tool alone. That's all I wanted to say.

I'm fine with the slight risk that an app update in the future may
change the VPN IP address, which I will notice fairly quickly, at which
point I and others will surely write bad reviews for the app and delete
it from our devices.

>> Checking the VPN address is as simple as tapping Settings > General > VPN
>> and looking at the IP address. Simple.
>
> And you do that how often?

Every time the app is updated.

[Michael Eyd]

Am 28.10.2015 um 13:34 schrieb Jolly Roger:
> On 2015-10-27, Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>> Am 26.10.2015 um 17:12 schrieb Jolly Roger:
>>> Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The problem is less what they do as of now, but what they might choose
>>>> to do in the future. I understand that they have full control over this
>>>> bogus VPN connection. Even if it points into nirvana as of now, who
>>>> tells you that the developer won't choose (for whichever reason) to
>>>> change that tomorrow? Or with the next update?
>>>> Not doing that THAT is the trust you have to put into them!
>>>
>>> You are assuming the app is updated frequently,
>>
>> I'm not assuming anything.
>
> Seems like you may be.

Nope. I'm just trying to look at things from all angles.

>>> and that we all allow apps
>>> to automatically update without bothering to read about what was updated.
>>
>> You're assuming that such a change would be listed in the update
>> description. And you're assuming that an app update would be necessary
>> in the first place to change the behavior of the app.
>
> No. I'm a software developer and have talked with the developers of
> Adblock. The bogus VPN server address is hard-coded into the app, which
> means an app update is the only means to change it.

If that's the case than an app update is actually needed, no doubt. But
still you rely on information you can't (easily) verify... ;-)

> And the IP address
> is clearly displayed in Settings > General > VPN.

I never doubted that.

>>> Just to put this into perspective, there has been exactly ONE update for
>>> Adblock since the initial release on March 2014:
>>>
>>> <http://imgur.com/0CO1SXf>
>>
>> Which is completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.
>
> Not really. If the app is updated, a quick visit to Settings > General >
> VPN is all that is needed to ensure the IP address has not been changed.
> The app is not updated often, and won't happen if the user doesn't allow
> updates to happen.

1) Quite a number of users have automatic app updates activated. Those
users won't necessarily notice that the app was updated at all. And yes,
I know about the blue dot - but many others don't.

>>> And their other app, Weblock, has been around since 2012. How long do you
>>> think this company is waiting to catch their customers off-guard risking
>>> that if just one customer sees the address change they will post a review
>>> and end the shenanigan for them?
>>
>> I'm not making any assumptions about the plans of the developers. From
>> my point of view these guys are most likely perfectly legitimate and not
>> doing any harm. However I'm not automatically assuming (like you are)
>> that a good person/company today will be a good person/company for all
>> times.
>
> That's untrue. I've made no such assumption. In fact, I've had an open
> dialog with the developers about the potential trust issues, and they
> have been very open in return about it.

And what did they say? What are the guards against changes of the
company policy in the future?

>> Things can change, companies (or products) are bought every day
>> and nobody can predict whether (or when) this will happen in the future.
>> Nor in which way things may change.
>
> Of course. The same can be said of any product we use though.

Sure, but not every product places itself so prominently (and at the
same time so hidden, as after some time of usage most users won't even
remember that this was once installed and set up) in the middle of the
users data transfer.

>> And, to make that perfectly clear one more time: I don't want to stop
>> anybody from installing these tools, neither do I think that they are
>> dangerous. For all I know (and have read here) they appear to me as a
>> nice tool which can help out quite well. BUT I want to raise awareness
>> that there is no way to prove that this might not change any minute from
>> now. If you feel ok with that (most probably very small) risk - fine
>> with me! If not, leave the tool alone. That's all I wanted to say.
>
> I'm fine with the slight risk that an app update in the future may
> change the VPN IP address, which I will notice fairly quickly, at which
> point I and others will surely write bad reviews for the app and delete
> it from our devices.

Great! But I never had any doubt about you personally anyway (nor about
quite a number of other frequent posters here in the NG).

>>> Checking the VPN address is as simple as tapping Settings > General > VPN
>>> and looking at the IP address. Simple.
>>
>> And you do that how often?
>
> Every time the app is updated.

And what would you think is the percentage of users of the app, behaving
the same way as you? I assume well below 5%... If not much, much
lower... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael