cname-trackers VS AdGuardHome

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

Also AdGuardhome will use optimistic caching, which is great.

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome/discussions/4002#...

The main repo is GPLv3: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome

They already have many other commercials products and I guess also the default filter rules are very good because of their experience in the domain.

But I think you can use it completely without the AdGuard servers and use other filter list sources.

How it compares to let's say AdGuard Home? Seems similar https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome

Adguardhome - Clients identification issue

You can check this documentation if you want to investigate further: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome/wiki/Hosts-Blocklists

I'm using adguardhome v0.107.42 openwrt snapshot on linksys wrt1900ac v2, but when using DoH it won't resolve upstream DNS, but DoT is works perfectly OK, I've already set allow_unencrypted_doh to true in config .yaml file as per instruction here

AdGuard Home?

https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome

Regarding open source, AdGuard DNS actually is:

How does this compare to adguard home [ https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardHome ] ??

Have you looked at AdGuard Home - Configuring clients?