cname-trackers VS masscan

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

Can I get banned for mass scanning with https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan or does it slow down any other vms from other persons?

Nope, this doesn't work any more. Shodan checks all ports (so any attackers using data from Shodan already know which ports you have open), and tools like masscan (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan) let you portscan the entire IPv4 address space in less than 10 minutes.

https://github.com/LogoiLab/mcsl https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan

Changing the default port does nothing for security. It only prevents some basic brute force or default password scripts. Anyone is able to scan for it in no time anyway (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan).

But it should blow away the far-too-common belief that no-one's after you because you're not interesting enough. IPv4 is smaller than we think. It is not difficult to scan the entire ipv4 space in minutes. And every single one of those is going to knock your door on the way past.

I'm not sure about the article, but the blazingly-fast IP scanner sounds a lot like Masscan. It can scan the entire Internet in 5 minutes and has received a lot of press: https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan . https://rushter.com/blog/how-masscan-works/ is one of many articles about it.

Here's an except from the masscan docs: