Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#1

Post by nextdns » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 12:06 PM UTC

Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers
medium.com

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#2

Post by stefan_ » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

So block content, as always? That's not possible for NextDNS, which I guess is their concern, but then DNS blocking was always going to be a very very blunt instrument.

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#3

Post by matheusmoreira » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

uBlock Origin issues:

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/780

https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/296

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#4

Post by 9dl » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

Sooooo

I suppose we are going back to the roots

White lists in hosts file with ips and good sites

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#5

Post by 9dl » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

stefan_ wrote: post #2

So block content, as always? That's not possible for NextDNS, which I guess is their concern, but then DNS blocking was always going to be a very very blunt instrument.

>Security implications of CNAME Cloaking

>While this is considered bad practice for a website to set cookies as accessible to all subdomains (i.e., *.website.com), many do this.

>In that case, those cookies are automatically sent to the cloaked third-party tracker.

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#6

Post by wnevets » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

At some point why shouldn't the (US) government step in?

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#7

Post by jwilk » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #3

uBlock Origin issues: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/780 https://github.com/NanoAdblocker/NanoCore/issues/296

Discussed on HN 3 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#8

Post by iforgotpassword » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

stefan_ wrote: post #2

So block content, as always? That's not possible for NextDNS, which I guess is their concern, but then DNS blocking was always going to be a very very blunt instrument.

At home I'm using it in addition to ad blocking in the browser, for apps and other things that might slip through.

Currently it's just dnsmasq with a huge blacklist, and I guess it doesn't support checking the whole CNAME chain against that list, which would be really cool.

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#9

Post by stefan_ » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

9dl wrote: post #5

stefan_ wrote: post #2

So block content, as always? That's not possible for NextDNS, which I guess is their concern, but then DNS blocking was always going to be a very very blunt instrument.

>Security implications of CNAME Cloaking >While this is considered bad practice for a website to set cookies as accessible to all subdomains (i.e., *.website.com), many do this. >In that case, those cookies are automatically sent to the cloaked third-party tracker.

So website.com decided to sellout and now the cookies you send to website.com that betrayed your trust are also sent to it's chosen third-party tracker?

That is a distinction without difference. The security implication is storing any data with website.com!

Re: Cname cloaking, a disguise of third-party trackers

#10

Post by gingerlime » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

Adguard is also starting to tackle this[0].

Found on [1]

(not affiliated with any of those in any way, I'm just a user of Adguard home)

[0] https://adguard.com/en/blog/disguised-trackers.html [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/comments/e0bsto/defence...