cname-trackers VS uBlock-Safari

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

You are mistaken. Safari removed the APIs necessary for an uBlock port (there used to be one), see https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158.

Injecting code via Web Extensions is too late for reliable blocking - by then, either the malicious JS you are trying to defuse has already ran (if it wasn't blocked declaratively), or if it hasn't, then the rest of the page's JS depending on it has already exploded and "fixing" it after the fact (by substituting a neutered shim via Web Extensions) doesn't fix the rest of the page.

It has been there but won't ever be again: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

Better to fork it and maintain as another project, like previous ublock's project on safari: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari

Brilliant move not supporting normal Webextensions though. https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

Looks like the answer is no, Safari is not supported.

> ..as of 2022, uBlock Origin’s extension is available for several of the most widely used browsers, including: Chrome, Chromium, Edge, Opera, Firefox and all Safari releases prior to 13.

https://ublockorigin.com/

Explanation of the state of uBlock Origin (and other blockers) for Safari - https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158

Apparently, the only WebKit-based browser that can run uBO is Orion browser (beta, Mac only).

https://browser.kagi.com/

You probably can't. Safari crippled adblockers a while back. Here's a longer explanation from the developers of the best blocking extension.