3 ms·

Unfortunately they went along with it initially but at least they came to their senses in the end: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586 h

by luke727 11mo ago

Unfortunately they went along with it initially but at least they came to their senses in the end: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586 https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586

encroach 11mo ago
Thanks for the context - it changes the light of the parent article.
vin047 11mo ago
This is why it’s better to use AdGuard only for its DNS blocking capability and not for DNS resolving - use a real resolver like unbound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbound_(DNS_server) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbound_(DNS_server)
- ameshkov 11mo ago
  I would advise against using unbound on the client side as this way all your DNS queries will be unencrypted and visible to your ISP. Besides that, the DNS responses can be modified, this kind of censorship is very popular and used in many countries. IMO it is safer to use a big popular DNS recursor (google, cloudflare, adguard, quad9, etc), use DoT/DoH/DoQ and maybe add some additional filtering on top of it.
tkel 11mo ago
Yeah, their CTO accepting and repeating the complaint at face value, in less than 10 words to justify the censorship, is not a good look https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586#issuecomment-3484083493 https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586#...
- ameshkov 11mo ago
  I tried not to share too much details while we were still in process of figuring out the details. The legal advice we got was basically “block asap or risk jail time”. Moreover, the risk would still be there even if the complainant is shady or hiding their identity. So it took us some time to do the digging and make sure that illegal content was removed which was the prerequisite to unblocking. The digging is not finished btw, we’ll later post a proper analysis of our reaction and the results of the research.
- alickz 11mo ago
  I think that is an unreasonable expectation given the advice they received from their lawyer Maybe it would have been virtuous to fight it tooth-and-nail from the start, but I don't think it was wrong to comply while investigating further

by luke727 11mo ago

encroach 11mo ago

Thanks for the context - it changes the light of the parent article.

vin047 11mo ago

This is why it’s better to use AdGuard only for its DNS blocking capability and not for DNS resolving - use a real resolver like unbound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbound_(DNS_server) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbound_(DNS_server)

ameshkov 11mo ago
I would advise against using unbound on the client side as this way all your DNS queries will be unencrypted and visible to your ISP. Besides that, the DNS responses can be modified, this kind of censorship is very popular and used in many countries. IMO it is safer to use a big popular DNS recursor (google, cloudflare, adguard, quad9, etc), use DoT/DoH/DoQ and maybe add some additional filtering on top of it.

tkel 11mo ago

Yeah, their CTO accepting and repeating the complaint at face value, in less than 10 words to justify the censorship, is not a good look https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586#issuecomment-3484083493 https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters/issues/216586#...

ameshkov 11mo ago
I tried not to share too much details while we were still in process of figuring out the details. The legal advice we got was basically “block asap or risk jail time”. Moreover, the risk would still be there even if the complainant is shady or hiding their identity. So it took us some time to do the digging and make sure that illegal content was removed which was the prerequisite to unblocking. The digging is not finished btw, we’ll later post a proper analysis of our reaction and the results of the research.
alickz 11mo ago
I think that is an unreasonable expectation given the advice they received from their lawyer Maybe it would have been virtuous to fight it tooth-and-nail from the start, but I don't think it was wrong to comply while investigating further