duckduckgo

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

duckduckgo

steef-5
hi folks,

last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be happy
with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked permanently: and the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is possible, an
expert opinion on this ad. i am using buster and seamonkey as a browser .

thank you in advance,

steef van duin
groningen
holland

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

nektarios
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:29:49 +0200
steef <[hidden email]> wrote:

> hi folks,
>
> last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad
> DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be
> happy with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked
> permanently: and the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is
> possible, an expert opinion on this ad. i am using buster and
> seamonkey as a browser .
>
> thank you in advance,
>
> steef van duin
> groningen
> holland
>

I have a similar setup as yours but am getting no popups from my browser
(firefox) and no ad blocker at all as I m using legit sites that have
income from ads. Why do you think the popups originate from duckduckgo?


--
Nektarios Katakis

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

steef-5
On 18-08-19 19:16, nektarios wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:29:49 +0200
> steef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> hi folks,
>>
>> last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad
>> DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be
>> happy with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked
>> permanently: and the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is
>> possible, an expert opinion on this ad. i am using buster and
>> seamonkey as a browser .
>>
>> thank you in advance,
>>
>> steef van duin
>> groningen
>> holland
>>
>
> I have a similar setup as yours but am getting no popups from my browser
> (firefox) and no ad blocker at all as I m using legit sites that have
> income from ads. Why do you think the popups originate from duckduckgo?
>
>
> --
> Nektarios Katakis
>
>
.thanks for your answer...
i am not sure that duckduckgo causes this phenomenon: giving among others an unwanted web-address when asked to look for one specific. what
i know is that these advertisements can be blocked for one search-session with duckduckgo and no more. when i try out duckduckgo for a
second time on the same search-mission (neerslagradar-knmi (btw dutch)) the party starts all over again. so the problem seems to be that *it
is not possible to block advertisements permanently on duck-duckgo*. pop-up windows btw I can block with the browser's facilities
(seamonkey) which i have working for many years on this mozilla-browser.

kind regards

steef

to reformulate my question: what can I do to block permanently unwanted web site_outcomes when i am searching with duckduckgo??

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

Richard Owlett-3
On 08/18/2019 01:34 PM, steef wrote:

> On 18-08-19 19:16, nektarios wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:29:49 +0200
>> steef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> hi folks,
>>>
>>> last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad
>>> DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be
>>> happy with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked
>>> permanently: and the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is
>>> possible, an expert opinion on this ad. i am using buster and
>>> seamonkey as a browser .
>>>
>>> thank you in advance,
>>>
>>> steef van duin
>>> groningen
>>> holland
>>>
>>
>> I have a similar setup as yours but am getting no popups from my browser
>> (firefox) and no ad blocker at all as I m using legit sites that have
>> income from ads. Why do you think the popups originate from duckduckgo?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nektarios Katakis
>>
>>
> .thanks for your answer...
> i am not sure that duckduckgo causes this phenomenon: giving among
> others an unwanted web-address when asked to look for one specific. what
> i know is that these advertisements can be blocked for one
> search-session with duckduckgo and no more. when i try out duckduckgo
> for a second time on the same search-mission (neerslagradar-knmi (btw
> dutch)) the party starts all over again. so the problem seems to be that
> *it is not possible to block advertisements permanently on duck-duckgo*.
> pop-up windows btw I can block with the browser's facilities (seamonkey)
> which i have working for many years on this mozilla-browser.
>
> kind regards
>
> steef
>
> to reformulate my question: what can I do to block permanently unwanted
> web site_outcomes when i am searching with duckduckgo??

I personally find that JavaScript and cookies rarely provide *ME* any
functionality of interest. I surf with both disabled. I don't experience
problems I see often reported. YMMV




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

bw-2
In reply to this post by steef-5
In-Reply-To: <[hidden email]>


> hi folks,
>
> last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad
> DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be happy
> with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked permanently: and
> the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is possible, an expert
> opinion on this ad. i am using buster and seamonkey as a browser .
>
> thank you in advance,
>
> steef van duin
> groningen
> holland

I don't know what you mean by, "last days" but I guess this is a recent
problem?  You reference what some say about malware, but provide no links?
You say you are using seamonkey on buster, but it is not in the repo.
https://wiki.debian.org/Seamonkey

Duckduckgo privacy policy warns about, "...free proxies (like the one we
use) are funded by arguably excessive advertising."
https://duckduckgo.com/privacy

So the issue is unclear.  I used seamonkey years ago, but I think it has
been removed from debian since squeeze?  There may be some plugins still
working, but the xul-ext* plugins were pretty much abandoned after jessie.

You should use a modern browser with decent security support, try this:
https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#browser-security

Good Luck.
bw

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

steef-5
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
On 18-08-19 21:20, Richard Owlett wrote:

> On 08/18/2019 01:34 PM, steef wrote:
>> On 18-08-19 19:16, nektarios wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:29:49 +0200
>>> steef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad
>>>> DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be
>>>> happy with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked
>>>> permanently: and the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is
>>>> possible, an expert opinion on this ad. i am using buster and
>>>> seamonkey as a browser .
>>>>
>>>> thank you in advance,
>>>>
>>>> steef van duin
>>>> groningen
>>>> holland
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have a similar setup as yours but am getting no popups from my browser
>>> (firefox) and no ad blocker at all as I m using legit sites that have
>>> income from ads. Why do you think the popups originate from duckduckgo?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nektarios Katakis
>>>
>>>
>> .thanks for your answer...
>> i am not sure that duckduckgo causes this phenomenon: giving among others an unwanted web-address when asked to look for one specific.
>> what i know is that these advertisements can be blocked for one search-session with duckduckgo and no more. when i try out duckduckgo for
>> a second time on the same search-mission (neerslagradar-knmi (btw dutch)) the party starts all over again. so the problem seems to be that
>> *it is not possible to block advertisements permanently on duck-duckgo*. pop-up windows btw I can block with the browser's facilities
>> (seamonkey) which i have working for many years on this mozilla-browser.
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> steef
>>
>> to reformulate my question: what can I do to block permanently unwanted web site_outcomes when i am searching with duckduckgo??
>
> I personally find that JavaScript and cookies rarely provide *ME* any functionality of interest. I surf with both disabled. I don't
> experience problems I see often reported. YMMV
>
>
>
>
>
mmmmm guess you cwetainly could be right. shut them doan for a try.

thank you
steef

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

rhkramer
In reply to this post by nektarios
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 01:16:59 PM nektarios wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:29:49 +0200
>
> steef <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > hi folks,
> >
> > last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad
> > DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be
> > happy with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked
> > permanently: and the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is
> > possible, an expert opinion on this ad. i am using buster and
> > seamonkey as a browser .
> >
> > thank you in advance,
> >
> > steef van duin
> > groningen
> > holland
>
> I have a similar setup as yours but am getting no popups from my browser
> (firefox) and no ad blocker at all as I m using legit sites that have
> income from ads. Why do you think the popups originate from duckduckgo?

@steef,

Are you actually getting pop-up ads, or are you just seeing search results
that might be considered advertisements as they focus on a particular company
/ product?

I don't get pop-ups, but some of the search results might be considered ads,
and, if so, I don't know what can be done about that.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

Joe Rowan
In reply to this post by Richard Owlett-3
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:20:08 -0500
Richard Owlett <[hidden email]> wrote:

 
>
> I personally find that JavaScript and cookies rarely provide *ME* any
> functionality of interest. I surf with both disabled. I don't
> experience problems I see often reported. YMMV

It does vary indeed. It seems to me that hardly any sites work without
JavaScript these days. Web designers cannot even make text appear on
some sites without JS.

The only thing that I use it for is to have a cgi page re-submit
automatically on change of some input fields, and I find it quite
offensive that a simple thing like that needs JS, and isn't built into
HTML. The same with designating a particular submit to be activated by
the Return key, a feature of any GUI design application. On the Web,
it needs JS. HTML is up to version 5 now...

--
Joe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

tomas@tuxteam.de
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:35:53PM +0100, Joe wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:20:08 -0500
> Richard Owlett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
> >
> > I personally find that JavaScript and cookies rarely provide *ME* any
> > functionality of interest. I surf with both disabled. I don't
> > experience problems I see often reported. YMMV
>
> It does vary indeed. It seems to me that hardly any sites work without
> JavaScript these days. Web designers cannot even make text appear on
> some sites without JS.
This is actually for me a filter criterion: if a site doesn't work
with javascript, chances are high that I avoid it. I do make some
exceptions, but very few.

I do accept some degraded performance, but that's it.

Cheers
-- t

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

steef-5
In reply to this post by rhkramer
On 18-08-19 22:04, [hidden email] wrote:

> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 01:16:59 PM nektarios wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 18:29:49 +0200
>>
>> steef <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> hi folks,
>>>
>>> last days I get some slightly disturbing info about the browser_ad
>>> DuckDuckgo. some say it's malicious 'malware', others seem to be
>>> happy with the popup of unwanted ads which cannot be blocked
>>> permanently: and the last thing makes me suspicious. please, if it is
>>> possible, an expert opinion on this ad. i am using buster and
>>> seamonkey as a browser .
>>>
>>> thank you in advance,
>>>
>>> steef van duin
>>> groningen
>>> holland
>>
>> I have a similar setup as yours but am getting no popups from my browser
>> (firefox) and no ad blocker at all as I m using legit sites that have
>> income from ads. Why do you think the popups originate from duckduckgo?
>
> @steef,
>
> Are you actually getting pop-up ads, or are you just seeing search results
> that might be considered advertisements as they focus on a particular company
> / product?
>
> I don't get pop-ups, but some of the search results might be considered ads,
> and, if so, I don't know what can be done about that.
>
>
.....I get sometimes results that may be considered ads with the fonts 'ADV' added

thank you
steef

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

celejar
In reply to this post by tomas@tuxteam.de
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:35:53PM +0100, Joe wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 14:20:08 -0500
> > Richard Owlett <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >  
> > >
> > > I personally find that JavaScript and cookies rarely provide *ME* any
> > > functionality of interest. I surf with both disabled. I don't
> > > experience problems I see often reported. YMMV
> >
> > It does vary indeed. It seems to me that hardly any sites work without
> > JavaScript these days. Web designers cannot even make text appear on
> > some sites without JS.
>
> This is actually for me a filter criterion: if a site doesn't work
> with javascript, chances are high that I avoid it. I do make some
> exceptions, but very few.
>
> I do accept some degraded performance, but that's it.

Question: is this due to a belief that such sites are (at least for
your use cases) at best marginally more useful than their non-JS
utilizing alternatives, or due to a desire to punish such sites or an
ethical objection to them? I certainly need to use numerous sites (bill
paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.

Celejar

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

Ben Caradoc-Davies-3
In reply to this post by tomas@tuxteam.de
On 19/08/2019 08:52, [hidden email] wrote:
> This is actually for me a filter criterion: if a site doesn't work
> with javascript, chances are high that I avoid it. I do make some
> exceptions, but very few.

I use NoScript to enable JavaScript only where I want it.

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

ghe-2
On 8/18/19 5:16 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> I use NoScript to enable JavaScript only where I want it.

Yeah. And Firefox has a checkbox in the prefs to block pop-ups. I rarely
see a pop-up any more.

I have a hard time believing DDG is what's doing your pop-ups. It'd
destroy their reputation. OTOH, remember Goggle's 'Do no evil'??

--
Glenn English

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

arne
In reply to this post by celejar
I am allergic to ads.

So I use an adblocker, ublock origin.
I have squid and privoxy proxy's running.
Have a local searx as search engine.

99.9999% of the visited sites are without ads, no tracking.

Hope this helps.


> Question: is this due to a belief that such sites are (at least for
> your use cases) at best marginally more useful than their non-JS
> utilizing alternatives, or due to a desire to punish such sites or an
> ethical objection to them? I certainly need to use numerous sites
> (bill paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.
>
> Celejar
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

tomas@tuxteam.de
In reply to this post by celejar
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:26:20PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200
> <[hidden email]> wrote:

[... on disabling javascript]

> Question: is this due to a belief that such sites are (at least for
> your use cases) at best marginally more useful than their non-JS
> utilizing alternatives, or due to a desire to punish such sites or an
> ethical objection to them?

I don't believe in punishment (to people, that is). Corps can't be
punished, anyway. I just find this whole machinery (what Shoshana
Zuboff [1] calls "surveillance capitalism") so disgusting that I
choose to take as little part in it as is compatible with my way
of life. Call this an "ethical position" if you must -- I tend to
avoid such high-flying terms, because at the end everyone understands
them differently, causing confusion.

And yes, part of it is the realization that "convenience" doesn't
top all -- through "convenience" [2], I'm being manipulated. That's the
Trojan horse. I want to be aware of when this happens, and take those
decisions in full knowledge.

>                            I certainly need to use numerous sites (bill
> paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.

There's no clear-cut, generally valid thing here. I've the luck to live
in a country (Germany) where an open protocol for banking exists (HBCI),
and a free software implementing that protocol. So, thanks $DEITY, I
just can do my bank things from the command line. There are other things
(tax decl), where I've to use my browser, with javascript. This browser
runs in a separate user session, with another user ID.

"Be like water" :-)

Cheers

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshana_Zuboff
[2] That's why I tend to not use NoScript and adblockers. I *really*
   want to know. I sometimes even do read the javascript which is not
   executed on my machine ;-D

-- t

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

Eric S Fraga
In reply to this post by tomas@tuxteam.de
On Sunday, 18 Aug 2019 at 22:52, [hidden email] wrote:
> This is actually for me a filter criterion: if a site doesn't work
> with javascript, chances are high that I avoid it. I do make some
> exceptions, but very few.

Ditto.  My exceptions are my bank and flickr.  All else I access via eww
in Emacs.

--
Eric S Fraga via Emacs 27.0.50 & org 9.2.4 on Debian 10.0

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

steef-5
In reply to this post by steef-5
On 19-08-19 00:41, [hidden email] wrote:

> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 05:27:07 PM steef wrote:
>> On 18-08-19 22:04, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 01:16:59 PM nektarios wrote:
>
> --< snip >--
>
>>>> I have a similar setup as yours but am getting no popups from my browser
>>>> (firefox) and no ad blocker at all as I m using legit sites that have
>>>> income from ads. Why do you think the popups originate from duckduckgo?
>>>
>>> @steef,
>>>
>>> Are you actually getting pop-up ads, or are you just seeing search
>>> results that might be considered advertisements as they focus on a
>>> particular company / product?
>>>
>>> I don't get pop-ups, but some of the search results might be considered
>>> ads, and, if so, I don't know what can be done about that.
>>
>> .....I get sometimes results that may be considered ads with the fonts
>> 'ADV' added
>
> Is that the problem you are concerned about?

well, yes. because it is possible to avoid these sites for only one session using duckduckgo. the next session one must again block out
these sites. that is cumbersome and annoying allthough i understand that duckduckgo somehow must get paid for.

regards,

steef

>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

celejar
In reply to this post by tomas@tuxteam.de
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:23:44 +0200
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:26:20PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:

...

> >                            I certainly need to use numerous sites (bill
> > paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.
>
> There's no clear-cut, generally valid thing here. I've the luck to live
> in a country (Germany) where an open protocol for banking exists (HBCI),
> and a free software implementing that protocol. So, thanks $DEITY, I
> just can do my bank things from the command line. There are other things
> (tax decl), where I've to use my browser, with javascript. This browser
> runs in a separate user session, with another user ID.

Yes, I'm a bit jealous of you Europeans in this regard ;) But my issues
go well beyond banking: most sites that require login and so on don't
seem to function well if at all without JS, including those of medical
offices (downloading reports, etc.) and utilities (downloading bills,
other activities), and even many news and information sites won't work
without JS.
q
Celejar

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

Joe Rowan
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:19:37 -0400
Celejar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:23:44 +0200
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:26:20PM -0400, Celejar wrote:  
> > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:  
>
> ...
>
> > >                            I certainly need to use numerous sites
> > > (bill paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.  
> >
> > There's no clear-cut, generally valid thing here. I've the luck to
> > live in a country (Germany) where an open protocol for banking
> > exists (HBCI), and a free software implementing that protocol. So,
> > thanks $DEITY, I just can do my bank things from the command line.
> > There are other things (tax decl), where I've to use my browser,
> > with javascript. This browser runs in a separate user session, with
> > another user ID.  
>
> Yes, I'm a bit jealous of you Europeans in this regard ;)

In the UK, pretty much all retail sites that do some kind of product
display need JS. I compromise in that I'll allow JS from the named site
and other sites clearly related to it but not from anyone else.

I'm sort of learning Laravel at the moment, but most of the tutorials
connected with Laravel itself contain lots of JS. Third party tutorials
are more likely to be JS-free. It appears that sites that are
mobile-friendly generally do so by including third-party JS.

--
Joe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: duckduckgo

celejar
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:50:05 +0100
Joe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:19:37 -0400
> Celejar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:23:44 +0200
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:26:20PM -0400, Celejar wrote:  
> > > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200
> > > > <[hidden email]> wrote:  
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > >                            I certainly need to use numerous sites
> > > > (bill paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.  
> > >
> > > There's no clear-cut, generally valid thing here. I've the luck to
> > > live in a country (Germany) where an open protocol for banking
> > > exists (HBCI), and a free software implementing that protocol. So,
> > > thanks $DEITY, I just can do my bank things from the command line.
> > > There are other things (tax decl), where I've to use my browser,
> > > with javascript. This browser runs in a separate user session, with
> > > another user ID.  
> >
> > Yes, I'm a bit jealous of you Europeans in this regard ;)
>
> In the UK, pretty much all retail sites that do some kind of product
> display need JS. I compromise in that I'll allow JS from the named site
> and other sites clearly related to it but not from anyone else.

I think the same is largely true in the US. E.g., a typical Newegg.com
page won't display product images unless JS is allowed from both
newegg.com and neweggimages.com

Celejar

12