-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove AdGuard CNAME-Cloaked Trackers #21
Comments
The "AdGuard CNAME disguised trackers list" (it would probably be better to rename this list) contains more CNAME rules than "EP" and also than "AdGuard Tracking Protection filter." P.S. But I understand that in the absence of inserting exception rules it can become a big problem. |
Personally I don't care that much,but if asked I would consider removing the list unnecessary. |
Yes, as "ANY cname of some tracking vendor's domain list regardless if tracker or not". It has some additional click-through tracker which few user would ever come across while the rest does not enhance privacy, more of a false sense of privacy. |
It should be removed from the extension description on the Chrome store as well. |
The list is gone in 0.1.22.12266. |
I ask if it is possible to reconsider this choice considering the news listed by Shavaleleka. |
Any decision will be made by actual benefit to all user based on real-world usage than to some geeks' satisfaction. The major reason of
is exactly AdguardTeam/cname-trackers#51 , there's little difference in actual tracking protection in which some user would never get any benefit (the biggest factor other than browsing habit here is region). Besides, removing microsites/landing pages/clickthrough domains does not completely solve the afformentioned or known problems as some breakage don't fall into any of the catogory, though I admit they're the most common problems. Reminder: there is an upper-limit in the number of availabel lists in MV3. |
The CNAME combined_disguised_ads.txt filter list has only 23202 total rules: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/cname-trackers P.S. |
@SampeiNihira If you're not aware, disguised_ads is not included in EP, EL, or AGTPF. It's included only in AG Base. This does not mean uBO with standard settings is not protected against them - we have many generic and regex rules to catch them; however, none of these is perfect and even disguised_ads list occasionally fails as these cname adservers are rapid changer (can't find an example issue, GH search is tr**h). Perfect protection comes only by DNS (uBO on Firefox, AG apps with DNS filtering, or other DNS solution). But a question is who needs that - unlike cname tracker which is impossible not to encounter, cname adservers are almost exclusively used on pirate sites, dubious streaming & porn sites, and some link shortner. |
I understand your point of view Yuki. Conclusion. |
Well, I guessed misunderstanding so added explanation, that's all - if I ever feel annoying, I'm free to say so or ignore. Sorry if my comments sounded authoritative. The only thing I wanna correct is |
They're periodically imported to EP with problematic domain removed, so it's no need, and even worse does casue trouble. I could reproduce part of trouble in AdguardTeam/cname-trackers#8 (comment) if the list is enabled on uBOL. This is their stance about the list: AdguardTeam/cname-trackers#8 (comment).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: