From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.haj.ipfire.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4dyNtQ1vZDz30Kj for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:39:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail01.ipfire.org (mail01.haj.ipfire.org [IPv6:2001:678:b28::25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519) (Client CN "mail01.haj.ipfire.org", Issuer "R12" (verified OK)) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4dyNtL3Z8Lz2xLt for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:39:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail01.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4dyNtJ6x9Wz2pd; Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:39:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1769186345; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=35kFNBBjW9MdMCHOijRWxZ50syZhJDq0ZpxoRblsPxM=; b=r3u8wh95QgGeRXyxqjh4VgLfYq5e7EPlpkoI8oj8Q5LTSNL9F5jNkrcUj/nnFEzhYKwlhn FsdUEYh4U4eUYlDA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1769186345; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=35kFNBBjW9MdMCHOijRWxZ50syZhJDq0ZpxoRblsPxM=; b=Ywh2Y260HTyiLeYUzmyp7cz4ZFz3+c3XhSTOlErp6AFmzpV4DvJBwGJSmkpyB4ZkvlPqCC DCnJLDPgPPC0Cp/ZyMRIHsbw2qDNm8IsJ0dTiMTWjzKGsYu/DAlm487RPu+nYy/CR3kG2n q1O24rAbx91fyLCky4Zsyr34cOwdfEW9nzme+JgXBfWvY9Af8ehnEAIkmUnzDYaDRBspSZ SHeerPJuT28C8zpQdHrdMGwhnFdw07Ytd8lLn3ElI8b/51AoMMpHTyQtJ2jtFOuKw7Lgqq ZlMi8+PvLLrpb/qEOaAQbqgal1IBMeDD+f7Lgg+IJ2MJx7+Uwddm/sPB29HvdQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: Sender: Mail-Followup-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Let's launch our own blocklists... From: Michael Tremer In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 16:39:04 +0000 Cc: development@lists.ipfire.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <64DB3B0B-5C6A-4A36-932E-043540B27511@ipfire.org> References: <7EF00B55-81C0-493F-A70F-B1DDD45363E2@ipfire.org> <9ac9c734-51fb-4152-bc0b-d2442d03d42a@ipfire.org> <5936cb35-c243-4b0f-843f-e6354226f9be@ipfire.org> <0bc86e25-903a-42a5-a338-72defd31c606@ipfire.org> <6AD00CB0-4937-4F7F-B67B-E88D870B4942@ipfire.org> <92BFE2B7-549F-41EC-ADC9-D2D7A29BEC82@ipfire.org> <0B3D624B-9AF8-474A-B6F2-58F78665CB12@ipfire.org> To: Matthias Fischer Hello Matthias, Thank you very much for testing IPFire DBL. > On 23 Jan 2026, at 15:02, Matthias Fischer = wrote: >=20 > On 22.01.2026 12:33, Michael Tremer wrote: >> Hello everyone, >=20 > Hi, >=20 > short feedback from me: >=20 > - 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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t 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 >=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> So what has happened? >>=20 >> 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 >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t = have the option to remove any false-positives, but at least Suricata and = the GUI won=E2=80=99t starve a really bad death when loading millions of = rules. >>=20 >> 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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99= 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. >>=20 >> Those Suricata rules are already available for testing in Core Update = 200: = https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3D9eb8751487d2= 3dd354a105c28bdbbb0398fe6e85 >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3Ddb160694279a= 4b10378447f775dd536fdfcfb02a >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> = https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Ddbl.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3Dbb5b6e33b731501d45d= ea293505f7d42a61d5ce7 >>=20 >> 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=E2=80=99t 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. >>=20 >> The website does not show this data, but the API returns the number = of =E2=80=9Csubsumed=E2=80=9D domains (I didn=E2=80=99t have a better = name): >>=20 >> curl https://api.dbl.ipfire.org/lists | jq . >>=20 >> The number shown would normally be added to the total number of = domains and usually cuts the size of the list by 50-200%. >>=20 >> Those stats will now also be stored in a history table so that we = will be able to track growth of all lists. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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=3Dgithub.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 >>=20 >> 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: >>=20 >> # dig +short ANY _info.ads.dbl.ipfire.org @primary.dbl.ipfire.org >> "total-domains=3D42226" >> "license=3DCC BY-SA 4.0" >> "updated-at=3D2026-01-20T22:17:02.409933+00:00" >> "description=3DBlocks domains used for ads, tracking, and ad = delivery=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> 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? >>=20 >> 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 =E2=80=94 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. >>=20 >> Please share your thoughts on the mailing list when you can =E2=80=94 = even a quick 'looks good' or 'I have concerns about X' is valuable. = Public discussion helps everyone stay in the loop and contribute. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Best, >> -Michael >>=20 >>> On 6 Jan 2026, at 10:20, Michael Tremer = wrote: >>>=20 >>> Good Morning Adolf, >>>=20 >>> 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 and others should now be = easily reachable again. >>>=20 >>> Please let me know if you have any more findings. >>>=20 >>> All the best, >>> -Michael >>>=20 >>>> On 5 Jan 2026, at 11:48, Michael Tremer = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Hello Adolf, >>>>=20 >>>> This is a good find. >>>>=20 >>>> But if 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. >>>>=20 >>>> This is most likely as the domain is listed here, but with some = stuff afterwards: >>>>=20 >>>> = https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mtxadmin/ublock/refs/heads/master/hosts/= _malware_typo >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> The # sign is used as some special character but at the same time = it is being used for comments. >>>>=20 >>>> I will fix this and then refresh the list. >>>>=20 >>>> -Michael >>>>=20 >>>>> On 5 Jan 2026, at 11:31, Adolf Belka = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 05/01/2026 12:11, Adolf Belka wrote: >>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I have found that the malware list includes duckduckgo.com >>>>>>=20 >>>>> I have checked through the various sources used for the malware = list. >>>>>=20 >>>>> The ShadowWhisperer (Tracking) list has improving.duckduckgo.com = in its list. I suspect that this one is the one causing the problem. >>>>>=20 >>>>> The mtxadmin (_malware_typo) list has duckduckgo.com mentioned 3 = times but not directly as a domain name - looks more like a reference. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Regards, >>>>>=20 >>>>> Adolf. >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Adolf. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 02/01/2026 14:02, Adolf Belka wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> On 02/01/2026 12:09, Michael Tremer wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> On 30 Dec 2025, at 14:05, Adolf Belka = wrote: >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Hi Michael, >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> On 29/12/2025 13:05, Michael Tremer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Very good, so let=E2=80=99s have a strong start into 2026 now! >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Starting next week, yes. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> I simply call this IPFire DNSBL which is short for IPFire DNS = Blocklists. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> How did we get here? >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Then there has been talk about whether we could implement = more blocking features into IPFire that don=E2=80=99t 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 =E2=80=9Cone list for everything=E2=80=9D = 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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=E2=80=99t have a clear outline of what = they actually want to block (=E2=80=9Cbad content=E2=80=9D is not a = category) and passing the burden of figuring out whether they need the = =E2=80=9CLight=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9CNormal=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9CPro=E2=80=9D, = =E2=80=9CPro++=E2=80=9D, =E2=80=9CUltimate=E2=80=9D or even a = =E2=80=9CVenti=E2=80=9D list with cream on top is really not going to = work. It is all confusing and will lead to a bad user experience. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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, =E2=80=A6) 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> In short, these lists are completely unusable for us. Apart = from HaGeZi, I consider OISD to have the same problem. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> Enough about all the things that are bad. Let=E2=80=99s talk = about the new, good things: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> So the current experimental stage that I am in has these = lists: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> * Ads >>>>>>>>>> * Dating >>>>>>>>>> * DoH >>>>>>>>>> * Gambling >>>>>>>>>> * Malware >>>>>>>>>> * Porn >>>>>>>>>> * Social >>>>>>>>>> * Violence >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Ddnsbl.git;a=3Dsummary >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> https://dnsbl.ipfire.org/lists/ >>>>>>>>> The download using dnsbl.ipfire.org/lists/squidguard.tar.gz as = the custom url works fine. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> URL filter blacklist - ERROR: Not a valid URL filter blacklist >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> I found this out the hard way. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I will confirm it and raise a bug. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Good thought. We of course cannot delete the custom lists. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> Not sure what the best approach to this is. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I believe it is removing all old content. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The entire IPFire infrastructure always requires HTTPS. If you = start using HTTP, you will be automatically redirected. It is 2026 and = we don=E2=80=99t need to talk HTTP any more :) >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> I am glad to hear that the list is actually blocking. It would = have been bad if it didn=E2=80=99t. Now we have the big task to check = out the =E2=80=9Cquality=E2=80=9D - however that can be determined. I = think this is what needs some time=E2=80=A6 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> In the meantime I have set up a small page on our website: >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> https://www.ipfire.org/dnsbl >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Initially it has a couple of high-level bullet points about = what we are trying to achieve. I don=E2=80=99t 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Finally there is a section that explains =E2=80=9CHow To = Use?=E2=80=9D 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The API documentation is available here and the API is publicly = available: https://api.dnsbl.ipfire.org/docs >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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=E2=80=99t 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Finally, there is a search box that can be used to find out if = a domain is listed on any of the lists. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> 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=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=A6 >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> As a start, we will make these lists available in IPFire=E2=80=99= s URL Filter and collect some feedback about how we are doing. = Afterwards, we can see where else we can take this project. >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> If you want to enable this on your system, simply add the URL = to your autoupdate.urls file like here: >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> = https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dpeople/ms/ipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3Dbf= 675bb937faa7617474b3cc84435af3b1f7f45f >>>>>>>>> I also tested out adding the IPFire url to autoupdate.urls and = that also worked fine for me. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Very good. Should we include this already with Core Update 200? = I don=E2=80=99t think we would break anything, but we might already gain = a couple more people who are helping us to test this all? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> I think that would be a good idea. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> The next step would be to build and test our DNS = infrastructure. In the =E2=80=9CHow To Use?=E2=80=9D 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 =E2=80=9Cproviders=E2= =80=9D, 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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=E2=80=99t 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Some other providers update their lists =E2=80=9Cevery 10 = minutes=E2=80=9D, and there won't be any changes whatsoever. We don=E2=80=99= 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=E2=80=99t 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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=E2=80=99t = 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> So whenever someone adds a domain to the list, we will = (eventually, but not immediately) check if we can resolve the domain=E2=80= =99s 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Removing all dead entries sounds like an excellent step. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Adolf. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Please let me know if there are any more questions, and I would = be glad to answer them. >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>> Happy New Year, >>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> 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=E2=80=A6= >>>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> All the best, >>>>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>> --=20 >>>>>>>>> Sent from my laptop >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> --=20 >>>>> Sent from my laptop >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20