Image Shack ~ Spammers Paradise?

[tnuckels]

As I can't seem to successfully complete a search for this topic I'll just go ahead and post … sorry if it's already been covered.

Is it just me, or is Image Shack becoming a more and more aggressive sinkhole for spam? By spam I mean ads, pop-ups, music, all of which seem able to get around my usually adequate defenses. It didn't seem at all bad some time back, but seems to be getting progressively worse as time goes on. It's gotten to where I don't want to click to see the larger image if I see it's hosted at Image Shack.

Try some of the pictures in this post: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=154163 and see if you don't get swamped as well.

As they say, there is NO free lunch … even if it starts out that way.

Is any one else having this problem?

 

[B@rt]

I never use the page link ImageShack provides for forum-posting, I always use the direct image link and add the imagetags, this way there are no popups.

 

[iconoclast]

I tried the link above, and didn't see anything unusual.
The linked thumbnails lead to a new tab with a larger picture and some run-of-the-mill stuff above ("new to imageshack?" link) and below it (alternate urls, "rate this image", "upload an image", and a golden frog).

If there's other stuff poping up for other folks, then I'm glad I've never tried to host anything there.
"Adblock Filterset-G" must be doing it's thing.

 

[kashmir]

I've run into the same problem in the last couple of weeks. Some of the pop-ups I can't exit or close-out.

 

[tnuckels]

Exactly Kashmir, today I couldn't even shut down the extra crap window that had gotten through, and it just kept spewing more and more stuff, swamping my 3Mb connection. Finally I used the Task Manager to clobber IE … not real elegant, but it worked.

I recently "upgraded" my aging version of Norton Internet Security (NIS) and the feature that used to block pop-ups as well as in-page-ads was removed, leaving me with just IE's popup blocker. I was blissfully unaware of how busy and polluted web pages have become over the past few years, being shielded from it all by this feature. When contacted Norton said they decided not to continue working on this "duplicate" feature and removed it, and suggested several 3d party blockers, though the feature is still available in their current version of Norton 360 (go figure).

Looks like I'm back in the market for some stronger filtering software … this junk reminds me of olden Prodigy days where 1/3 of each page was dedicated to push ads and such. YUCK!

 

[Lite_me]

E Finally I used the Task Manager to clobber IE … not real elegant, but it worked.

Using stock Firefox here, meaning, no Adblock add-on (but many others), I get a little notification telling me Firefox blocked a pop-up when I click on the thumbnails. That's it, unless I click on the enlarged pic in the new Tab it opens up, then it will open a single pop-up. I've known this from past experience so I never click on the enlarged pic.

I love Firefox. I don't think I've used IE since Win98. :duh2:

 

[bitslammer]

Firefox + No Script + Cookie Safe + Adblock Plus = Safe, secure,pleasant, ad free browsing.

For sites like CPF that I trust and want to support I add them to the whitelist which allows ads. For all others they have to earn my trust and respect.

 

[jzmtl]

I looked at the page you linked and have no problem with ads, just some text based ones.

 

[Black Rose]

With IE6, I get the click from the Google toolbar popup blocker, then a floating window shows up. I just use Ctrl+W to close the window.

It is annoying and is why I normally don't look at people's pics if they are from Imageshack.

Tried it in bare bones Firefox and got a message saying it blocked a popup.

I have both of my browsers configured to ask me when a site wants to set a cookie. I got 2 prompts in Firefox for ad site cookies. I banished them before in IE.

 

[LukeA]

When Imageshack started pulling that bullcrap I switched to Photobucket. Uploads are faster, too.

 

[tnuckels]

I fought the browser (and every other piece of software I own) battle for years and years against the evil empire, but finally got tired, or maybe just lazy, and gave up a few years ago. I grew weary of keeping things in sync, tracking down incompatibilities, and the fact that many of Microsoft's hooks only work right with IE.

I'd thought to bump cookie settings to a stricter level, but that gets old pretty quick too. Guess I might try again though, or give FireFox another look see.

Here's what I did earlier. I specifically went to this picture of CHIMO's: http://img103.imageshack.us/my.php?image=arclspiglet05kz6.jpg, got a message on the top of my screen that a pop-up had been blocked, then a few moments later heard a bunch of clicks (have sounds turned on) and ended up at this place: http://www.myprofilepimp.com/stuff_iframes/stuff2.html *** CLICKING THIS LINK NOT ESPECIALLY ADVISED ***

I've done this on two PCs, both running the same filtering and protections but very different boxes, with the same results. Oddly, when I go back for a second peek I don't get slammed. There are cookies from the Image Shack that were created from going there, but nothing discernable from MyProfilePimp.

I don't speak COOKIE, but here is the content of the Image Shack cookies on my laptop.

The first Image Shack cookie:
IMG103.IMAGESHACK[2].txt
__qca
1201657935-43607118-7856577
img103.imageshack.us/
1600
2350186496
32111674
1662467888
29918372
*
flashInstalled
9.0
img103.imageshack.us/
1600
3032532352
29921188
1665897888
29918372
*
ym_pop_freq_expiration64091
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:51:35 UTC
img103.imageshack.us/
1600
2372011392
29918573
1666057888
29918372
*
ym_pop_freq64091
1
img103.imageshack.us/
1600
2372011392
29918573
1666217888
29918372
*

And here is the content of the two subsequent Image Shack cookies:
IMAGESHACK[1].txt
nopopunder
1
imageshack.us/
1536
2821680640
29918410
792001408
29918377
*

IMG46.IMAGESHACK[2].txt
__qca
1201657935-43607118-7856577
img46.imageshack.us/
1600
2350186496
32111674
824351408
29918377
*


Call me a paranoid schizophrenic, but that looks like some bad juju in the first cookie, a flag to turn off the juju in the second, and a regular cookie in the third. Maybe someone still actively doing support can shed a bit more light on this.

In the end it just bites that most everything "free" is just bait to turn around and pork you in the end, Image Shack doesn't seem to be any exception, and those who post there as well as viewers should be apprised of the changing situation.

 

[DM51]

#!*$%&! Imageshack, IMO. Stupid little POC thumbnails which you can't see properly so you have to open them, and then you get popups.

Photobucket is much better.

[/rant]

 

[NA8]

I never use the page link ImageShack provides for forum-posting, I always use the direct image link and add the imagetags, this way there are no popups.

+1 direct image link is the way to go.

 

[binky]

I went to my Windows machine and here's what I got...
I'm not suggesting you have to change your setup, just posting my experience with that page and having clicked on the images in there to view the larger ones directly from Imageshack.

I had no popups come up, just saw the cool (HUGE) images.

I was running WinXP (and IE7), fully updated, and using MS Live OneCare. No other anti-malware.

Though it's not perfect I have had good web/net experiences with this setup. Sorta set it & forget it.

 

[tnuckels]

I never use the page link ImageShack provides for forum-posting, I always use the direct image link and add the imagetags, this way there are no popups.

So, direct linking to the image lets you come in through the back door, as it were, and bypass the hailstorm sometimes encountered using the front door that you get if you use the links provided by the host? Interesting … still, I'm not sure every poster is aware of how to do this or will take the extra steps when there's an easy cut & paste link from the host system just lying there.

BART ≈ SMART :bow:

I had no popups come up, just saw the cool (HUGE) images.

Like I said, I can go back there today and see big pictures just fine, after the cookie with NOPOPUNDER, or some combination of cookies, has been set.

Win XP, all updates, Norton Internet Security and System Works suites, which usually works fine.

Mainly just wanted to make sure it wasn't just me and to get the problem out in the open.

 

[binky]

Mainly just wanted to make sure it wasn't just me and to get the problem out in the open.

Cool. Out of curiosity I googled the web and w3c.org but couldn't find anything useful on the NOPOPUNDER attribute. Nothing useful found. Maybe it's just a custom attribute for a javascript.

 

[tnuckels]

I thought about deleting all the Image Shack associated cookies to see if I could recreate the problem. Trouble is finding them all, what with the Cookies directory, the Local Settings, pre-fetch, cache, and lord knows where else, not to mention that what I'm looking for might just as easily be disguised. All that, and Windows seems determined to hold so many files open that it's not so easy to get rid of them even if you can find them, recreating them as quick as you get rid of them.

Ugh … I'm starting to feel weary again. Sometimes even just contemplating this sort of merry-go-round of snipe hunting, even if it does satisfy an annoying curiosity, makes me want to lie down and take a nap, when in the end it often amounts to just so much mental masturbation anyway …

 

[Illum]

I love Firefox. I don't think I've used IE since Win98. :duh2:

yeah...

Sometimes even just contemplating this sort of merry-go-round of snipe hunting, even if it does satisfy an annoying curiosity, makes me want to lie down and take a nap, when in the end it often amounts to just so much mental masturbation anyway …

different strokes for different folks...but when strokes become simply for self gratification I'd advise just switch over to Firefox and forget the whole frustration altogether

it took awhile to shift over to Firefox...but when I'm there, theres no turning back:nana:

I'm inclined to use Photobucket more often but the link it provides you with is the original uploaded copy...say what I uploaded was 1024x768 and I were to post it on the forum I'd have to reload that image back into photobucket at 800x600.
And secondly, Photobucket doesn't have the "thumbnail" function if under special circumstances where a pic must be posted at a resolution exceeding the forums regulations.

 

[chimo]

This is interesting. The reason I use thumbnails is to save a bit of bandwidth and to link to a pic larger than 800x800 (to provide better detail).

It's odd - sometimes I get the same pop-up nightmare that was mentioned, however, that hasn't happened for a long time. Perhaps it's time to switch to photobucket...

 

[paulr]

The popup and redirect sounds like a spammer managed to send some javascript with the html around the image. Cookies probably don't come into it especially.

As others have said, best is use the direct image link.