4 ms·

Steven Black DNS blocklist blocked gstatic.com

5 points by LeoPanthera 3y ago

LeoPanthera 3y ago
While it is now unblocked, the Steven Black list has been blocking a lot of innocent CDNs. jQuery: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2520 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2520 (twice): https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2516 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2516 cookielaw: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2519 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2519 jsdelivr.net: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2518 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2518 gstatic (again): https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2329 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2329 And other innocent sites: freecodecamp: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2517 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2517 Parts of the Internet Archive: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2476 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2476
- jruohonen 3y ago
  I agree that these may break a lot of functionality, but I am pretty sure that these are not "innocent" in the sense that they wouldn't do tracking.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    That's like saying we should block port 443 since it's not "innocent" because tracking happens over it.
    - jruohonen 3y ago
      No it is not: distributing small-scale JavaScript loads to third-party CDNs cannot be compared to blocking a port. The thing is, you could easily enough host those locally. There are also GDPR violations here, and there are plenty of security threats involved too. (Note also that it was the parent poster who used the term "innocent".)
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Ive always "blocked" gstatic.com. Also ssl.gstatic.com. It has no practical use and does not "break" anything for me. The software I use has no need to access it.
- nataliste 3y ago
  A question: I read a comment of yours from last year concerning your bespoke browser. Do you transform websites that have a large amount of irrelevant formatting like sidebars?
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    Would need to see the comment. If I'm using a browser, I use a few different versions of links v1 or 2 with some relatively minor customisations. As opposed to "surfing", I prefer to make HTTP requests outside the browser and use custom filters to manipulate retrieved text. Generally I'm only looking at HTML in links, offline, using the browser as an HTML reader. It's text-only, no graphics. If provide a sample webpage maybe I can demonstrate.

5 points by LeoPanthera 3y ago

While it is now unblocked, the Steven Black list has been blocking a lot of innocent CDNs. jQuery: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2520 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2520 (twice): https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2516 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2516 cookielaw: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2519 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2519 jsdelivr.net: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2518 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2518 gstatic (again): https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2329 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2329 And other innocent sites: freecodecamp: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2517 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2517 Parts of the Internet Archive: https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2476 https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts/issues/2476

jruohonen 3y ago
I agree that these may break a lot of functionality, but I am pretty sure that these are not "innocent" in the sense that they wouldn't do tracking.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  That's like saying we should block port 443 since it's not "innocent" because tracking happens over it.
  - jruohonen 3y ago
    No it is not: distributing small-scale JavaScript loads to third-party CDNs cannot be compared to blocking a port. The thing is, you could easily enough host those locally. There are also GDPR violations here, and there are plenty of security threats involved too. (Note also that it was the parent poster who used the term "innocent".)

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

Ive always "blocked" gstatic.com. Also ssl.gstatic.com. It has no practical use and does not "break" anything for me. The software I use has no need to access it.

nataliste 3y ago
A question: I read a comment of yours from last year concerning your bespoke browser. Do you transform websites that have a large amount of irrelevant formatting like sidebars?
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Would need to see the comment. If I'm using a browser, I use a few different versions of links v1 or 2 with some relatively minor customisations. As opposed to "surfing", I prefer to make HTTP requests outside the browser and use custom filters to manipulate retrieved text. Generally I'm only looking at HTML in links, offline, using the browser as an HTML reader. It's text-only, no graphics. If provide a sample webpage maybe I can demonstrate.