cname-trackers
webextensions
Our great sponsors
cname-trackers | webextensions | |
---|---|---|
25 | 36 | |
370 | 561 | |
1.4% | 2.1% | |
8.0 | 8.3 | |
8 days ago | 3 days ago | |
JavaScript | Bikeshed | |
MIT License | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
cname-trackers
-
uBlock Origin Lite now available on Firefox
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
-
Disguised trackers are blocked regardless of toggle (which is a good thing)
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
-
How to block fathom tracking
I see fathom on Adguard CNAME tracker. Example:
- Privacy doesn't exist
- Does the Adguard Tracking Protection List protect Chrome and Safari from CNAME trackers?
- fastmailusercontent.com added to AdGuard Tracking Protection filters
-
YouTube ads in Safari: you see them now, will you see them in the future?
> 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
-
Marvel.com CNAME Tracker not in list
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?
-
Magic Lasso Adblock - free ad blocker updated with support for Apple Silicon and Big Sur
Are you able to block trackers/ads using this new CNAME cloaking technique? https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers
webextensions
-
Chrome's next weapon in the War on Ad Blockers: Slower extension updates
I've edited my comment to also include a link to the Chrome docs, but that FAQ entry also has the link to an issue in the webextensions repository indicating it's a limitation of MV3: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/112
-
There are no strings on me
Google outlawing dynamic code in Web Extensions/mv3 is a travesty of high order. There's no place I want to be able to be more alive than my agents. Yet my agents must all be dead. For shame, ye villains.
https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/139
This post definitely was quite a technical explanation. The opening framing, to me, means the world.
-
Chrome Users Beware: Manifest V3 Is Deceitful and Threatening – EFF
The other big change of mv3 that gets no coverage but which is dear to me is that mv3 outlaws any kind of dynamic code. The whole app has to be statically defined. This makes it much easier to know what's running, since an extension can no longer go pull in extra code, but it greatly reduces what you can do as an extension too. Extensions have to have all behaviors predefined. I can't dial home & load my behaviors. Here's the issue, https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/139
For a while it meant that userscripts didn't have any way to run. So Google introduced a new API for user scripting. But those extensions only run in "developer" mode. I'm guessing that means when devtools are open?
I agree a lot with your premise. It sure seems like Google is targeting everyone with these changes, but that better real affordances & escape hatches need to be builtin to not maim the lives of power users. It took a long long time to come up with a userscript solution, and it seems like an awful doesnt-work-for-me workaround (I use userscripts not to dev but to modify everyday experiences). Chrome just hasn't been taking their obligation to user agency seriously.
-
Firefox users may import Chrome extensions now
> the extension APIs are standardised enough that this is actually possible a lot of the time
A bit off topic, but as a co-chair of the WebExtensions Community Group[1] (WECG) I'm a bit touchy about the calling WebExtensions "standardized." A few years back the Browser Extensions Community Group[2] created a spec for WebExtensions, but it never reached a state that we'd normally refer to as a web standard. (Technically W3C community groups can only produce "Reports" and these documents are not on the standards track.[3])
FWIW, I'm very bullish about specifying and (hopefully) standardizing the WebExtensions platform. I'm especially excited about having a good chunk of dedicated time to sit with browser folks at TPAC 2023[4] and try to work out some open questions about where we're going and how we're going to get there.
[1]: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/
-
uBlock Origin Lite now available on Firefox
While I was trying to find out what Firefox's limits are I came across this interesting issue on the W3C's webextensions repo: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/319
4 days ago the Chromium developers proposed upping the limit for certain types of declarativeNetRequest rules based on data AdGuard provided on real world rule lists.
-
Google's trying to DRM the internet, and we have to make sure they fail
Manifest v3 is used for Chrome's extensions system. The proposal appears to limit what extensions have access to, and what they can do in Chrome. It is proposed as a W3C standard by Google. It is being tracked at the W3C at https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/44.
-
Manifest V2 Chrome Extension Phaseout Delayed Until 2024
Google is not even close to finishing MV3: "On the userScripts API, the proposal has been merged into the WECG but the engineering work has not started yet." https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/blob/f8f430f1904c2a6fa8...
MV2 is sticking around until at least 2024.
-
Here’s what’s going on in the world of extensions
Some, but not all, limitations are highlighted in this thread: https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72
- Firefox 109.0 released
-
For your next side project, make a browser extension
Somewhat tangentially, I've been pushing for a popup/overlay API that allows to specify the position and size, and doesn't require any origin permissions.
https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/307
What are some alternatives?
cname-cloaking-blocklist - A list of domains used by tracking companies as CNAME destination when disguising third-party trackers as first-party trackers.
AdNauseam - AdNauseam: Fight back against advertising surveillance
stealth - :rocket: Stealth - Secure, Peer-to-Peer, Private and Automateable Web Browser/Scraper/Proxy
graphql-jit - GraphQL execution using a JIT compiler
wirehole - WireHole is a combination of WireGuard, Pi-hole, and Unbound in a docker-compose project with the intent of enabling users to quickly and easily create a personally managed full or split-tunnel WireGuard VPN with ad blocking capabilities thanks to Pi-hole, and DNS caching, additional privacy options, and upstream providers via Unbound.
h264ify - A Chrome extension that makes YouTube stream H.264 videos instead of VP8/VP9 videos
WebKit - Home of the WebKit project, the browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store and many other applications on macOS, iOS and Linux.
nyxt - Nyxt - the hacker's browser.
pihole-regex - Custom regex filter list for use with Pi-hole.
SingleFile-MV3 - SingleFile version compatible with Manifest V3. The future, right now!
AdguardFilters - AdGuard Content Blocking Filters
obelisk - Go package and CLI tool for saving web page as single HTML file