Brave browser gets CNAME-based adblocking support

[silversurfer]

Source: Brave browser gets CNAME-based adblocking support - gHacks Tech News

by Martin Brinkmann on November 17, 2020 in Internet

Brave Browser, a Chromium-based web browser that shares its core with Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Opera and Vivaldi, will support CNAME-based adblocking in version 1.17 of the browser.

The feature landed in Brave Nightly already and will be integrated in the stable version of the browser in the coming release.

[...]

Brave Shields, the browser's content blocking solution, will support CNAME-based content blocking in version 1.17 of the browser. The component will "recursively check the canonical name records for any network request that isn't otherwise blocked using an embedded DNS resolver". The request will then be blocked if it has a CNAME record and if the request would be blocked under the canonical name.

CNAME-based content blocking is enabled by default in Brave 1.17, and it is the first major browser to introduce the functionality as a native solution that is enabled by default.

The company plans to release Brave 1.17 Stable on November 17, 2020 to the public.

Read below the full article:

Brave browser gets CNAME-based adblocking support - gHacks Tech News

Brave Browser, a Chromium-based web browser that shares its core with Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Opera and Vivaldi, will support CNAME-based adblocking in version 1.17 of the browser.

www.ghacks.net

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Is it needed?
From the comments on that article:

Yuki2718

3 points·1 month ago·edited 1 month ago

I'm one of contributors of that list, you see my name credited and even a pending issue of mine. A simple answer: no. I mentioned it in my repo, quoting:

About CNAME tracker: I really don't understand why it's so special to some people. Apparently they still believe subscribing a dedicated anti CNAME tracker list is mandatory to block them if a DNS-level blocker is not deployed on an other layer. The fact is EasyPrivacy alone, or the combination of AdGuard Tracking Protection and my list, blocks 99% of CNAME tracker while DEFINITELY many other analytics and trackers have slipped whatever your lists through, as long as you visit many sites. You prefer to double-lock a window and keep the door open? CNAME tracker is NOT at all harder to block and filter authors know much more serious circumvention. This reminds me that many people keep NoCoin despite EasyPrivacy + uBlock filters - Resource abuse covers 99% of them, and that others keep Adblock Warning Removal with a completely wrong assumption it has something to do with anti-adblock wall. Don't be fooled by misinformation on the Internet.

Just two rules in EP, /id?d_visid_ and /b/ss/*&aqe= (though the latter has some variants and allowlists), already cover 90+% of CNAME tracker, and EP has been adding trackers regardless of CNAME or not. Nevertheless it's not a terrible idea to add the list for theoretical 1%, because uBO can so efficiently handle whatever numbers of domain rules.