Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 1 day, 20 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 1 day, 22 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 2 days, 13 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 3 days, 11 hrs ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 4 days, 17 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2013-05-28
, 21:55
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 3,718 |
Thanked: 7,420 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bize Her Yer Trabzon
|
#2
|
doubleclick.net is a 'ad banner' company. does the app has any commercials/banners?
|
|
2013-05-29
, 13:03
|
|
Posts: 1,808 |
Thanked: 4,272 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ Germany
|
#3
|
Originally Posted by amigo
I bet you EUR 100 that if you look in /etc/hosts you will find a line like:
Recently I installed QNetMan2 and looked what will show up. What now worries me is, that my N9 is constantly waiting for a ssh connection with doubleclick.net. What does this mean? No app is running other than QNetMan2.
Why does my phone mess whith doubleclick.net??
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
This is what happens when you follow dubious "tricks" to avoid ads by messing with stuff you're not supposed to mess with. Unless you understand what you're doing, that is.
| The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to reinob For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2013-05-30
, 22:51
|
|
Posts: 35 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Dec 2011
|
#4
|
Originally Posted by reinob
There is in fact a line of the kind in my hosts file:
I bet you EUR 100 that if you look in /etc/hosts you will find a line like:
127.0.0.1 doubleclick.net
This is what happens when you follow dubious "tricks" to avoid ads by messing with stuff you're not supposed to mess with. Unless you understand what you're doing, that is.
0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net
MintNanny uses exactly this trick to easily block sites. That's why I thaught it was no nonsense or in any way dubious. So tell us please whats wrong with such an entry.
|
|
2013-05-31
, 07:26
|
|
Posts: 1,808 |
Thanked: 4,272 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ Germany
|
#5
|
Originally Posted by amigo
Let me re-phrase your question: "why did I post this thread?" that's one of the problems.
So tell us please whats wrong with such an entry.
The general problem is using something for an unintended purpose. In some cases this may be OK, until it's not OK anymore.
/etc/hosts is used for resolving network names into IP addresses (like a local DNS cache), not for ad blocking.
So the general thinking goes "if a assign an invalid/local address to an advertising server no connection will ever be made to it", disregarding that "if I want to find the name of a given IP address I will get ambiguous, invalid, results."
You've been hit by the latter in trying to achieve the former.
Note that a server bound to 0.0.0.0 as a listening address means that the server accepts connection on any address, normally meaning from any interface (as opposed to, say, only from localhost, only from WAN address, etc.)
So whenever a networking tool wants to show a nice name for 0.0.0.0 (it should not, but it may try) then you get that doubleclick.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to reinob For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2013-05-31
, 07:57
|
|
Posts: 131 |
Thanked: 241 times |
Joined on Feb 2012
|
#6
|
In the following thread, an easy and save way is described how to block almost all ad servers:
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=82180
This is working for the N900 and the N9.
Last edited by HolgerN; 2013-05-31 at 08:03.
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=82180
This is working for the N900 and the N9.
Last edited by HolgerN; 2013-05-31 at 08:03.
|
|
2013-05-31
, 09:01
|
|
Posts: 1,808 |
Thanked: 4,272 times |
Joined on Feb 2011
@ Germany
|
#7
|
@HolgerN,
The method in the thread you posted is exactly the same one being used by the OP. Perhaps 127.0.0.1 will have other (also unintended) consequences as 0.0.0.0, but, at least in my book, it will be exactly as wrong as the other one.
Obviously many people use /etc/hosts for ad blocking, and I guess most live with it OK, but then they should not be surprised if something goes wrong, as the case is in this thread.
The method in the thread you posted is exactly the same one being used by the OP. Perhaps 127.0.0.1 will have other (also unintended) consequences as 0.0.0.0, but, at least in my book, it will be exactly as wrong as the other one.
Obviously many people use /etc/hosts for ad blocking, and I guess most live with it OK, but then they should not be surprised if something goes wrong, as the case is in this thread.
|
|
2013-06-01
, 00:00
|
|
Posts: 35 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Dec 2011
|
#8
|
Originally Posted by reinob
Unfortunately I did not grasp this yet. Thank you anyway for your answer!
Note that a server bound to 0.0.0.0 as a listening address means that the server accepts connection on any address, normally meaning from any interface (as opposed to, say, only from localhost, only from WAN address, etc.)
So whenever a networking tool wants to show a nice name for 0.0.0.0 (it should not, but it may try) then you get that doubleclick.
In my hosts file there are a few additional entries for 0.0.0.0. Doubleclick.net is neither the first nor the last entry. So why does it as the only one out of all appear? Can one rule out that some app or something actually tries to connect to doubleclick.net, but keeps waiting forever exactly due to that hosts file?
|
|
2013-06-01
, 03:50
|
|
Posts: 54 |
Thanked: 47 times |
Joined on Dec 2012
|
#9
|
Originally Posted by amigo
Probably because the app can't continue without loading the adds...
Unfortunately I did not grasp this yet. Thank you anyway for your answer!
In my hosts file there are a few additional entries for 0.0.0.0. Doubleclick.net is neither the first nor the last entry. So why does it as the only one out of all appear? Can one rule out that some app or something actually tries to connect to doubleclick.net, but keeps waiting forever exactly due to that hosts file?
Maybe it's designed that way. Maybe it's just a bug.
|
|
2013-06-05
, 22:12
|
|
Posts: 35 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Dec 2011
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by xvan
The only running app in my scenario is QNetMan2 and it's not stalled but working fine...
Probably because the app can't continue without loading the adds...
Why does my phone mess whith doubleclick.net??