A bug in ABP 0.6 whitelisting and frames.

AmirG · Post by **AmirG** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:04 am

When I whitelist a site that uses frames and on of the frames contains a page from another site, it also whitelisted. That is, if the frameset URL is http://abc.com/,the URLs of two of the frames are http://def.com/ and http://ghi.com/ and I have the following filter "@@http://abc.com/", the ads on both frames are visible even though I haven't whitelisted them.

This worked as intended on ABP 0.5 - only ads on frames from the domain abc.com would be whitelisted.

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:27 am

That's actually indended - whitelisting applies to the URL that you see in the browser's location field. Any good reason why it shouldn't work this way?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:26 pm

hmm. but when you use a webproxy or google translate, then you see the ads, if you have google/the proxy withelisted, because the pages are shown in frames. This shouldnt be...

but on the other hand, I want to see all pics on a site, which URL is "hidden" by a frame, when I whitelisted it...

difficult thing

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:09 pm

Why would you whitelist a web-proxy, google translate or something else like it?

Edit: web-proxies and Google Translate don't use frames to display foreign content. Even if there are frames, they still originate from the proxy itself/from Google Translate.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:50 pm

mhh... yes, but not at google picture search, upper frame is from google, bottom is the originating site.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:49 pm

AmirG · Post by **AmirG** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:46 pm

A good reason? It's *wrong*, that should be reason enough. If I want to whitelist http://def.com, I can add a filter for it. ABP shouldn't guess what I might have intended when I whitelisted http://abc.com.

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:17 am

I don't think so. You are whitelisting what you see in the location bar. Most people won't know about frames and the like - and most importantly, they don't even want to know.

Edit: Consider the situation: I have whitelisted www.abc.com. Now some pages on www.abc.com use frames originating from static.abc.com - and these won't be whitelisted then. How do you explain the reason to somebody who doesn't know HTML? And this is a very common situation, much more common than some trusted (!) site loading foreign content into frames.

Fox · Post by **Fox** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:29 pm

I agree with Wladimir and I think whitelisting works now.

If frames/iframes are not whitelisted, then what site whitelisting is that?
So i really think it works now, but maybe you (Wladimir) can some add something like, if there is 3 @'s before url:
@@@http://www.example.com
then frames/iframes are not whitelisted, but everything else is, and AmirG is happy.

Fox · Post by **Fox** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:39 pm

Fox wrote: @@@http://www.example.com
then frames/iframes are not whitelisted, but everything else is...

If frames/iframes address is different.

AmirG · Post by **AmirG** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:53 am

Come on, Wladimir, how will someone that doesn't know html create a blacklist in the first place?

People who doesn't know html and regex will use ready-made filterlists, like the venerable Filterlist.G. People who does know html and regex should be able to use that knowledge. Give us a chance.

Wladimir Palant · Post by **Wladimir Palant** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:10 am

@AmirG: Right-click on "Adblock" in the status bar and choose "Disable on adblockplus.mozdev.org" - doesn't look too difficult? Do you think that the ~30000 downloads of Adblock Plus 0.6 in the first week came only from HTML coders?

Anyway - I know HTML, but do you think I want to go through to page's source code to find out what frames it loads? Or how else do you suggest whitelisting something you usually don't see?

AmirG · Post by **AmirG** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:42 am

Emm, I wrote "blacklist", not "whitelist". How would someone with no knowledge of html can create an effective filterlist? Block one item at a time?

As for the number of downloads, well, I saw threads on recommended extensions on several forums and almost everyone who recomended Adblock also recommended Filterset.G auto updater. So most users don't create their own filterset. Does this means that you should disable the filter creation option?

You don't *have* to go through the code - Adblock will tell you what it blocked, it's easy. How else would you know something is missing on the site you're viewing?

But nevermind, I just saw that Adblock has whitelist support now and since that was the feature that made me switch from Adblock to ABP in the first place, I can just go back to the original.

Best of luck with the rewrite.