Hello Matthias, Are you running this on Core Update 200?
There were some changes required so that we will extract the datasets from the rules tarballs. I am using a special feature in Suricata so that the lists won’t be using too much memory and will be quickly searchable: https://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commitdiff;h=f0b43241a501f7c545e3cb15f6989e945c60b3e2 -Michael > On 25 Jan 2026, at 17:50, Matthias Fischer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 25.01.2026 15:40, Michael Tremer wrote: >> Hello Matthias, > > Hi Michael, > >> Nice catch! >> >> I fixed it here and added the missing “;”: > > Yep. The missing ";" seems to be fixed, but 'suricata' still doesn't > like our rules. I added 'violence' as an attachment... ;-) > >> >> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=dbl.git;a=commitdiff;h=775561e322ceed43e255e5547bd76047b9f8a40b >> >> If you go to the provider settings there is a button to force a ruleset >> update which should give you the fixed version. Please let me know if this >> works. > > I did that - rules were updated, but no luck: > > ***SNIP*** > ... > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Info> -- Including configuration file > /var/ipfire/suricata/suricata-used-rulesfiles.yaml. > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- failed to set up dataset 'violence'. > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- error parsing signature "drop dns > any any -> any any (msg:"IPFire DBL [Violence] Blocked DNS Query"; > dns.query; domain; dataset:isset,violence,type string,load > datasets/violence.txt; classtype:policy-violation; priority:2; > sid:1048577; rev:1; reference:url,https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/violence; > metadata:dbl violence.dbl.ipfire.org;)" from file > /var/lib/suricata/ipfire_dnsbl-violence.rules at line 39 > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- failed to set up dataset 'violence'. > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- error parsing signature "drop > http any any -> any any (msg:"IPFire DBL [Violence] Blocked HTTP > Request"; http.host; domain; dataset:isset,violence,type string,load > datasets/violence.txt; classtype:policy-violation; priority:2; > sid:1048578; rev:1; reference:url,https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/violence; > metadata:dbl violence.dbl.ipfire.org;)" from file > /var/lib/suricata/ipfire_dnsbl-violence.rules at line 40 > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- failed to set up dataset 'violence'. > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- error parsing signature "drop tls > any any -> any any (msg:"IPFire DBL [Violence] Blocked TLS Connection"; > tls.sni; domain; dataset:isset,violence,type string,load > datasets/violence.txt; classtype:policy-violation; priority:2; > sid:1048579; rev:1; reference:url,https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/violence; > metadata:dbl violence.dbl.ipfire.org;)" from file > /var/lib/suricata/ipfire_dnsbl-violence.rules at line 41 > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- failed to set up dataset 'violence'. > 18:37:37 suricata: [2577] <Error> -- error parsing signature "drop > quic any any -> any any (msg:"IPFire DBL [Violence] Blocked QUIC > Connection"; quic.sni; domain; dataset:isset,violence,type string,load > datasets/violence.txt; classtype:policy-violation; priority:2; > sid:1048580; rev:1; reference:url,https://www.ipfire.org/dbl/violence; > metadata:dbl violence.dbl.ipfire.org;)" from file > /var/lib/suricata/ipfire_dnsbl-violence.rules at line 42 > ... > ***SNAP*** > > For better reading - see attached screenshot. > > Best > Matthias > >> Best, >> -Michael >> >>> On 24 Jan 2026, at 23:41, Matthias Fischer <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > <suricata-log.jpg><ipfire_dnsbl-violence.rules>
