3 ms·
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://git
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 agoI 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 agoThat's like saying we should block port 443 since it's not "innocent" because tracking happens over it.
- jruohonen 3y agoNo 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".)