mkcert VS easylist

The experimental HTTPS flag relies on mkcert, designed for a single development system. If you run a Docker container, the flag won’t configure your local browser to trust its certificate.

The author mentions difficulties with HTTPS and trying stuff locally.

I've had some success with mkcert [1] to easily create certificates trusted by browsers, I can suggest to look into this. You are your own root CA, I think it can work without an internet connection.

[1] https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert/

Solution: mkcert – Your Zero-Configuration HTTPS Enabler Meet mkcert, a user-friendly, zero-configuration tool designed for creating locally-trusted development certificates. Find it on its GitHub page and follow the instructions tailored for your operating system. For Mac users employing Homebrew, simply execute the following commands in your terminal:

Well, Certifi does not ship with your company's certificates! So requesting internal services may come with additional painful extra steps! Also for a local development environment that uses mkcert for example!

My project, getlocalcert.net[1] may be the one you're thinking of.

Since I'm also building in this space, I'll give my perspective. Local certificate generation is complicated. If you spend the time, you can figure it out, but it's begging for a simpler solution. You can use tools like mkcert[2] for anything that's local to your machine. However, if you're already using ACME in production, maybe you'd prefer to use ACME locally? I think that's what Anchor offers, a unified approach.

There's a couple references in the Anchor blog about solving the distribution problem by building better tooling[3]. I'm eager to learn more, that's a tough nut to crack. My theory for getlocalcert is that the distribution problem is too difficult (for me) to solve, so I layer the tool on top of Let's Encrypt certificates instead. The end result for both tools is a trusted TLS certificate issued via ACME automation.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36674224

2. https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert

3. https://blog.anchor.dev/the-acme-gap-introducing-anchor-part...

Looks like step-ca/step-cli [1] and mkcert [2] have been mentioned. Another related tool is XCA [3] - a gui tool to manage CAs and server/client TLS certificates. It takes off some of the tedium in using openssl cli directly. It also stores the certs and keys in an encrypted database. It doesn't solve the problem of getting the root CA certificate into the system store or of hosting the revocation list. I use XCA to create and store the root CA. Intermediate CAs signed with it are passed to other issuers like vault and step-issuer.

[1] https://smallstep.com/docs/step-ca/

[2] https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert

[3] https://hohnstaedt.de/xca/

We use mkcert for this, it works wonderfully.

https://github.com/FiloSottile/mkcert

import { ScreenshotOptions } from "./schema"; import puppeteer, { Page } from "puppeteer"; import { PuppeteerBlocker } from "@cliqz/adblocker-puppeteer"; import fetch from "cross-fetch"; let blocker: PuppeteerBlocker | null = null; async function blockCookieBanners(page: Page) { if (!blocker) { blocker = await PuppeteerBlocker.fromLists(fetch, [ // the list of the cookie banners to block from the https://easylist.to/ website "https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/fanboy-cookiemonster.txt", ]); } await blocker.enableBlockingInPage(page); } export async function render( options: ScreenshotOptions ): Promise<{ url: string }> { const browser = await puppeteer.launch(); const page = await browser.newPage(); if (options.block_cookie_canners) { await blockCookieBanners(page); } await page.setViewport({ width: options.viewport_width, height: options.viewport_height, deviceScaleFactor: options.device_scale_factor, }); await page.goto(options.url); const encodedScreenshot = await page.screenshot({ type: "jpeg", encoding: "base64", fullPage: options.full_page, }); await browser.close(); return { url: `data:image/jpeg;base64,${encodedScreenshot}` }; }

uBlock Origin has a few lists for cookie banners that I always keep on [0][1]

[0] https://github.com/easylist/easylist/tree/master/easylist_co...

[1] https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/tree/master/An...

I think this is now fixed (or worked around) by https://github.com/easylist/easylist/issues/17937 ?

You mean the VG Wort METIS tracking in order to participate in the German royalty scheme? From a publisher perspective that tracking is necessary, but from a user perspective it's just another example of third party tracking. Thus, it is part of some filterlists that uBlock Origin users can subscribe to, for example the EasyPrivacy list. Talking to the filterlist authors is very unlikely to resolve this: after all, it is tracking, regardless of intention.

Fixed in EasyList: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/859abc79711aa69441e809a394677f6392b8c59a

If I have noticed a new ad, to which list should I report a filter issue? Should I report the new advertisement to the issue tracker at uBlockOrigin/uAssets, or should it be reported to EasyList instead?