Recommendations please for best free banner/ad blockers FOR IE

[Clint1]

(Why is there no Software forum here?)

(On XP Pro SP3). I've gotten so fed up with Kaspersky Internet Security that I had to disable it. So I need a replacement for it's banner/ad blocker. That part of it worked great, all you had to do was right click any image, ad or banner on a webpage and "Add to anti-banner". Therefore I'm looking for the best free banner/ad blockers that work just like Kaspersky did with its right click and "Add to anti-banner". Any recommendations please? I do NOT want to install any (SpyWare) "toolbar" that has a banner blocker.

Please, no BS about "just use FireFox" or "just use Chrome", I hate them. I need one for IE.

Also, I'm fully aware of the Hosts file and how it works, but having to find it, change it from "Read only" so I can edit it, open it up in Metapad (or Notepad), then edit it, save it, and having to do all this each time I find a new parasite ad or banner, is entirely out of the question. (Mine already has over 15,000 lines in it :shock: ).

Thanks for any program suggestions. ;)

[mark3738]

Hi Clint - You will be pleased there is now a software section, which I agreed with you and voted for.

Regarding your problem I see in your post that you are using XP Pro SP3, so can I assume that you are only using the IE8 browser as I'm sure off the top of my head IE9 doesn't work on XP. I just thought this may be relevant when looking for a replacement for Kapersky's banner/ads blocker. However I'm not much help with suggestions as I generally use Chrome myself and only IE to check my work so don't have popup issues as a rule.

[weegillis]

Your firewall should have some ability to block suspicious images. I know Outpost does, and it works in all browsers. I've been an Outpost fan since around 2001. I use no other products on our machines but the security suite pro version of OP. Uninstall or turn off all the rest, AV, anti-malware, firewall, the works. You won't need them.

Wikipedia link: Outpost Firewall Pro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_Firewall_Pro)

[Clint1]

Hi Clint - You will be pleased there is now a software section, which I agreed with you and voted for.Yes, thanks. ;)

I'm using IE6. Please, no comments........long story. :lol:

[Clint1]

Your firewall should have some ability to block suspicious images. I know Outpost does, and it works in all browsers. I've been an Outpost fan since around 2001. I use no other products on our machines but the security suite pro version of OP. Uninstall or turn off all the rest, AV, anti-malware, firewall, the works. You won't need them.

Wikipedia link: Outpost Firewall Pro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outpost_Firewall_Pro)

Is anyone else no longer receiving email notifications for PM's and subscribed threads? WG I sent you a PM yesterday so I don't know if you know about it, but you can ignore it because I sent one to Rah as well and he's looking into it.

Yeah I know a firewall can do that, but that's a pain. I'm using Comodo Internet Security now (CIS, which is also a FW) and like all the others you have to manually open up the interface and create new rules to block banners or ads. (Isn't Outpost like that?) (Plus with CIS, idiotically there's no way of exporting that list in the event of reinstall or format, so the list has to be manually repopulated each time!) That's what I've been doing, manually having to add them, and that's ~a dozen more steps from KIS's most convenient right click any image, ad or banner on a webpage and "Add to anti-banner". See a screenshot of what happens when I right click my avatar. I haven't uninstalled KIS yet so that option is stil in the right click context menu.


606


There has got to be something out there that can do this.

BTW, you can move this thread to the Software forum.

Thanks.

[Clint1]

I don't know what's going on what that attachment. ^^ It won't work in FF or Chrome, and at first in IE it was a thumbnail, but now in all 3 browsers all that's there is "Attachment 606", and the link won't work in FF or Chrome. :confused:

[Clint1]

Now, the attachment link above doesn't even work in IE! :rolleyes: I'm trying this yet again.



607

[weegillis]

@Clint1 - Outpost blocks ads right out of the box. No settings involved, but you can customize the daylights out of it, if you wish to dial in the numbers. Outpost lets you save your entire configuration, even setup multiple configs, and switch from one to the other on the fly, almost. You can wipe and rebuild your database with one click.

[weegillis]

WG I sent you a PM yesterday so I don't know if you know about it, but you can ignore it because I sent one to Rah as well and he's looking into it.I did get your PM, and had my internet go down for nearly a day just as I was replying. Unfortunately, when I did get back on, the work had piled up at my door and I didn't get back to that PM, again. Apologies. All the same, you did take it to the right person, as this is what I was going to do next.

[Clint1]

@Clint1 - Outpost blocks ads right out of the box. No settings involved, but you can customize the daylights out of it, if you wish to dial in the numbers. Outpost lets you save your entire configuration, even setup multiple configs, and switch from one to the other on the fly, almost. You can wipe and rebuild your database with one click.
Ok thanks. So what exactly is entailed to block new ads or banners? Is it a one or two-click method or do you have to go into its settings and add it manually?

[weegillis]

You would go into the settings to Allow certain URLS to display ads. Otherwise, all (that are detected) are blocked by default.

[Clint1]

You would go into the settings to Allow certain URLS to display ads. Otherwise, all (that are detected) are blocked by default.
I used Outpost firewall years ago, don't remember why I changed. I think because I went with a security suite, (Kaspersky). Would you happen to know if Outpost Security Suite can be installed without having to remove other anti-malware programs and another firewall (and disabling the others)? If so, I may give it a try.

[weegillis]

Outpost (suite) runs alone. You would have to disable/uninstall any conflicting programs. I believe MSE is allowed to run along side OP by agreement between the two companies. MSE is just a shadow, though, and doesn't come close to what OP picks up.

[Clint1]

Outpost (suite) runs alone. You would have to disable/uninstall any conflicting programs. I believe MSE is allowed to run along side OP by agreement between the two companies. MSE is just a shadow, though, and doesn't come close to what OP picks up.
Ok thanks, as long as others can be disabled and not have to uninstalled, that's ok. Have you ever tried PCFlank's LeakTest (http://www.pcflank.com/pcflankleaktest.htm), "Tooleaky (http://tooleaky.zensoft.com/)" (or http://www.testmypcsecurity.com/securitytests/too_leaky.html), and GRC's LeakTest (http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm) with Outpost? I'm curious if it passes those.

[Clint1]

Very nice to learn.
???? What is "very nice to learn"??

---------- Post added at 06:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 AM ----------

WG did you see this?

Ok thanks, as long as others can be disabled and not have to uninstalled, that's ok. Have you ever tried PCFlank's LeakTest (http://www.pcflank.com/pcflankleaktest.htm), "Tooleaky (http://tooleaky.zensoft.com/)" (or http://www.testmypcsecurity.com/securitytests/too_leaky.html), and GRC's LeakTest (http://www.grc.com/lt/leaktest.htm) with Outpost? I'm curious if it passes those.

[weegillis]

WG did you see this?

Must've sneaked through in the rush. Apologies. In answer, years ago I was more into testing f/w's but have long since given up and just stayed with OP, it's never let me down.

Back then I was only connecting via modem so I ran the above tests fairly regularly, always with stealth results. I have always been a big fan of Steve Gibson, but don't drop his name as much as I might have at one time. It's thanks to him that we mortals learned the language of networking, at least as it pertains to WAN connections and the dangers of remote execution.

My tech says OP is a hog on resources, but I don't find that an issue, so much, unless there are a lot of files moving around in several open processes and browser windows with active scripts (having six windows open with multiple image rotators running, every file gets scanned). For the kind of use I give my XP box, it's easy to ignore. As far as I can tell it only doesn't give up resources during scans, unless you specify background which option is available.

The morning scan at startup can take a few minutes, and it does drag down the first Windows User for about five minutes. Best to schedule for say 1 AM and turn off the box after 1:30. Scheduled quick scans are automatically in the background so you can still do whatever, with a slight noticable lag on XP (single core) but nothing detectable in Windows 7 (64 bit quad core) If the scheduled quick scan has completed, it won't run again at startup if the date is the same as the last quick scan. The first user can log in almost immediately with no noticable delay.

If I've been away a few days, I find that just turning the computer on, and walking away without logging in is the quickest way. By the time I've got myself a coffee and selected the radio channel, it's good to go. Full scans of one 80 GB drive on an XP with say 250 000 files take about an hour. A full scan on the same box of two 80's and 250 took about 4 hours. A Windows 7 with 650 GB drive and 660 000+ objects took 3 hours.

When you password protect OP, no changes can be made to the f/w without a log in. This means the f/w is protected while Windows is starting up. It cannot be uninstalled without a restart, and subsequent log in. It can also be switched out of learn mode into strict (my words) for added defense. The f/w is working from the moment Windows starts, AFAIK. I can't speak for what defenses it offers, if any, when Linux is used to boot the system, because, of course, I know squat about Linux and/or remote execution.

Ever since going to a NAT I haven't been able to test the firewall without switching to the DMZ, and as I've said, this was not a big concern so I never did it. One thing I can feel certain of is that OP has gotten better over the years. Add to this that all our wifi connections are through state-of-art routers far exceeding NAT plugged into the NAT, there's not much to test.

I'm most concerned about what I let on the machine, and what it does once it's here. In all instances OP has been right there to clean what it can, then finishes the cleanup at next startup when it detects the components it couldn't remove earlier. Every time telling exactly what it is (usually trojan). It guards my inbox like a hawk and swoops down with equal swiftness.

Without actually feeding files with similar heuristics to virii, trojans and other malware, I don't think there is a way to test from the user's end, and online tests would be futile if the f/w is shutting down affected ports in real time.

At any length, I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that OP is dragging down either of our Windows 7 boxes; nor do I have evidence of any sort that it has not always been doing its job on all our machines. It costs me about 75$ every couple years to protect everything, and that is something I gladly lay out.

Anyway, probably said more than was needed to answer your question (like 95% of it) but just throwing this out to bring us up to speed on the whole picture, as I have seen it over the years. Will a new version of OP run on an old XP box? Yes, but only at the level that XP supports, and it will be a drain.

However, I also believe you can purchase OP Firewall Lifetime (my recollect) which is (as I understand it) the firewall version that WAS for XP, and the lifetime license allows you to receive updates for the life of your computer. I've never really been sure how it worked, or what version it was, since I still haven't used it.

[Clint1]

Back then I was only connecting via modem so I ran the above tests fairly regularly, always with stealth results.
I believe GRC is the only one that can give "stealth" results. Right? The other two are "pass" or "fail".



Full scans of one 80 GB drive on an XP with say 250 000 files take about an hour. A full scan on the same box of two 80's and 250 took about 4 hours. A Windows 7 with 650 GB drive and 660 000+ objects took 3 hours.
You don't do this daily, or all the time, do you?? (I have my anti-malware program set to scan only new or changed files, and only on my main HD. No point in scanning backup HD's. Plus I keep a "Malware" folder on my storage & backup HD to test anti-malware programs).



Without actually feeding files with similar heuristics to virii, trojans and other malware, I don't think there is a way to test from the user's end, and online tests would be futile if the f/w is shutting down affected ports in real time.
But whether or not a FW is "shutting down affected ports in real time" would be important to know, which is what the tests would tell you.



Anyway, probably said more than was needed to answer your question (like 95% of it)
Indeed, thanks. ;) But I was just curious about how it does in those tests.

[weegillis]

Right you are about 'stealth' results being only GRC. The main thing is that the last time I did any checking everything passed. Now that there is a WAN block, it all comes down to how it deals what whatever I let through.

Any suspicious ports are automatically closed for 15 minutes, and a warning issued. One can inspect the ports, if so inclined. OP keeps a very detailed database on the machine. I don't know if any of this information gets back to them during the daily update process.

Scanning is something I do only about every couple of months. The quick scan keeps track of current files, like you say. The occasional full scan just serves to ensure the machine is clean.