111–120 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are people that much in love with Chrome?
I imagine it would be a chore for ChromeOS users to migrate to another OS and another browser, and ChromeOS has many attractive qualities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's when you connect to your VPN. I have a network configuration with 2 dnsmasqs, 1 with pi-hole-style hosts block, and 1 without, and most of my devices get the ad-blocking DNS, 1 gets the "unfiltered" DNS. To do this from the DHCP component of dnsmasq, you can tag MAC addresses and create different configurations (including which DNS they get) for each tag, e.g. https://github.com/imp/dnsmasq/blob/770bce967cfc99…
That's a simple and practical solution to a common problem. Thanks for sharing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not refuting what youre saying in any way; this is just a related suggestion for anyone using PiHole who occasionally runs into what you've described. There's an Android app called flutterhole which can connect to and activate your pihole's 'pause blocking' feature. I have found this to be the easiest way around the scenario the poster above has mentioned. Doesn't help with figuring out PiHole is responsible obvi…
Since you shared an android app, I’ll share the iOS app I use for the same purpose, called “Pi-Hole Remote” https://apps.apple.com/app/id1515445551
How does this compare to using a hosts file with known ad servers? like: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not refuting what youre saying in any way; this is just a related suggestion for anyone using PiHole who occasionally runs into what you've described. There's an Android app called flutterhole which can connect to and activate your pihole's 'pause blocking' feature. I have found this to be the easiest way around the scenario the poster above has mentioned. Doesn't help with figuring out PiHole is responsible obvi…
Since you shared an android app, I’ll share the iOS app I use for the same purpose, called “Pi-Hole Remote” https://apps.apple.com/app/id1515445551
I personally setup an instance of Homebridge on the device running Pi-Hole, then use HomeKit on my Apple products to turn Pi-Hole on/off as if it were a light bulb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine it would be a chore for ChromeOS users to migrate to another OS and another browser, and ChromeOS has many attractive qualities.
In what world can you modify the OS to add something like this but you cannot modify the OS to install a better browser? (Or a better OS!)
It is just not wise to allow some random application to MiTM your SSL traffic.
If you can read the code and asure that the traffic won’t be sent to a malicious third party, why not? What is the concern?
Being able to MITM any HTTPS request on my system is a privilege I'd not grant lightly. It's up there with browsers, browser extensions (with "all content on all sites" access), and password managers in terms of blast radius in case anything goes wrong.
It is just not wise to allow some random application to MiTM your SSL traffic.
No but it might be fun to play with in a Qubes environment or similar where you can inspect packets going in and out for anything weird happening.
Software like this has way too many opportunities to exfiltrate information for that approach to work.
Application doesn't provide a way to remove installed certificate. Don't use this app.
The way Charles does this is by generating a root certificate dynamically and makes it really easy to remove by giving you instructions for how to install and remove it just for Chrome for example: https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/ssl-prox... https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/using-charles/ssl...
I'm comfortable with a DNS based blocker (pi-hole) and it seems to work quite well. Bonus: It works across all devices on the network, rather than installing something onto the OS.
The amount of crap that still comes through when I turn off uBlock -- but am still using PiHole DNS, which is always active on my home network -- is a lot.
Honestly I don't think DNS-based adblocking is really viable, long-term. It's just too easy for advertisers and dirtbag website operators to get around it. There's just no substitute for controlling the retrieval of content elements and their presentation from the application where the user is doing the interaction.
This is why keeping browsers out of the hands of adtech corporations is pretty important; once they control that presentation layer it's largely game over. They can just tunnel all the traffic through a single connection to a relay server, if they want to, and there won't be shit a user can do about it once they've decided that's the only browser they can use.