Norton Internet Security Blocked HTML List (Updated 2004-09-10)
Norton Internet Security 2004 has ad blocking turned on by default. One of the ways that NIS attempts to block ads is that they block link tags that contain text that matches any entry in a long list of targeted text and words. for example, NIS will block any link that has contains the text “/ads/”. This blocking is indiscriminate and will block any html that contains the text in this adblock list. All of this is done invisibly and without the user actively choosing this behavior.
Update 2004-Sept-10: There have been no major changes to the default block list with the exception of one item marked below. (and frankly, we may have just missed it from the last list). There appear to have been a number of changes to the exception list though, again, nothing notable. We may start tracking that list as well.
Archived Lists:
NIS Block List 2004-07-26
The following are blocked HTML Strings for ALL sites, except where overruled by exceptions:
#CLink %23CLink %2Fads%2E %3Fad%2E &ad_ &banner= -ad.cgi -ads/ .ad. .ads. .ads/ .bluestreak.com .eshop. .net-on.com .webconnect.com /199.78.52. /?ad. /ad- /ad. /ad/ /ad_control /ad_image /ad_track/ /adbot. /adclient. /adcontent. /adcouncil/ /adgifs/ /adgraph/ /adimages/ /adinfo/ /adjuggler/ /adlog. /adman. /adnet. /adnet/ /adpics/ /adpopup /adproof/ /adredirect/ /adrevolver/ /ads- /ads. /ads/ /adsales /adserv /adspace /adsrc /adv/ /advert/ /advertentie /advertise/ /advertiser/ /advertisers/ /advertising/ /adverts/ /adview. /banner. /banner/ /banner= /banner_images/ /banners/ /by.banclk? /clickover. /cyberfirst /follow_ad? /generate_ad. /graphics/advert /htmlad/ /jbanner/ /liveads/ /nph-bounce? /nph-load? /nph-redir? /promo_gif/ /promos/ /promote/ /promotions/ /rankem.cgi?action= /sponsor. /sponsor/ /sponsors/ /videobanners/ /viewad/ 1-2-free.com 199.172.144.25/2 ?acb=acb ?ad.cgi ?ad= ?Adcode= ?adlink ?adserv ?adv= ?advertID= _ad. _ads/ a32.g.a.yimg.com/7 ad.doubleclick.net/click ad.infoseek.com ad.linkexchange.com ad.preferences.com ad.tw.doubleclick.net/ad/ adbanner adbot.com adcenter.in2.com AdClick adcount.hollywood.com adlink.htm adlink.preferences.com adman.medius.net adoptimizer adredir.asp ads.adsmart.net ads.clickagents.com ads.imagine-inc.com ads.imdb.com ads.infospace.com ads.lycosasia.com.sg/RealMedia/ads/ ads.narrowline.com ads.realmedia.com ads.softbank.net ads.usatoday.com ads.washingtonpost.com ads.web.aol.com ads.web21.com adserver.adtech.de advertisements advertising.com alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid= allpolitics.com/ads/ ar.atwola.com badservant.guj.de banner_ad bannerad bannerexchange.com bannerpower.com bannerswap.com BF_Home_AD bfast.com/booklink cc-dt.com click1.wisewire.com click100.genesis.com click2.wisewire.com click2net.com clk_thru^ commonwealth.riddler.com count4all.com crosswalk.com/click.ng/transactionID= dirtycash.com ds.cybereps.com exchange-it.com/click.go? eyeblasterscript fastclick.net/w/click.here findcommerce.com/tracking flycast.com focalink.com GeoAD? globaltrack.com globaltrak.net hg1.hitbox.com home.keycity.com/addd2000/ok.shtml http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a images/mainad imgis.com impartnet.de/cgi-bin/ infoback.net infoseek.com/redirect java.yahoo.com/a/1-/flash java.yahoo.com/a/1-/java java.yahoo.com/a/a-/flash java.yahoo.com/a/a-/java linkexchange.com linksynergy.com mantel/ maxcash.cgi? mediahits.com/click.fcg mediaserv.247media.com mirror.qkimg.net movielink.com/media/imagelinks/MF.ad movielink.com/media/imagelinks/MF.sponsor netads.hotwired.com netbanner.com/cgi-bin/ nrsite.com pagecount.com pathfinder.com/r0/marketing pathfinder.com/sponsors pegasoweb.com pennyweb.com progcgi.ads/ qksrv.net rd.yahoo.com/M=2 rd.yahoo.com/M=3 rd.yahoo.com/M=4 rd.yahoo.com/M=5 rd.yahoo.com/M=6 rd.yahoo.com/M=0 rd.yahoo.com/M=1 rd.yahoo.com/M=7 rd.yahoo.com/M=8 rd.yahoo.com/M=9 register-it.netscape.com/ mbclick.com/ rn11.com safe-audit.com service.bfast.com showad.asp smartclicks.com spinbox. stats.hitbox.com submit-it.com/images telecom-pros.com/images test1234567890 textchange.com/cgi-bin/ tracker.clicktrade.com tracker.tragedoubler.com us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a valueclick.com vk4Voam2y vwWzJwWLv9m2Cr websponsors.com/cgi-bin/ webunion.com/cgi-localbin/click.cgi? weg352o643t322c463h321a ww3.cybercity.com/tw/adexe/ www.247media.com.tw www.admax.com.tw/ www.admax.com www.ads.warnerbros.com www.anonymozer.com/cm/door.cgi? www.asiad.net/ www.banner.com.tw/ www.bannerwomen.com www.clickadhere.com/ www.clickxchange.com/fr.phtml www.cyberone.com.tw www.epaper.com.tw/cgi-bin/adm/ad_red www.halee.com/advert/ www.link4link.com/cgi-bin/ www.marketspace www.modchip.com/clickcgi/click.cgi? www.netvigator.com.tw/popad/ www.nj.com/adverts www.nrsite.com www.search.com/Banners www.warehouse.com/netbuyer/ticker/ www.whispa.com/tracking/ www.wishing.com/webaudit/ yahoo.com/adv/ yahoo.com/CategoryId=0 yimg.com/images/compliance
Interestingly, following are some of the permitted exceptions by Norton Interent Security 2004, by default:
| Domain | HTML String |
| ads.siemens.com | ad.siemens |
| akamai.net | ipod/ads/images/ |
| apple.com | /ads/ |
| buy.com | ad_images |
| disney.go.com | /ad/ |
| feedroom.com | /ads |
| feedroom.com | /banners |
| freechal.com | /advertise/ |
| freechal.com | /banner/ |
| iwon.com | /ads. |
| monster.com | adcenter.in2.com |
| news.com.com | /ads/ |
| nytimes.com | /ads/ |
| pogo.com | /ad |
| thaigaming.com | ht1.hitbox.com |
| www.ebay.com | /ad/ |
This is only a sample, but the list is not long. We wonder what it is about these sites that allowed them to get on the exception list. Some of these are clearly advertising mechanisms. Do they simply have enough clout that Symantec didn’t dare block them? Did they threaten Symantec? Why would a site like ThaiGaming.com be allowed to track using hitbox when no other site is allowed this? Why are there execptions for ebay, nytimes, go.com? Something doesn’t smell right here and this is what we’re talking about when we feel that blocking rules imposed by Symantec are arbitrary , careless, and inconsistent. That coupled with inadequate notification when real content, not just ads, are getting blocked is simply negligent in our opinion.
August 29th, 2004 at 6:12 am
Default blocking of legitimate ads that support a site without a conscious user decision seems just as nefarious as the malware out there.
August 29th, 2004 at 10:55 am
Gee, Let’s block all ads and start paying for the content we see … get real!
August 30th, 2004 at 9:16 am
As “H” suggested — Imagine a web with no advertising and surfers would pay a “toll” to view a site. It would be costly to surf. How much would you be willing to pay to view the sites that you like today? Visiting Google without ads - I mean how much could it possibly cost Google to index the web anyway? I’m sure we all would chip in a buck or two each time we visited just to be ad free. And every web site we visited would also charge a fee to view.
Could you imagine how nice it would be if our daily newspaper went without advertising support? How many of us would be willing to pay four or five times the current cover price? We would all want the WSJ to be completely void of advertising and we don’t want to pay any more than a buck a copy. Would we receive better news since there would be no ad copy? Would we miss out on special events because we wouldn’t want any form of advertising to appear?
I think the majority of internet users would voluntarily accept advertising in order to continue enjoying the Internet.
Unfortunately, Norton has made the decision for us to make non-exempt websites ad free by default. It’s like looking at a newspaper with a blank white space where the ads used to be. But we like USA Today so they can have ads - and lots of them but they are on our special list whre WSJ is not.
Will it be a battle of the titans when Google, Yahoo and others start loosing serious advertsing dollars to Norton’s default settings?
I’m not against Norton providing settings that can block or overwrite ads - as long as the user chooses it and it’s not arbitrarily applied with favored advertisers receiving special treatment from Norton. It would be like a traffic cop that would arrest everyone not on a special list. Those on the list would be exempt from speeding tickets. I sure we would all trust Norton in any decistions they make regarding advertisers allowed on their special list. There would never be attempts to corrupt the overseerers at Norton … Ya right!
September 8th, 2004 at 9:15 am
I wonder how many of the sites on the exception list are places where Norton regularly advertises?
I notice some of the url strings are ones that might not be used for ads. For example, /banner/ could be where someone puts the entire heading graphic, and /ad/ could mean anno domini as opposed to BC. There’s plenty of scope for false positives.
October 8th, 2004 at 10:42 am
Any help on what other rules are used? The page I’m looking at http://www.laithwaites.co.uk/index.pasp had blocked images that don’t appear to be using any of the words on the list. Are there rules round image size and things?
Thanks
Charlie xxx
October 8th, 2004 at 8:54 pm
There are definitely rules around image size. width and height are attributes of an img tag that tells the browser what size the image is so it knows how much space to allocate before actually downloading the image. This was important when the world was connected over 14.4kbps and 18.8kbps modems but not so much any more.
These width and height attributes also tell software like Norton Internet Security what type of image it is. Common advertising graphic sizes like 468×60 are blocked.
This can be resolved by removing those width and height attributes from your image tags that are getting blocked.
October 24th, 2004 at 1:34 pm
I have no advertising on my site. Yet NIS is still blocking 120X90 jpg’s from displaying. Works fine with NIS disabled. Good grief lots of my client base have NIS enabled and probably don’t know what the site really looks like, heck they may even quit coming because it doesn’t appeal to them. How can one find out all the size images that NIS seems to be blocking and is it a particular set of sizes or is it proportional sizes.
October 25th, 2004 at 7:32 am
Loren,
This really shouldn’t be necessary as the graphics aren’t even ads, but one thing that you can try is to remove the width and height attributes from your images. That should prevent NIS from blocking them.
I’ve documented the common ad unit sizes in the link below, according to the IAB.
February 24th, 2005 at 9:46 am
I have just discovered that NIS blocks the title links from eBay’s new Want It Now pages. I have to turn NIS off to view the postings. Curiouser and curioser…..
May 17th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Symantec products are banned in my organisation. Purely because of NIS ad blocking. I tell all my clients to boycott Symantec products.
Most of them are totally unaware that their surfing is being censored by Norton.
June 26th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
<< As "H" suggested -- Imagine a web with no advertising and surfers would pay a "toll" to view a site. >>
Never going to happen. Who would regulate this? Where is money going? Individual webmasters? Laughable.
If you put up a website with the intent to make money, have a business plan. If your business plan is advertisements, and you are in the red, you are failing. Take it as a sign.
Gol
July 5th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Imagine the internet like 10 years ago!!!
There was almost no ads at that time, and the ads in the pages were not taking your attention. The only motion was some small gif. The pages were FULL of interesting and valuable content, and no ads.
This is what the net should be, like 10 years ago. Pure html pages, text-only email, irc, news, and not the great businnes that the net has become. The bussines hasn’t done nothing for the net. Just ads, fraud and trash.
my 2 cents.
July 5th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
I forget to say that firefox (www.mozilla.org) with AdBlock extension and FilterSet.G rules is a great option to enjoy the web.
another 2 cents.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:39 am
remove nytimes from blocked list
July 20th, 2005 at 12:48 am
When NIS is enabled, my four-year-old can’t play games at Cartoon Network. I want to thank Symantec for caring, and more importantly, acting on their concern. The world would be a much happier place if more people and corporations did as much to look after each other as Symantec does.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:49 am
When NIS is enabled, my four-year-old can’t play games at Cartoon Network. I want to thank Symantec for caring, and more importantly, acting on their concern. The world would be a much happier place if more people and corporations did as much to look after each other as Symantec does.
August 10th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
We use /promotions/ for - oddly enough - our own promotions at our corporate site. To have to dream up another name in our information architecture seems a bit nutty. It could ultimately become a game of cat and mouse. Ugh.
August 20th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Almost all of my sites have been Blocked by Norton- WHY? And how do I remove them from the Blocked list? I have been trying for 2 days and keep getting referred to useless sites!
HELP ME PLEASE!!!
September 2nd, 2005 at 7:12 am
This whole post is quite an eye-opener, and so are some ofteh comments, like:
adblock said “remove the width and height attributes from your images. That should prevent NIS from blocking them. ”
NIS actually wants us to write shoddy HTML in order to let our sites be viewed? I’m getting more and more annoyed with this sorry exscuse for software. But then again, my entire (not ad supported) domain is blocked because the URL conatins “ad-”. ****
September 2nd, 2005 at 7:17 am
Oh, and Guido Fratangelo - I hear you and feel for you but there is apparantly NOTHING You can do about it. Only change domain names. My site has been blocked for years.
June 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
thank God for Norton Internet Security….I love it! Now I can enjoy the net…ad free. I hate those sites that bombard us with advertisements/popups. I can care less if these companies go out of business…who needs them
July 13th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Quoting Gol:
>
Never going to happen. Who would regulate this? Where is money going? Individual webmasters? Laughable.
If you put up a website with the intent to make money, have a business plan. If your business plan is advertisements, and you are in the red, you are failing. Take it as a sign.
Gol
>>
err…I think what H was trying to say was that website owners would make their sites off-limits to unsubscribers. To view the site, one would have to pay a registration fee to the webmaster. H never suggested a regulating body would collect tolls.