Related
Hi there,
It was my understanding that if I use IE on my Touch HD then it will be detected as a mobile by some websites and therefore load a different version of the website. I was also of the understanding that this wasn't the case when using Opera and infact the sites would just see a normal browser and load the "real" page.
My understandings above may or may not be correct however now I've noticed that Opera is sometimes being diverted to mobile sites where it wasn't before. I think I may have upgraded the stock version in the past and I'm currently running build 15316.
Is there anything I can do to force "real" pages?
Thanks for any help/info
Justin
The solution!
Hi,
Just follow the next step.. open opera->click on left down corner -> settings -> advanced -> at the bottom select "indentify as"-> from the drop down menu select "Desktop computer"-> restart Opera
That's all !
bg100106 said:
Hi,
Just follow the next step.. open opera->click on left down corner -> settings -> advanced -> at the bottom select "indentify as"-> from the drop down menu select "Desktop computer"-> restart Opera
That's all !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In Opera 9.5 build 15613 i believe it is like that:
click on RIGHT down corner -> settings -> display -> verify that "mobile view" is NOT checked-> restart Opera
Thanks for the responses.
I don't have the menu options as mentioned in the first post. Maybe a different build?
And I do indeed have mobile view unchecked from the second post..
Bilbo Fraggins said:
Thanks for the responses.
I don't have the menu options as mentioned in the first post. Maybe a different build?
And I do indeed have mobile view unchecked from the second post..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I too am interested to know the answer to this... For the most part it brings up full web pages, but BBC and Google sites always seem to bring up their mobile content.
Does someone have an answer? As stated above mobile view is unchecked in the options...
Gisbourne said:
I too am interested to know the answer to this... For the most part it brings up full web pages, but BBC and Google sites always seem to bring up their mobile content.
Does someone have an answer? As stated above mobile view is unchecked in the options...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It probably depends on the website.
Some websites will have "sniffer" code built in that will query your device and get information out (eg OS/browser version/browser name etc etc). Nothing sinister - they're just trying to either collate user stats (eg to prove FireFox is gaining in popularity), or tweaking the look of the file slightly to improve the user experience / make sure the site renders correctly in different browsers.
I'm a web developer myself and use simple versions of these scripts to tweak CSS styling because different browsers follow the standards set in different ways.
So even if you've set your Opera to identify itself as "not" mobile version, the website you're looking at might well be looking at the actual OS (or something else entirely) to define how it presents the site to you.
Incidentally if you want to see the "User-Agent" information that a simple php browser sniffer gathers - see this link: It's basically the same sort of code that some people put links to in their forum signature bar.
Riceburner said:
It probably depends on the website.
Some websites will have "sniffer" code built in that will query your device and get information out (eg OS/browser version/browser name etc etc). Nothing sinister - they're just trying to either collate user stats (eg to prove FireFox is gaining in popularity), or tweaking the look of the file slightly to improve the user experience / make sure the site renders correctly in different browsers.
I'm a web developer myself and use simple versions of these scripts to tweak CSS styling because different browsers follow the standards set in different ways.
So even if you've set your Opera to identify itself as "not" mobile version, the website you're looking at might well be looking at the actual OS (or something else entirely) to define how it presents the site to you.
Incidentally if you want to see the "User-Agent" information that a simple php browser sniffer gathers - see this link: It's basically the same sort of code that some people put links to in their forum signature bar.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks Riceburner, this makes a bit more sense now and understand all of what you are saying...
Cheers
When I visit websites that also have sites optimized for mobile phones like nu.nl and cracked.com i am direcedt to those. But I want the original site. I can't find a way to change it. I turned mobile view off.
taarmen said:
When I visit websites that also have sites optimized for mobile phones like nu.nl and cracked.com i am direcedt to those. But I want the original site. I can't find a way to change it. I turned mobile view off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't change it. It's not caused by Opera. It's the site that detects that you are using Opera Mini, and decides that you are to get a mobile site instead of the full site. Complain to the site.
Type opera:config in your address bar and poke around with the settings. It's in there somewhere.
EyeAmRubber said:
You can't change it. It's not caused by Opera. It's the site that detects that you are using Opera Mini, and decides that you are to get a mobile site instead of the full site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And where do you think the site gets this information from? From Opera! - sending the wrong string as user agent in it's HTTP-requests.
EyeAmRubber said:
Complain to the site.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. The site does deliver correctly what the browser requested. It's definitely Opera sending the wrong request.
SE-X1 said:
And where do you think the site gets this information from? From Opera! - sending the wrong string as user agent in it's HTTP-requests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it's sending the right string. It's telling the site which browser it is. The wrong thing would be to lie about it.
No. The site does deliver correctly what the browser requested. It's definitely Opera sending the wrong request.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, Opera is just telling the site that it's Opera. The site is choosing what it does when it encounters Opera.
If Opera changed its user agent string to become unrecognizable, browser statistics would be messed up, and sites relying on browsers to be truthful would break.
EyeAmRubber said:
No, it's sending the right string. It's telling the site which browser it is. The wrong thing would be to lie about it.
No, Opera is just telling the site that it's Opera. The site is choosing what it does when it encounters Opera.
If Opera changed its user agent string to become unrecognizable, browser statistics would be messed up, and sites relying on browsers to be truthful would break.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So this anoying problem can be fixed by just changing one string or telling 3476587653745344378 sites to change the way they handle requests.
I think it wouldn't even mess up statistics. There are more reliable methods to identify the browser than by using the user agent. The desktop version for example is capable of identifying itself as IE or Firefox and it does not mess up statistics.
I don't get mobile versions of pages shown in Opera mobile so this should be possible in Mini too.
SE-X1 said:
So this anoying problem can be fixed by just changing one string or telling 3476587653745344378 sites to change the way they handle requests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Changing the string would break 3476587653745344378^10 other sites. And would remove it completely from browser stats. Which would get all the whiners going on about how no one is using Opera again.
I think it wouldn't even mess up statistics. There are more reliable methods to identify the browser than by using the user agent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such as?
The desktop version for example is capable of identifying itself as IE or Firefox and it does not mess up statistics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It identifies as Opera by default. When it identifies as something else, it is not counted as Opera, but as a different browser.
I don't get mobile versions of pages shown in Opera mobile so this should be possible in Mini too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course it's possible in Mini. This has got nothing to do with Opera Mini's capabilities. It's the site that chooses to send you to a mobile site.
You can argue as much as you want, it doesn't change anythink about the fact, that O-mini does not show the expected content although it could be very easily be fixed. That's ultra-anoying on any high-res-device.
There's even a checkbox in Opera's options to chose if you want to see mobile-versions if available or not, but it's just ignored.
I'm pretty sure the string can be altered in a way that does both, full-size-content AND right statistics.
Check showip.com with Desktop-Opera. It shows your user agent. It changes when you set Opera to claim it's IE or FF, but they all still include "Opera" +version in that string. Stats can still identify it correctly no matter what you select.
SE-X1 said:
You can argue as much as you want, it doesn't change anythink about the fact, that O-mini does not show the expected content although it could be very easily be fixed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out the fact that Opera Mini is simply showing the content that's being sent to it. I'm pointing out the fact that it's the site that's doing this. You are arguing because you evidently don't understand the subject matter.
There's even a checkbox in Opera's options to chose if you want to see mobile-versions if available or not, but it's just ignored.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, that checkbox actually controls what Opera Mini does. It changes the way Opera Mini handles a page. This is completely different from the problem you are referring to, which has to do with what the site does when it detects that you are using Opera Mini.
I'm pretty sure the string can be altered in a way that does both, full-size-content AND right statistics.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, because the sites that are sending Opera Mini to mobile pages are doing so specifically for Opera Mini. If Opera Mini changes its UA string, those sites will simply adapt to the new string, and send that to a mobile page as well. You will have gotten nowhere, except making other people's life harder.
Check showip.com with Desktop-Opera. It shows your user agent. It changes when you set Opera to claim it's IE or FF, but they all still include "Opera" +version in that string. Stats can still identify it correctly no matter what you select.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, the sites that send Opera Mini to a mobile version are specifically looking for Opera Mini. If you change the string to include other browsers, the page will still specifically look for Opera Mini. It would solve nothing, as explained above.
Stats can identify it correctly if you don't remove Opera Mini from the string. But you seemed to suggest that they simply hide Opera Mini completely, in which case those stats sites would not be able to detect it.
Finally, what more reliable methods to identify the browser than the user agent string are there?
This is getting too much blah blah for a trivial thing. It could be fixed but it's not --> not good
It does work with Opera mobile, that's proof enough that it could work with mini too, no matter how it works.
You are right about the checkbox "mobile view", that's "Small screen rendering mode" which is something else... misleading label.
Im not the expert that can tell you how exactly the user Agent string has to look like, but it's obvious that it could work with the right one.
(Forget about "more reliable methods", seams like it does all work fine with user agents only)
SE-X1 said:
This is getting too much blah blah for a trivial thing. It could be fixed but it's not --> not good
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It needs to be fixed by the site. It is not Opera Mini which decides which page it's being sent.
It does work with Opera mobile, that's proof enough that it could work with mini too, no matter how it works.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Opera Mini and Opera Mobile have different UA strings. Again, it's got nothing to do with "working with Opera Mini". This isn't caused by Opera Mini. It's caused by sites that detect that you are using Opera Mini.
Im not the expert that can tell you how exactly the user Agent string has to look like, but it's obvious that it could work with the right one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm telling you that it couldn't. These sites that send Opera Mini mobile content do so because they chose to specifically do so for whatever reason. Changing the UA string would just piss these people off, and update their scripts to send mobile pages to the new UA string as well.
It's getting boring. Have fun with ugly unreadable pages while I surf the web how it's supposed to look.
You admit that you were mistaken then, I presume?
EyeAmRubber said:
You admit that you were mistaken then, I presume?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you're simply wrong, I just gave up convining you.
So I am "simply wrong" even though you made all the false assertions, such as "more reliable methods" (showing that you have no idea what you are talking about).
Telling me that I'm wrong when all your arguments so far have been devastated is not exactly convincing.
EyeAmRubber said:
So I am "simply wrong" even though you made all the false assertions, such as "more reliable methods" (showing that you have no idea what you are talking about).
Telling me that I'm wrong when all your arguments so far have been devastated is not exactly convincing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was wrong in a detail like I already said above. But that doesn't change anything about the rest. The problem can definitely be fixed in the Software, that's a provable fact I'm not going to discuss anymore. Saying the software is ok, just the rest of the world has to change to become compatible is just nonsense because it will not fix the problem because it will never happen.
Besides the alternative view does make sense on low end devices so it has to be Opera to decide witch view to load depending on the resulution of the device or better by the settings the user made. And don't tell me again it's not possible, that's just nonsense because it's not and does already work with other browsers.
The "problem" can't be "fixed" by Opera without breaking it for everyone else.
The rest of the world doesn't need to change. You are the one who wants sites who specifically send Opera Mini users to a mobile site to change.
As I already explained, this is not about "Opera views", this is about what kind of content a site sends to Opera. It "works" in other browsers because the sites are not sending them to a mobile site.
Again: Changing the useragen string would break ****loads of websites, and Opera would disappear from the stats. That, or the change will achieve exactly nothing, because the sites that are sending Opera Mini users to a mobile site are specifically looking for Opera Mini in the first place.
You need to stop making assertions when you are clearly severely lacking in knowledge on the subject. It gets worse when you blame Opera for something the site is doing, and claim that it's in Opera's hands.
Sure it's the Site that sends different content, nobody stated anything else. But it depends on the request made by the browser! And when I say it works in other browsers I'm NOT talking about desktop browsers. I use Opera mobile and it does what i want although I got the same results as with Mini with default settings.
In Opera mobile you just go to the setting and set "Spoof UserAgent ID" to "2" to mask as Mozilla. That does still leave "Opera 9.7" mentioned in the User agent and is still identified in browser statistics correctly, but this way you allways get fullsize content without breaking anything. Sure thing the same can be done to any other browser easily.
Maybe you just try it yourself and then we talk again who's got a lack of knowledge.
It's so funny reading all the time what's impossible while everyone can download other mobile browsers and see with own eyes that it's not.
SE-X1 said:
Sure it's the Site that sends different content, nobody stated anything else. But it depends on the request made by the browser!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In what way, specifically? What kind of request?
And when I say it works in other browsers I'm NOT talking about desktop browsers. I use Opera mobile and it does what i want although I got the same results as with Mini with default settings.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, that is because other browsers have a different UA string, and the sites haven't started specifically sending those to a mobile page.
In Opera mobile you just go to the setting and set "Spoof UserAgent ID" to "2" to mask as Mozilla. That does still leave "Opera 9.7" mentioned in the User agent and is still identified in browser statistics correctly, but this way you allways get fullsize content without breaking anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, masking as Mozilla completely removes "Opera". "Identify as" doesn't.
How do you know that it's identified in browser statistics?
BTW, please give me an example of a site which sends mobile content to Opera Mobile 7 before changing this setting.
It's so funny reading all the time what's impossible while everyone can download other mobile browsers and see with own eyes that it's not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Evidently, those other mobile browsers are not being singled out by the site and sent mobile content. Once again you show that you completely fail to understand the fundamentals of browser sniffing.
in my view i dont think mini5 is esstially much speedy & good than mini4.2 so i am still use 4.2 now
Hi all.
This is a little collection of things that i have been noticing while testing hacking issues on the phone.
Remember that those are "non-useful" (not to jailbreak) the phone, and just curiousity as topic.
Easy Hidden Menu Call
Do you need a search on the net to remember the hidden menu code? No more!. Test this phone-number string instead:
(Edited now): ##PROGRAMNITT
Max size for an app name/web favorite
Seems to be no max per se, but after doing some test, where i created title as: "chunk1chunk2chunk......chunkN" i was able to load a 1691124 characters title. Further than that, the browser seems to crash.
That's about a 3MB text string, just for the title. Would work well, when testing if several of them pinned reduce our 8gb storage(use storage) or doesn't (uses other).
Btw, you can pip up to 67 apps, (51 new) so... that's a max anyway,
Application Menu "About:blank" hack
Test this in the browser bar as direction: "about:blank". Kin IE will yell that it's not a supported protocol. Yeah, that's right. Let's dev a page on a local webserver with:
PHP:
<html>
<head>
<title>Mad redirection!</title>
</head>
<body>
<h3>Mad redirection tool!</h3>
<p> Testing: <div id="testTab"></div></p>
<p> Errors:
<div id="errorsTab"></div>
</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
var urlToTest = "about:blank";
try {
var test = document.getElementById("testTab");
test.innerHTML = urlToTest;
window.location=urlToTest;
}
catch (error) {
var err = document.getElementById("errorsTab");
err.innerHTML = "Error going to " +urlToTest+"<br/>"+error.message;
}
</script>
</body>
</html>
Browse it with the kin and you will land in the about:blank page, with the ability to be pinned on the application menu. Of course it will work, having the App link on the App menu, with a non working link (Kin still yells if you use it from menu).
Useless, but weird...
I do know that this is pure thread necromancy and that those are old news but:
a) if you are able to do the trick (using the sample html i posted) you can see that indeed it comes to about:blank and is shown as that on the title: "ABOUT:BLANK".
b) if you are so smart to change it to "about:lame" it goes there but shows a "Action canceled" webpage, where it suggest you to press the "refresh" button or use menu opcion "File -> work offline".
Like if you could.. rofl.
That means:
1) "about:" protocol is supported (at least about:blank) to be navigated BUT is nerfed from the direction bar. So other protocols could work. For example, smtp and ftp does trigger a popup from the IE, but res:// file:// and rtsp:// do not (even if they crash later, and rtsp opening zune for streaming).
2) This is a pure IE (with file menu,hopefully )
3) some other things can be tested, and every person can!
I upgraded the posted code, so it outputs an error when the redirection doesnt work (almost allways).
If you try it, remember not to end your url with \ (backslash) as it interferes with the doublequotes.
I've just completed testing a couple of things.
First, I successfully tested the "about:blank".
I also tried "about:", "about:about", "about:cache", and "about:home". These each resulted in the action canceled page described above.
I also tried the "file://" protocol, with the address "file://localhost/c:/" and received the following:
Errors:
Error going to file://localhost/c:/
Could not complete the operation due to error 80070005.
[edit] It seems that error 80070005 is given when you do not permission. The solution? Log on with administrator privileges... (see link)
Upon further testing:
about:desktopitemnavigationfailure works and displays "navigation cancelled" page.
about:navigationcanceled works and displays "navigation cancelled" page.
about:navigationfailure works and displays "navigation cancelled" page.
about:noadd-ons displays "navigation cancelled" page.
about: offlineinformation works and informs the user that the current page can not be viewed off line.
about: postnotcached works and informs the user that to refresh the current page, information entered in a form will have to be re-posted.
about:securityrisk displays "navigation cancelled" page.
about:tabs (unsuprisingly) displays "navigation cancelled" page.
I read that about:mozilla works in older versions of IE. However, it displayed the "navigation cancelled" page. You can also supposedly access the about:mozilla page using the following URL: res://mshtml.dll/about.moz
However, while this "res" protocol appears to be supported, I received the same permissions error as referenced in the above post.
I tested the mms protocol on a couple of working mms streams, but received the notification that the protocol is not supported.
I tried view-source://(random web address) and unsuprisingly was told that the protocol isn't supported. While this protocol works with some browsers, it doesn't seem to work on internet explorer even on a regular computer.
I tried the javascript protocol and it seems to work, but is different than about:, http:, etc. Mainly, it processes the javascript without leaving the script "address" in the address bar like we see with about: and http:
I was a little disappointed in this one, hoping to bookmark a javascript to test the videohamster flash video viewer for ipods, or itransmogrify for other flash files.
very nice work here. I like what you have done with this.
I'm glad that other than about:blank works (apart of the "action cancelled").
I took my time to install a wm6.5 emulator and test where do this "Action cancelled" come from in the pocket IE url bar.
They are from " res://.....navcancl.dll ".
Maybe there's a way to bypass the restrictions (the permission error) by calling some parameter in the "about:XXXX", but i can't bet on it.
Edit:
about:version seems to work (it auto-says "cannot find server", although my python custom-made-for-exploits server says that it delivered my html). But it keeps loading after the javascript redirection happens.... lol, so random .
One thought I had, that I have not had time to experiment with yet, is how deep the permissions restrictions go. For example, at times I have been logged on to a windows-based computer and have access to certain user-specific files but not to system files or to files or folders closer to the root. So for instance, we may be able to access the WinCE equivalent of "C:\Documents and Settings\<UserName>" using the file:// or res:// protocols even though we don't have permission to access "C:\".
Here's another potential avenue for information related to the "res" protocol. Apparently, it can be used to enumerate the software on a machine by identifying certain executables or dlls. (see here).
Unfortunately, the example cited in the article is not available so I can't view the code on how it was done. However, the results can be viewed here, where incidentally you can see the software installed on the computer that crawled this webpage.
Luckily, a manual or how-to paper is available here. I will try to check it out and see if I can figure out something useful.
i checked, it doesnt yell at you if you use a res:// but either if using ftp:// so the big problem is that you must pre-know the res:// uri before testing.
And in the best case, you will just get an image shown, ad js cannot give you the binary data.
anyway, i'm interested in this things....
Here's a couple other likely non-useful tidbits.
The browser will attempt to open the following filetypes with the Zune player:
.avi
.3gp
.mov
.fli
.mp4
.wmv
.wmx
When you open a VBScript in the browser, the script isn't executed, but it is displayed.
The mailto: protocol works from the browser and opens up the email dialog.
The following script causes the browser to hang (and deleting temporary files does not resolve the problem--but restarting the Kin does):
HTML:
<html><body onLoad=Demo()><script>
// MoBB Demonstration
function Demo() {
var a = new ActiveXObject("Internet.HHCtrl.1");
var b = unescape("XXXX");
while (b.length < 256) b += b;
for (var i=0; i<4096; i++) {
a['Image'] = b + "";
}
}
</script>
</body></html>
I haven't played around with the logs at all, but would this provide an error that gives some useful log output?
After some further testing, I discovered the Kin does not yell about the following protocols as being unsupported (in other words, they seem to be supported):
gopher://
nntp://
telnet://
news://
snews://
windowsmail.url.mailto://
windowsmail.url.news://
windowsmail.url.nntp://
windowsmail.url.snews://
johnkussack said:
Maybe there's a way to bypass the restrictions (the permission error) by calling some parameter in the "about:XXXX", but i can't bet on it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried playing around with about:____, such as with the following types of addresses:
about:<input%20type=file>
about:<a%20href=C:\windows\>Click-Here</a>
but without luck.
I also tried the shell handler "Shell:" which seems to be another supported protocol, but again without luck. I tried the following Shell commands:
Shellrofile
ShellrogramFiles
Shell:System
Shell:ControlPanelFolder
Shell:Windows
Shell:::{21EC2020 shell:::{21EC2020-3AEA 3AEA-1069 1069-A2DD A2DD-08002B30309D}
Here are a couple more that I found other people sometimes try that I haven't tried (at least not yet):
shell:ControlPanelFolder
shell:::{35786D3C-B075-49b9-88DD-029876E11C01}
shell:::{208D2C60-3AEA-1069-A2D7-08002B30309D}
shell:::{7007ACC7-3202-11D1-AAD2-00805FC1270E}
shell:::{20D04FE0-3AEA-1069-A2D8-08002B30309D}
shell:::{450D8FBA-AD25-11D0-98A8-0800361B1103}
shell:::{E17D4FC0-5564-11D1-83F2-00A0C90DC849}
Ok, so this will be my last post in this thread tonight . For some unknown reason, you can access your emotes when in camera mode.... It doesn't do anything if you try to use one though.
great to hear about the shell::XXXX thing.
Does it trigger something? like about:blank or the other trigger a blank or a "cannot go" page.
btw, a real path on the phone (granted by the logs) is:
\Windows\eri.bin
That's assured , with the start backslash ("\\" if used on js code)
these hacks arent nonuseful
you should have called these hacks something other than non useful because we can use these little tips and tricks in combination with others to actually create an in browser jailbreak using the unrestricted protocols.
shell commands
try the net user admin <username> <password> console command in the shell protocol and see if you an bypass restrictions. theres no reason why console commands shouldnt work even though i havent tried this myself.
X-15D9W8491 said:
try the net user admin <username> <password> console command in the shell protocol and see if you an bypass restrictions. theres no reason why console commands shouldnt work even though i havent tried this myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, I'm not sure where you mean to do this. Unless I completely missed the revelation, so far, nobody has been able to get any type of shell/console access (as it doesn't really exist on a Windows Mobile OS anyway).
i called them as is, cause in first place, they were non useful, lol.
Although now, it could be a good try to get some "jailbreak" procedure.
as we dunno what windows mobile i6 can do, i guess we should/must try into a real mobile device (maybe my old pda too), or a win mobile 6.5 emulator, to test procedures (less restrictions), and then repeat on the kin (restricted).
I always though that the browser was the weakest part anyway
if you do tel: in the browser, and write anything after that it opens it up in a bubble....it lets you call letters, although it gives an error in the phone app
When using the TRACERT (Trace Route) in the programnitt menu I found a quirk.
Using 127.0.0.1 to Trace replies: WindowsCE
...that's obvious but interesting.
Using 127.0.0.0 to Trace replies: * 87 (30 times, hits limit and stops)
I have no idea why it would reply with the voicemail number....
MVPS HOSTS now includes entries for most major parasites, hijackers and unwanted Adware/Spyware programs!
What it does ...
You can use a HOSTS file to block ads, banners, 3rd party Cookies, 3rd party page counters, web bugs, and even most hijackers. This is accomplished by blocking the connection(s) that supplies these little gems. The Hosts file is loaded into memory (cache) at startup, so there is no need to turn on, adjust or change any settings with the exception of the DNS Client service (see below). Windows automatically looks for the existence of a HOSTS file and if found, checks the HOSTS file first for entries to the web page you just requested. The 127.0.0.1 is considered the location of your computer, so when an entry listed in the MVPS HOSTS file is requested on a page you are viewing, your computer thinks 127.0.0.1 is the location of the file. When this file is not located it skips onto the next file and thus the ad server is blocked from loading the banner, Cookie, or some unscrupulous ActiveX, or javascript file.
Example - the following entry 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net blocks all files supplied by that DoubleClick Server to the web page you are viewing. This also prevents the server from tracking your movements. Why? ... because in certain cases "Ad Servers" like Doubleclick (and many others) will try silently to open a separate connection on the webpage you are viewing, record your movements then yes ... follow you to additional sites you may visit.
Using a well designed HOSTS file can speed the loading of web pages by not having to wait for these ads, annoying banners, hit counters, etc. to load. This also helps to protect your Privacy and Security by blocking sites that may track your viewing habits, also known as "click-thru tracking" or Data Miners. Simply using a HOSTS file is not a cure-all against all the dangers on the Internet, but it does provide another very effective "Layer of Protection".
In case you're wondering ... this all happens in microseconds, which is much faster than trying to fetch a file from half way around the world. Another great feature of the HOSTS file is that it is a two-way file, meaning if some parasite does get into your system (usually bundled with other products) the culprit can not get out (call home) as long as the necessary entries exist. This is why it's important to keep your HOSTS file up to Date. How to get notified of MVPS HOSTS updates.
How to get notified of MVPS HOSTS updates.
This download includes a simple batch file (mvps.bat) that will rename the existing HOSTS file to HOSTS.MVP then copy the included updated HOSTS file to the proper location. For more information please see the Windows version that applies to you ...
Windows 8 requires special instructions - over there see here
Windows 7 requires special instructions - over there see here
Win Vista requires special instructions - over there see here
Manual Install Method - Unzip in a "temp" folder and place in the appropriate installed location:
If you are having trouble downloading or extracting the HOSTS file [click here]
Note: the below locations are for the typical default paths, edit as needed.
Windows 8/7/Vista/XP = C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC
Windows DNS Client Service
In most cases the DNS Client Service is not needed, it is recommended to turn it off. These instructions are intended for a single (home-user) PC. If your machine is part of a "Domain", check with your IT Dept. before applying this work-around. This especially applies to Laptop users who travel or bring their work machines home. Make sure to reset the Service (if needed) prior to connecting (reboot required) to your work Domain ...
To resolve this issue (manually) open the "Services Editor"
Start | Run (type) "services.msc" (no quotes)
Win8 users - Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Services
Scroll down to "DNS Client", Right-click and select: Properties - click Stop
Click the drop-down arrow for "Startup type"
Select: Manual (recommended) or Disabled click Apply/Ok and restart.
My recommendation easy way to do it:
Hostsman includes an option to turn off the DNS Service [screenshot]
Workaround for using the MVPS HOSTS file and leaving the DNS Client service enabled (set to: Automatic)
If you find after a period of time that your browser seems sluggish with the DNS Client service enabled you can manually flush the DNS cache
Close all browser windows ... open a "Command Prompt" from the Start Menu > All Programs > Accessories > Command Prompt
Win8 users - Charms Bar > Search > (type) command prompt > Select: Command Promt (left pane) Ok the UAC prompt
(type) ipconfig /flushdns (press Enter) Then close the Command Prompt ...
A better Win8/7/Vista/XP workaround would be to add two Registry entries to control the amount of time the DNS cache is saved. (KB318803)
Flush the existing DNS cache (see above)
Start > Run (type) regedit
Win8 users - from the Charms Bar, select: Search (type) run and select Run (left pane) and (type) "regedit" (no quotes)
Navigate to the following location:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Dnscache\Parameters
Click Edit > New > DWORD Value (type) MaxCacheTtl
Click Edit > New > DWORD Value (type) MaxNegativeCacheTtl
Next right-click on the MaxCacheTtl entry (right pane) and select: Modify and change the value to 1
The MaxNegativeCacheTtl entry should already have a value of 0 (leave it that way - see screenshot)
Close Regedit and reboot ...
As usual you should always backup your Registry before editing ... see Regedit Help under "Exporting Registry files"
P.S IT'S NOT MY WORK I JUST SHARE WHAT I FOUND SO PLZ SUPPORT DEVELOPER (MAIN WEB PAGE) IF YOU FOUND IT USEFULL
P.S 2 YOU AND ONLY YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DOING WITH YOUR PS
P.S 3 FEEDBACK AND TUBS UP IS REQUIRED
or use adblock for firefox and chrome and tracking lists in internet explorer (which also works on RT) rather than download dodgy 3rd party files with no source code which could just as easily be malware.
SixSixSevenSeven said:
or use adblock for firefox and chrome and tracking lists in internet explorer (which also works on RT) rather than download dodgy 3rd party files with no source code which could just as easily be malware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or you can just download it, check it and stop posting useless warnings. Although, not sure if you're able to decompile it.
Useless guy said:
Or you can just download it, check it and stop posting useless warnings. Although, not sure if you're able to decompile it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Useless warnings? Come back to me when your computer is ridden in malware from carelessly downloaded files in a few months time.
Guys, calm down. @SixSixSevenSeven is right, though. I'd rather not download any weird files and copy them to my system32 directory, especially if there isn't any source available.
And anyways, isn't discussing this stuff against the rules?
You know, because we're all kinda developers and stuff, and that's how we make our money?
That host file is the exact same method used by android. There no compiling/decrypting/program or malware included. Is a text file ?
Thanks OP, it works as intended. Blocks all ads successfully.
D.O.C said:
That host file is the exact same method used by android. There no compiling/decrypting/program or malware included. Is a text file ?
Thanks OP, it works as intended. Blocks all ads successfully.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it may be the same method, but the hosts files are open source and you have open source apps which do the installation for you.
And I still think this thread is against the rules. ..
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
Here's the host file I use. Works pretty good - no need for Android apps or anything.
Beatsleigher said:
Yes, it may be the same method, but the hosts files are open source and you have open source apps which do the installation for you.
And I still think this thread is against the rules. ..
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Against what rules
vasiaeva said:
Against what rules
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Against the XDA rules, which you read and accepted as you created your account
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Beatsleigher said:
Against the XDA rules, which you read and accepted as you created your account
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't worry about XDA there is admins army who watch for that...
But i like you sense of humor :good:
Beatsleigher said:
You know, because we're all kinda developers and stuff, and that's how we make our money?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see any developers here
Useless guy said:
I don't see any developers here
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks man. I guess you don't see me...
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Guys, there is nothing wrong with this - it's been going on for years in this exact format. Any ad-blocker that you use (apart from browser extensions/add-ons) will use this method.
The hosts file (yes, located in a sub-directory of System32 ) is what your PC looks at for address translation. It's a text file, so you can open it in a text editor (even notepad will do it) and check it there, but other than being used to translate domain names to IP addresses it is not in any way active.
If you're concerned about it I suggest you don't use it. If you're curious about it then open the hosts file and look at the contents. Other than that, it's nothing to worry about.
Beatsleigher said:
Yes, it may be the same method, but the hosts files are open source and you have open source apps which do the installation for you.
And I still think this thread is against the rules. ..
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't know what you are talking about, OP just shared a method to block ads, no application discussion whatsoever, never stated it was a "only method" or anything like it. You are definitively successful at changing topics though.
and BTW, it is not against forum rules.
The only thing that could possibly be against the rules is the fact that ads are getting blocked - but AFAIK XDA has nothing about that.
Perhaps you don't like how it uses a closed source utility (which is actually open source)? Well then you might not like 90% of ROMs on this site - for all we know they set all the text we type in to some Chinese servers.
SilverHedgehog said:
The only thing that could possibly be against the rules is the fact that ads are getting blocked - but AFAIK XDA has nothing about that.
Perhaps you don't like how it uses a closed source utility (which is actually open source)? Well then you might not like 90% of ROMs on this site - for all we know they set all the text we type in to some Chinese servers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What? Dude. I'm a dev myself. I don't care if somethings closed source, as long as it has good enough documentation or unless I know exactly what the program's for...
And for all I know, from the IP address of the XDA servers, they're based in America. The only Chinese servers used in XDA are those of Chinese people wanting us to download their ROMs.
And I don't know what the OP uploaded, as far as U knkw it's a text file. But even text files can contain viruses, just like pictures can, which is why I'm not downloading it and think it could be against the rules. But never mind. If you want to download it, go ahead. I'm not and I'm using AdBlock Plus, which I built from source.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Beatsleigher said:
What? Dude. I'm a dev myself. I don't care if somethings closed source, as long as it has good enough documentation or unless I know exactly what the program's for...
And for all I know, from the IP address of the XDA servers, they're based in America. The only Chinese servers used in XDA are those of Chinese people wanting us to download their ROMs.
And I don't know what the OP uploaded, as far as U knkw it's a text file. But even text files can contain viruses, just like pictures can, which is why I'm not downloading it and think it could be against the rules. But never mind. If you want to download it, go ahead. I'm not and I'm using AdBlock Plus, which I built from source.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You misunderstood me. I'm saying that closed source software could always have backdoors, even if it comes from XDA users.
Even if somebody did find an exploit that somehow executed code in a .txt file, they wouldn't be using it one some kids wanting to block ads, they'd make a lot of cash either by reporting that bug to Microsoft or by selling it on a black market.
Beatsleigher said:
What? Dude. I'm a dev myself. I don't care if somethings closed source, as long as it has good enough documentation or unless I know exactly what the program's for...
And for all I know, from the IP address of the XDA servers, they're based in America. The only Chinese servers used in XDA are those of Chinese people wanting us to download their ROMs.
And I don't know what the OP uploaded, as far as U knkw it's a text file. But even text files can contain viruses, just like pictures can, which is why I'm not downloading it and think it could be against the rules. But never mind. If you want to download it, go ahead. I'm not and I'm using AdBlock Plus, which I built from source.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mannn I didn't upload anything. If you check the link in OP its brings you to another XDA thread. Better double check before you say something that you don't now . ..
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2
vasiaeva said:
Mannn I didn't upload anything. If you check the link in OP its brings you to another XDA thread. Better double check before you say something that you don't now . ..
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a reason I donb't click on links like that. That is (mainly) because my laptop's dead and I'm using my mum's, which is a really cheapy-sh*tty thing which doesn't even support NX from sides of the CPU (Which means it can't run Windows 8 and/or 8.1).
And the other reason being: I don't trust any files which I, myself, downloaded from somewhere you can't always trust where someone wants me to copy it to my system path.
So, no. I won't check things out that 'I don't know'.
And what was the point of this thread, is if only leads to a different thread?
Hello XDA,
here is a simple guide from my side describing a simple fun trick that allows you to open multiple websites in a single click on Windows.
I have tried this trick on Windows 8 Pro 64-bit and it works great for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
STEPS -
1. First of all, create a notepad file on the desktop.
2. Now, open it and paste the code as follow:
Code:
@echo off
start www.forum.xda-developers.com
start www.google.com
start www.facebook.com
Here, instead of the websites I've mentioned, you can use any websites that you'd like to use and open up, but make sure that it is written in the same format as in the code above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3. Now save the file and change the extension to '.bat' !
Note - If you can't change the extensions, open up windows explorer, click on 'View' and check the checkbox that says 'File name extensions'. Or in some cases, you may need to go to folder options and select appropriate options(Most probably with the same name saying 'File name extensions' !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4. Now change the name of the bat file as you desire, in my case it's 'websites.bat' !
5. Now run the 'Websites.bat' file and the websites that you've mentioned will open up in your default browser. :laugh:
PS - HATERS gonna HATE
Reserved...
Nice idea...works fine..
reduces time of opening tabs manually
thanx for sharing
amit.lohar said:
Nice idea...works fine..
reduces time of opening tabs manually
thanx for sharing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad you liked it.
#Superuser said:
Not everyone uses chrome ! I use Firefox instead and it's better rather than entering websites' name after you have started your browser once, and then opening desired websites. Duh ! Click a file !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So if they are the tabs you use most often then just set Firefox to open all previous tabs on start up, which will be the ones you obviously use most, and you can resume viewing the thread you were on as well if your lucky...
#Superuser said:
Not everyone uses chrome ! I use Firefox instead and it's better rather than entering websites' name after you have started your browser once, and then opening desired websites. Duh ! Click a file !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
firefox also allows you to set a selection of startup tabs. Internet explorer does too I think. Opera probably does.
penguin449 said:
So if they are the tabs you use most often then just set Firefox to open all previous tabs on start up, which will be the ones you obviously use most, and you can resume viewing the thread you were on as well if your lucky...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SixSixSevenSeven said:
firefox also allows you to set a selection of startup tabs. Internet explorer does too I think. Opera probably does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait, you took it the wrong way. I said that if you have started your browser once, but you don't have to use the websites you like at that time, and close the tabs. And when you need it, do you gonna open them manually or open new windows every time. This method is rather time saving and all the setup is to be done once only.
Now no more hates.
Hi,
I did a little thread cleaning. Please let's not get picky about other ways of opening tabs. Even if you can do it inside your browser, this is a distinct way of doing it and there are things you can do with the batch scripts, especially if you have more than one script, that you can't do inside the browser.
Thanks!
Eh... calling this either development or hacking is stretching things a bit, and implying that it's something special to Win8 is outright fabrication. You could have done this on Windows 98, no joke (probably 95, if you had a default browser set up; it would have opened separate windows instead of tabs because browsers back then didn't use tabs, but it would have worked). It's a (trivially basic) batch script...
Oh, and at least on IE, hitting the "Home" button will open your home pages in tabs for you, even if you're already in a browsing session with other tabs open. Just a little tip, I didn't even have to open a new thread with a reserved post under it or anything!