AdGuardForSafari VS cname-trackers

AdGuard for Safari is free and well respected. (And GPL3, if that floats your boat.) https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari

1Blocker is also well respected, but not free.

Perusing the source of AdGuard for Safari, it doesn't seem the lookup API is used at all. Apple deliberately made Safari content blocking only allowing preloading lists without dynamic lookup to a web service.

Actually, the behavior I described is an officially recognized bug (bug #805) in the newest version of Adguard, and Adguard is currently working to fix it. https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari/issues/805

I have been using AdGuard for Safari [1] for years and it works great.

[1] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari/issues/110 https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari/issues/165

AdGuard for Safari works great. It’s open-source.

Yes it does. You can check by looking at ElectronMainApp/src/main/updater.js.

Note that CNAMEs is literally caused by GDPR, and the pathway every single ad or tracking company seems to go sooner or later.

For people not understanding how it works: you can set a CNAME entry on your tracker.domain.tld to bypass all Browser's third-party tracking preventions, and make it look like it's a normal subdomain of your website.

You need to make a CNAME tracker database manually by resolving the reverse entries for known IPs. Usually there is hundreds or thousands of CNAME entries pointing to the same IP address.

The AdGuard team also made a database for this, in case anyone needs it for UBOL [1]

[1] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

So nextdns’s third party disguised trackers is actually really tiny of a list, like 30 domains. (Im trying to add more so it has the same amount of cname’s blocked as adguard). Anyways, the reason why the list is so tiny is because it uses wildcard logic so all subdomains get blocked. It already uses some of the cname companies that adguards cname-tracker list uses but not all. Hopefully my pull request can get merge eventually because then the setting will be a little bit more effective

I see fathom on Adguard CNAME tracker. Example:

> uBlock Origin already performs CNAME decloaking and blocks this approach, it’s pretty cool.

... which in return is a static list of domains which needs to be regularly updated, and therefore is not really failsafe. uBlock0 uses Adguard's scraped dataset [1] as a source to do this, as Chrome Extensions cannot make DNS requests without a DNS-via-HTTPS endpoint.

[1] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers

Not sure where I should report this, but I seem to have found a CNAME cloaking tracker which i don't find in either the original or disguised tracker lists here https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers Is there a mechanism for reporting these? I saw someone posted a list on github, but no response there. Maybe this example is just ordinary tracking though?

Are you able to block trackers/ads using this new CNAME cloaking technique? https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers