On 23.01.2026 17:39, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello Matthias, Hi Michael,
> Thank you very much for testing IPFire DBL. No problem - I have news: After taking a closer look to the IPS system logs, unfortunately I found some parsing errors: 'suricata' complains about missing ";". ***SNIP*** ... 00:32:40 suricata: [13343] <Info> -- Including configuration file /var/ipfire/suricata/suricata-used-rulesfiles.yaml. 00:32:40 suricata: [13343] <Error> -- no terminating ";" found 00:32:40 suricata: [13343] <Error> -- error parsing signature "drop dns any any -> any any (msg:"IPFire DBL [Advertising] Blocked DNS Query"; dns.query; domain; dataset:isset,ads,type string,load datasets/ads.txt; classtype:policy-violation; priority:3; sid:983041; rev:1; reference:url,https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/ads; metadata:dbl ads.dbl.ipfire.org)" from file /var/lib/suricata/ipfire_dnsbl-ads.rules at line 72 00:32:40 suricata: [13343] <Error> -- no terminating ";" found ... ***SNAP*** I tried, but didn't find the right place for any missing ";". Can "anyone" confirm? Best Matthias >> On 23 Jan 2026, at 15:02, Matthias Fischer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On 22.01.2026 12:33, Michael Tremer wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >> >> Hi, >> >> short feedback from me: >> >> - I activated both the suricata (IPFire DBL - Domain Blocklist) - and >> the URLfilter lists from 'dbl.ipfire.org'. > > This is an interesting case. What I didn’t manage to test yet is what happens > when Suricata blocks the connection first. If URL Filter sees a domain that > is being blocked it will either send you an error page if you are using HTTP, > or simply close the connection if it is HTTPS. However, when Suricata comes > first in the chain (and it will), it might close the connection because URL > Filter has received the request. In the case of HTTPS this does not make any > difference because the connection will be closed, but in the HTTP case you > won’t see an error page any more and instead have the connection closed, too. > You are basically losing the explicit error notification which is a little > bit annoying. > > We could have the same when we are doing the same with Unbound and DNS > filtering. Potentially we would need to whitelist the local DNS resolver > then, but how is Suricata supposed to know that the same categories are > activated in both places? > >> - I even took the 'smart-tv' domains from the IFire DBL blacklist and >> copied/pasted them in my fritzbox filter lists. > > LOL Why not use IPFire to filter this as well? > >> Everything works as expected. Besides, the download of the IPFire >> DBL-list loads a lot faster than the list from 'Univ. Toulouse'... ;-) > > Yes, we don’t have much traffic on the server, yet. > >> Functionality is good - no false positives or seen problems. Good work - >> thanks! > > Nice. We need to distinguish a little between what is a technical issue and > what is a false-positive/missing domain on the list. However, testing both at > the same time is something we will all cope quite well with :) > > -Michael > >> Best >> Matthias >> >>> Over the past few weeks I have made significant progress on this all, and I >>> think we're getting close to something the community will be really happy >>> with. I'd love to get feedback from the team before we finalise things. >>> >>> So what has happened? >>> >>> First of all, the entire project has been renamed. DNSBL is not entirely >>> what this is. Although the lists can be thrown into DNS, they have much >>> more use outside of it that I thought we should simply go with DBL, short >>> for Domain Blocklist. After all, we are only importing domains. The new >>> home of the project therefore is https://www.ipfire.org/dbl >>> >>> I have added a couple more lists that I thought interesting and I have >>> added a couple more sources that I considered a good start. Hopefully, we >>> will soon gather some more feedback on how well this is all holding up. My >>> main focus has however been on the technology that will power this project. >>> >>> One of the bigger challenges was to create Suricata rules from the lists. >>> Initially I tried to create a ton of rules but since our lists are so >>> large, this quickly became too complicated. I have now settled on using a >>> feature that is only available in more recent versions of Suricata (I >>> believe 7 and later), but since we are already on Suricata 8 in IPFire this >>> won’t be a problem for us. All domains for each list are basically compiled >>> into one massively large dataset and one single rule is referring to that >>> dataset. This way, we won’t have the option to remove any false-positives, >>> but at least Suricata and the GUI won’t starve a really bad death when >>> loading millions of rules. >>> >>> Suricata will now be able to use our rules to block access to any listed >>> domains of each of the categories over DNS, HTTP, TLS or QUIC. Although I >>> don’t expect many users to use Suricata to block porn or other things, this >>> is a great backstop to enforce any policy like that. For example, if there >>> is a user on the network who is trying to circumvent the DNS server that >>> might filter out certain domains, even after getting an IP address resolved >>> through other means, they won’t be able to open a TLS/QUIC connection or >>> send a HTTP request to all blocked domains. Some people have said they were >>> interested in blocking DNS-over-HTTPS and this is a perfect way to do this >>> and actually be sure that any server that is being blocked on the list will >>> actually be completely inaccessible. >>> >>> Those Suricata rules are already available for testing in Core Update 200: >>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commitdiff;h=9eb8751487d23dd354a105c28bdbbb0398fe6e85 >>> >>> I have chosen various severities for the lists. If someone was to block >>> advertising using DBL, this is fine, but not a very severe alert. If >>> someone chooses to block malware and there is a system on the network >>> trying to access those domains, this is an alert worth being investigated >>> by an admin. Our new Suricata Reporter will show those violations in >>> different colours based on the severity which helps to identify the right >>> alerts to further investigate. >>> >>> Formerly I have asked you to test the lists using URL Filter. Those rules >>> are now available as well in Core Update 200: >>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commitdiff;h=db160694279a4b10378447f775dd536fdfcfb02a >>> >>> I talked about a method to remove any dead domains from any sources which >>> is a great way to keep our lists smaller. The pure size of them is a >>> problem in so many ways. That check was however a little bit too ambitious >>> and I had to make it a little bit less eager. Basically if we are in doubt, >>> we need to still list the domain because it might be resolvable by a user. >>> >>> >>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=dbl.git;a=commitdiff;h=bb5b6e33b731501d45dea293505f7d42a61d5ce7 >>> >>> So how else could we make the lists smaller without losing any actual data? >>> Since we sometimes list a whole TLD (e.g. .xxx or .porn), there is very >>> little point in listing any domains of this TLD. They will always be caught >>> anyways. So I built a check that marks all domains that don’t need to be >>> included on the exported lists because they will never be needed and was >>> able to shrink the size of the lists by a lot again. >>> >>> The website does not show this data, but the API returns the number of >>> “subsumed” domains (I didn’t have a better name): >>> >>> curl https://api.dbl.ipfire.org/lists | jq . >>> >>> The number shown would normally be added to the total number of domains and >>> usually cuts the size of the list by 50-200%. >>> >>> Those stats will now also be stored in a history table so that we will be >>> able to track growth of all lists. >>> >>> Furthermore, the application will now send email notifications for any >>> incoming reports. This way, we will be able to stay in close touch with the >>> reporters and keep them up to date on their submissions as well as inform >>> moderators that there is something to have a look at. >>> >>> The search has been refactored as well, so that we can show clearly whether >>> something is blocked or not at one glance: >>> https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/search?q=github.com. There is detailed >>> information available on all domains and what happened to them. In case of >>> GitHub.com, this seems to be blocked and unblocked by someone all of the >>> time and we can see a clear audit trail of that: >>> https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/lists/malware/domains/github.com >>> >>> On the DNS front, I have added some metadata to the zones so that people >>> can programmatically request some data, like when it has been last updated >>> (in a human-friendly timestamp and not only the serial), license, >>> description and so on: >>> >>> # dig +short ANY _info.ads.dbl.ipfire.org @primary.dbl.ipfire.org >>> "total-domains=42226" >>> "license=CC BY-SA 4.0" >>> "updated-at=2026-01-20T22:17:02.409933+00:00" >>> "description=Blocks domains used for ads, tracking, and ad delivery” >>> >>> Now, I would like to hear more feedback from you. I know we've all been >>> stretched thin lately, so I especially appreciate anyone who has time to >>> review and provide input. Ideas, just say if you like it or not. Where this >>> could go in the future? >>> >>> Looking ahead, I would like us to start thinking about the RPZ feature that >>> has been on the wishlist. IPFire DBL has been a bigger piece of work, and I >>> think it's worth having a conversation about sustainability. Resources for >>> this need to be allocated and paid for. Open source is about freedom, not >>> free beer — and to keep building features like this, we will need to >>> explore some funding options. I would be interested to hear any ideas you >>> might have that could work for IPFire. >>> >>> Please share your thoughts on the mailing list when you can — even a quick >>> 'looks good' or 'I have concerns about X' is valuable. Public discussion >>> helps everyone stay in the loop and contribute. >>> >>> I am aiming to move forward with this in a week's time, so if you have >>> input, now would be a good time to share it. >>> >>> Best, >>> -Michael >>> >>>> On 6 Jan 2026, at 10:20, Michael Tremer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Good Morning Adolf, >>>> >>>> I had a look at this problem yesterday and it seems that parsing the >>>> format is becoming a little bit difficult this way. Since this is only >>>> affecting very few domains, I have simply whitelisted them all manually >>>> and duckduckgo.com <http://duckduckgo.com/> and others should now be >>>> easily reachable again. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any more findings. >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> -Michael >>>> >>>>> On 5 Jan 2026, at 11:48, Michael Tremer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Adolf, >>>>> >>>>> This is a good find. >>>>> >>>>> But if duckduckgo.com <http://duckduckgo.com/> is blocked, we will have >>>>> to have a source somewhere that blocks that domain. Not only a sub-domain >>>>> of it. Otherwise we have a bug somewhere. >>>>> >>>>> This is most likely as the domain is listed here, but with some stuff >>>>> afterwards: >>>>> >>>>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mtxadmin/ublock/refs/heads/master/hosts/_malware_typo >>>>> >>>>> We strip everything after a # away because we consider it a comment. >>>>> However, that causes that there is only a line with the domain left which >>>>> will cause it being listed. >>>>> >>>>> The # sign is used as some special character but at the same time it is >>>>> being used for comments. >>>>> >>>>> I will fix this and then refresh the list. >>>>> >>>>> -Michael >>>>> >>>>>> On 5 Jan 2026, at 11:31, Adolf Belka <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/01/2026 12:11, Adolf Belka wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have found that the malware list includes duckduckgo.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> I have checked through the various sources used for the malware list. >>>>>> >>>>>> The ShadowWhisperer (Tracking) list has improving.duckduckgo.com in its >>>>>> list. I suspect that this one is the one causing the problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> The mtxadmin (_malware_typo) list has duckduckgo.com mentioned 3 times >>>>>> but not directly as a domain name - looks more like a reference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Adolf. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Adolf. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 02/01/2026 14:02, Adolf Belka wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 02/01/2026 12:09, Michael Tremer wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2025, at 14:05, Adolf Belka <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 29/12/2025 13:05, Michael Tremer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I hope everyone had a great Christmas and a couple of quiet days to >>>>>>>>>>> relax from all the stress that was the year 2025. >>>>>>>>>> Still relaxing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Very good, so let’s have a strong start into 2026 now! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Starting next week, yes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Having a couple of quieter days, I have been working on a new, >>>>>>>>>>> little (hopefully) side project that has probably been high up on >>>>>>>>>>> our radar since the Shalla list has shut down in 2020, or maybe >>>>>>>>>>> even earlier. The goal of the project is to provide good lists with >>>>>>>>>>> categories of domain names which are usually used to block access >>>>>>>>>>> to these domains. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I simply call this IPFire DNSBL which is short for IPFire DNS >>>>>>>>>>> Blocklists. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How did we get here? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As stated before, the URL filter feature in IPFire has the problem >>>>>>>>>>> that there are not many good blocklists available any more. There >>>>>>>>>>> used to be a couple more - most famously the Shalla list - but we >>>>>>>>>>> are now down to a single list from the University of Toulouse. It >>>>>>>>>>> is a great list, but it is not always the best fit for all users. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then there has been talk about whether we could implement more >>>>>>>>>>> blocking features into IPFire that don’t involve the proxy. Most >>>>>>>>>>> famously blocking over DNS. The problem here remains a the blocking >>>>>>>>>>> feature is only as good as the data that is fed into it. Some >>>>>>>>>>> people have been putting forward a number of lists that were >>>>>>>>>>> suitable for them, but they would not have replaced the blocking >>>>>>>>>>> functionality as we know it. Their aim is to provide “one list for >>>>>>>>>>> everything” but that is not what people usually want. It is >>>>>>>>>>> targeted at a classic home user and the only separation that is >>>>>>>>>>> being made is any adult/porn/NSFW content which usually is put into >>>>>>>>>>> a separate list. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It would have been technically possible to include these lists and >>>>>>>>>>> let the users decide, but that is not the aim of IPFire. We want to >>>>>>>>>>> do the job for the user so that their job is getting easier. >>>>>>>>>>> Including obscure lists that don’t have a clear outline of what >>>>>>>>>>> they actually want to block (“bad content” is not a category) and >>>>>>>>>>> passing the burden of figuring out whether they need the “Light”, >>>>>>>>>>> “Normal”, “Pro”, “Pro++”, “Ultimate” or even a “Venti” list with >>>>>>>>>>> cream on top is really not going to work. It is all confusing and >>>>>>>>>>> will lead to a bad user experience. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> An even bigger problem that is however completely impossible to >>>>>>>>>>> solve is bad licensing of these lists. A user has asked the >>>>>>>>>>> publisher of the HaGeZi list whether they could be included in >>>>>>>>>>> IPFire and under what terms. The response was that the list is >>>>>>>>>>> available under the terms of the GNU General Public License v3, but >>>>>>>>>>> that does not seem to be true. The list contains data from various >>>>>>>>>>> sources. Many of them are licensed under incompatible licenses (CC >>>>>>>>>>> BY-SA 4.0, MPL, Apache2, …) and unless there is a non-public >>>>>>>>>>> agreement that this data may be redistributed, there is a huge >>>>>>>>>>> legal issue here. We would expose our users to potential copyright >>>>>>>>>>> infringement which we cannot do under any circumstances. >>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore many lists are available under a non-commercial license >>>>>>>>>>> which excludes them from being used in any kind of business. Plenty >>>>>>>>>>> of IPFire systems are running in businesses, if not even the vast >>>>>>>>>>> majority. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In short, these lists are completely unusable for us. Apart from >>>>>>>>>>> HaGeZi, I consider OISD to have the same problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Enough about all the things that are bad. Let’s talk about the new, >>>>>>>>>>> good things: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Many blacklists on the internet are an amalgamation of other lists. >>>>>>>>>>> These lists vary in quality with some of them being not that good >>>>>>>>>>> and without a clear focus and others being excellent data. Since we >>>>>>>>>>> don’t have the man power to start from scratch, I felt that we can >>>>>>>>>>> copy the concept that HaGeZi and OISD have started and simply >>>>>>>>>>> create a new list that is based on other lists at the beginning to >>>>>>>>>>> have a good starting point. That way, we have much better control >>>>>>>>>>> over what is going on these lists and we can shape and mould them >>>>>>>>>>> as we need them. Most importantly, we don’t create a single lists, >>>>>>>>>>> but many lists that have a clear focus and allow users to choose >>>>>>>>>>> what they want to block and what not. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So the current experimental stage that I am in has these lists: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * Ads >>>>>>>>>>> * Dating >>>>>>>>>>> * DoH >>>>>>>>>>> * Gambling >>>>>>>>>>> * Malware >>>>>>>>>>> * Porn >>>>>>>>>>> * Social >>>>>>>>>>> * Violence >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The categories have been determined by what source lists we have >>>>>>>>>>> available with good data and are compatible with our chosen license >>>>>>>>>>> CC BY-SA 4.0. This is the same license that we are using for the >>>>>>>>>>> IPFire Location database, too. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The main use-cases for any kind of blocking are to comply with >>>>>>>>>>> legal requirements in networks with children (i.e. schools) to >>>>>>>>>>> remove any kind of pornographic content, sometimes block social >>>>>>>>>>> media as well. Gambling and violence are commonly blocked, too. >>>>>>>>>>> Even more common would be filtering advertising and any malicious >>>>>>>>>>> content. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The latter is especially difficult because so many source lists >>>>>>>>>>> throw phishing, spyware, malvertising, tracking and other things >>>>>>>>>>> into the same bucket. Here this is currently all in the malware >>>>>>>>>>> list which has therefore become quite large. I am not sure whether >>>>>>>>>>> this will stay like this in the future or if we will have to make >>>>>>>>>>> some adjustments, but that is exactly why this is now entering some >>>>>>>>>>> larger testing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What has been built so far? In order to put these lists together >>>>>>>>>>> properly, track any data about where it is coming from, I have >>>>>>>>>>> built a tool in Python available here: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=dnsbl.git;a=summary >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This tool will automatically update all lists once an hour if there >>>>>>>>>>> have been any changes and export them in various formats. The >>>>>>>>>>> exported lists are available for download here: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://dnsbl.ipfire.org/lists/ >>>>>>>>>> The download using dnsbl.ipfire.org/lists/squidguard.tar.gz as the >>>>>>>>>> custom url works fine. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However you need to remember not to put the https:// at the front of >>>>>>>>>> the url otherwise the WUI page completes without any error messages >>>>>>>>>> but leaves an error message in the system logs saying >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> URL filter blacklist - ERROR: Not a valid URL filter blacklist >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I found this out the hard way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh yes, I forgot that there is a field on the web UI. If that does >>>>>>>>> not accept https:// as a prefix, please file a bug and we will fix it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will confirm it and raise a bug. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The other thing I noticed is that if you already have the Toulouse >>>>>>>>>> University list downloaded and you then change to the ipfire custom >>>>>>>>>> url then all the existing Toulouse blocklists stay in the directory >>>>>>>>>> on IPFire and so you end up with a huge number of category tick >>>>>>>>>> boxes, most of which are the old Toulouse ones, which are still >>>>>>>>>> available to select and it is not clear which ones are from Toulouse >>>>>>>>>> and which ones from IPFire. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, I got the same thing, too. I think this is a bug, too, because >>>>>>>>> otherwise you would have a lot of unused categories lying around that >>>>>>>>> will never be updated. You cannot even tell which ones are from the >>>>>>>>> current list and which ones from the old list. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Long-term we could even consider to remove the Univ. Toulouse list >>>>>>>>> entirely and only have our own lists available which would make the >>>>>>>>> problem go away. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think if the blocklist URL source is changed or a custom url is >>>>>>>>>> provided the first step should be to remove the old ones already >>>>>>>>>> existing. >>>>>>>>>> That might be a problem because users can also create their own >>>>>>>>>> blocklists and I believe those go into the same directory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Good thought. We of course cannot delete the custom lists. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Without clearing out the old blocklists you end up with a huge >>>>>>>>>> number of checkboxes for lists but it is not clear what happens if >>>>>>>>>> there is a category that has the same name for the Toulouse list and >>>>>>>>>> the IPFire list such as gambling. I will have a look at that and see >>>>>>>>>> what happens. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not sure what the best approach to this is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe it is removing all old content. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Manually deleting all contents of the urlfilter/blacklists/ >>>>>>>>>> directory and then selecting the IPFire blocklist url for the custom >>>>>>>>>> url I end up with only the 8 categories from the IPFire list. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have tested some gambling sites from the IPFire list and the block >>>>>>>>>> worked on some. On others the site no longer exists so there is >>>>>>>>>> nothing to block or has been changed to an https site and in that >>>>>>>>>> case it went straight through. Also if I chose the http version of >>>>>>>>>> the link, it was automatically changed to https and went through >>>>>>>>>> without being blocked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The entire IPFire infrastructure always requires HTTPS. If you start >>>>>>>>> using HTTP, you will be automatically redirected. It is 2026 and we >>>>>>>>> don’t need to talk HTTP any more :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some of the domains in the gambling list (maybe quite a lot) seem to >>>>>>>> only have an http access. If I tried https it came back with the fact >>>>>>>> that it couldn't find it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am glad to hear that the list is actually blocking. It would have >>>>>>>>> been bad if it didn’t. Now we have the big task to check out the >>>>>>>>> “quality” - however that can be determined. I think this is what >>>>>>>>> needs some time… >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the meantime I have set up a small page on our website: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ipfire.org/dnsbl >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to run this as a first-class project inside IPFire like >>>>>>>>> we are doing with IPFire Location. That means that we need to tell >>>>>>>>> people about what we are doing. Hopefully this page is a little start. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Initially it has a couple of high-level bullet points about what we >>>>>>>>> are trying to achieve. I don’t think the text is very good, yet, but >>>>>>>>> it is the best I had in that moment. There is then also a list of the >>>>>>>>> lists that we currently offer. For each list, a detailed page will >>>>>>>>> tell you about the license, how many domains are listed, when the >>>>>>>>> last update has been, the sources and even there is a history page >>>>>>>>> that shows all the changes whenever they have happened. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally there is a section that explains “How To Use?” the list which >>>>>>>>> I would love to extend to include AdGuard Plus and things like that >>>>>>>>> as well as Pi-Hole and whatever else could use the list. In a later >>>>>>>>> step we should go ahead and talk to any projects to include our >>>>>>>>> list(s) into their dropdown so that people can enable them nice and >>>>>>>>> easy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Behind the web page there is an API service that is running on the >>>>>>>>> host that is running the DNSBL. The frontend web app that is running >>>>>>>>> www.ipfire.org <http://www.ipfire.org/> is connecting to that API >>>>>>>>> service to fetch the current lists, any details and so on. That way, >>>>>>>>> we can split the logic and avoid creating a huge monolith of a web >>>>>>>>> app. This also means that page could be down a little as I am still >>>>>>>>> working on the entire thing and will frequently restart it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The API documentation is available here and the API is publicly >>>>>>>>> available: https://api.dnsbl.ipfire.org/docs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The website/API allows to file reports for anything that does not >>>>>>>>> seem to be right on any of the lists. I would like to keep it as an >>>>>>>>> open process, however, long-term, this cannot cost us any time. In >>>>>>>>> the current stage, the reports are getting filed and that is about >>>>>>>>> it. I still need to build out some way for admins or moderators (I am >>>>>>>>> not sure what kind of roles I want to have here) to accept or reject >>>>>>>>> those reports. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In case of us receiving a domain from a source list, I would rather >>>>>>>>> like to submit a report to upstream for them to de-list. That way, we >>>>>>>>> don’t have any admin to do and we are contributing back to other >>>>>>>>> list. That would be a very good thing to do. We cannot however throw >>>>>>>>> tons of emails at some random upstream projects without co-ordinating >>>>>>>>> this first. By not reporting upstream, we will probably over time >>>>>>>>> create large whitelists and I am not sure if that is a good thing to >>>>>>>>> do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Finally, there is a search box that can be used to find out if a >>>>>>>>> domain is listed on any of the lists. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you download and open any of the files, you will see a large >>>>>>>>>>> header that includes copyright information and lists all sources >>>>>>>>>>> that have been used to create the individual lists. This way we >>>>>>>>>>> ensure maximum transparency, comply with the terms of the >>>>>>>>>>> individual licenses of the source lists and give credit to the >>>>>>>>>>> people who help us to put together the most perfect list for our >>>>>>>>>>> users. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like this to become a project that is not only being used >>>>>>>>>>> in IPFire. We can and will be compatible with other solutions like >>>>>>>>>>> AdGuard, PiHole so that people can use our lists if they would like >>>>>>>>>>> to even though they are not using IPFire. Hopefully, these users >>>>>>>>>>> will also feed back to us so that we can improve our lists over >>>>>>>>>>> time and make them one of the best options out there. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All lists are available as a simple text file that lists the >>>>>>>>>>> domains. Then there is a hosts file available as well as a DNS zone >>>>>>>>>>> file and an RPZ file. Each list is individually available to be >>>>>>>>>>> used in squidGuard and there is a larger tarball available with all >>>>>>>>>>> lists that can be used in IPFire’s URL Filter. I am planning to add >>>>>>>>>>> Suricata/Snort signatures whenever I have time to do so. Even >>>>>>>>>>> though it is not a good idea to filter pornographic content this >>>>>>>>>>> way, I suppose that catching malware and blocking DoH are good >>>>>>>>>>> use-cases for an IPS. Time will tell… >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> As a start, we will make these lists available in IPFire’s URL >>>>>>>>>>> Filter and collect some feedback about how we are doing. >>>>>>>>>>> Afterwards, we can see where else we can take this project. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you want to enable this on your system, simply add the URL to >>>>>>>>>>> your autoupdate.urls file like here: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=people/ms/ipfire-2.x.git;a=commitdiff;h=bf675bb937faa7617474b3cc84435af3b1f7f45f >>>>>>>>>> I also tested out adding the IPFire url to autoupdate.urls and that >>>>>>>>>> also worked fine for me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Very good. Should we include this already with Core Update 200? I >>>>>>>>> don’t think we would break anything, but we might already gain a >>>>>>>>> couple more people who are helping us to test this all? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that would be a good idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The next step would be to build and test our DNS infrastructure. In >>>>>>>>> the “How To Use?” Section on the pages of the individual lists, you >>>>>>>>> can already see some instructions on how to use the lists as an RPZ. >>>>>>>>> In comparison to other “providers”, I would prefer if people would be >>>>>>>>> using DNS to fetch the lists. This is simply to push out updates in a >>>>>>>>> cheap way for us and also do it very regularly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Initially, clients will pull the entire list using AXFR. There is no >>>>>>>>> way around this as they need to have the data in the first place. >>>>>>>>> After that, clients will only need the changes. As you can see in the >>>>>>>>> history, the lists don’t actually change that often. Sometimes only >>>>>>>>> once a day and therefore downloading the entire list again would be a >>>>>>>>> huge waste of data, both on the client side, but also for us hosting >>>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some other providers update their lists “every 10 minutes”, and there >>>>>>>>> won't be any changes whatsoever. We don’t do that. We will only >>>>>>>>> export the lists again when they have actually changed. The >>>>>>>>> timestamps on the files that we offer using HTTPS can be checked by >>>>>>>>> clients so that they won’t re-download the list again if it has not >>>>>>>>> been changed. But using HTTPS still means that we would have to >>>>>>>>> re-download the entire list and not only the changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Using DNS and IXFR will update the lists by only transferring a few >>>>>>>>> kilobytes and therefore we can have clients check once an hour if a >>>>>>>>> list has actually changed and only send out the raw changes. That >>>>>>>>> way, we will be able to serve millions of clients at very cheap cost >>>>>>>>> and they will always have a very up to date list. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As far as I can see any DNS software that supports RPZs supports >>>>>>>>> AXFR/IXFR with exception of Knot Resolver which expects the zone to >>>>>>>>> be downloaded externally. There is a ticket for AXFR/IXFR support >>>>>>>>> (https://gitlab.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/-/issues/195). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Initially, some of the lists have been *huge* which is why a simple >>>>>>>>> HTTP download is not feasible. The porn list was over 100 MiB. We >>>>>>>>> could have spent thousands on just traffic alone which I don’t have >>>>>>>>> for this kind of project. It would also be unnecessary money being >>>>>>>>> spent. There are simply better solutions out there. But then I built >>>>>>>>> something that basically tests the data that we are receiving from >>>>>>>>> upstream but simply checking if a listed domain still exists. The >>>>>>>>> result was very astonishing to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So whenever someone adds a domain to the list, we will (eventually, >>>>>>>>> but not immediately) check if we can resolve the domain’s SOA record. >>>>>>>>> If not, we mark the domain as non-active and will no longer include >>>>>>>>> them in the exported data. This brought down the porn list from just >>>>>>>>> under 5 million domains to just 421k. On the sources page >>>>>>>>> (https://www.ipfire.org/dnsbl/lists/porn/sources) I am listing the >>>>>>>>> percentage of dead domains from each of them and the UT1 list has 94% >>>>>>>>> dead domains. Wow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we cannot resolve the domain, neither can our users. So we would >>>>>>>>> otherwise fill the lists with tons of domains that simply could never >>>>>>>>> be reached. And if they cannot be reached, why would we block them? >>>>>>>>> We would waste bandwidth and a lot of memory on each single client. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The other sources have similarly high rations of dead domains. Most >>>>>>>>> of them are in the 50-80% range. Therefore I am happy that we are >>>>>>>>> doing some extra work here to give our users much better data for >>>>>>>>> their filtering. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Removing all dead entries sounds like an excellent step. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adolf. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, if you like, please go and check out the RPZ blocking with >>>>>>>>> Unbound. Instructions are on the page. I would be happy to hear how >>>>>>>>> this is turning out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any more questions, and I would be >>>>>>>>> glad to answer them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Happy New Year, >>>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Adolf. >>>>>>>>>>> This email is just a brain dump from me to this list. I would be >>>>>>>>>>> happy to answer any questions about implementation details, etc. if >>>>>>>>>>> people are interested. Right now, this email is long enough already… >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my laptop >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sent from my laptop >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
