They both "scored" 0/10. I did not include adguard, because it is not really designed to block malware and as for 9.9.9.9, it is hardly worth testing.Hello @TairikuOkami , thank you, could you test Quad9 DNS and Adguard DNS as well?
They both "scored" 0/10. I did not include adguard, because it is not really designed to block malware and as for 9.9.9.9, it is hardly worth testing.Hello @TairikuOkami , thank you, could you test Quad9 DNS and Adguard DNS as well?
Had the same problem with Edge Dev. TrafficLight not working reliable for me...Weird, i tested the links in Firefox with Trafficlight and none of them are blocked. But in Brave they are.
Edit: I have to open them two times to be detected in firefox![]()
Weird i don't observe this.I tried it just for the heck of it and had exactly this experience so I trashed it.
I see Trafficlight got an update to 3.0.8 and it kicks in like before, i just tried it and it responds first and than Edge dev smartscreen.Had the same problem with Edge Dev. TrafficLight not working reliable for me...
Thank you @TairikuOkami , I am surprised and disappointed that they both did so poorly, I wonder why Quad9 DNS is doing so badly with all of those partnerships that they have and why do you think they are not worth testing?They both "scored" 0/10. I did not include adguard, because it is not really designed to block malware and as for 9.9.9.9, it is hardly worth testing.
The problem with DNS blocking is, that it blocks domains, not just links, so if it is too good, too aggressive, it breaks legitimate webpages as well.I wonder why Quad9 DNS is doing so badly with all of those partnerships that they have
Thank you for answering that @TairikuOkami .The problem with DNS blocking is, that it blocks domains, not just links, so if it is too good, too aggressive, it breaks legitimate webpages as well.
Quad9 has a non-censored alternative (9.9.9.10), but also no DNSSEC, they do not propagate it much, because they focus on the main 9.9.9.9.
Adguard already blocks too much, because of ad blocking, it is not really a practical DNS for a normal browsing, you can not add exceptions.
Neustar in comparison has a variety to choose from, so if something gets blocked, customers can not blame it on them, it is clearly stated.
Neustar also blocks warez, that includes some streaming services, both legitimate and not, so common user would generally do not like it.
norton safe web has been weak for a yearAnyone using Norton safe web ? extension is available in Microsoft store for Edge dev chromium ... and any privacy concerns ?
Would that be a good replacement for BDTL , or should we not worry about BDTL privacy ? i see many other vendors do the same
thx
Thanks. Yes, TrafficlLight works as before with version 3.0.8I see Trafficlight got an update to 3.0.8 and it kicks in like before, i just tried it and it responds first and than Edge dev smartscreen.
Native Smartscreen, absolutely. If you browse dodgey sites, add Bitdefender Trafficlight.Windows Defender Browser Protection or Microsoft Defender SmartScreen ?
Edge (Chromium)
Windows Defender Browser Protection is an extension for Google Chrome, but its inside Edge chromium and smartscreen...Windows Defender Browser Protection or Microsoft Defender SmartScreen ?
Edge (Chromium)
I've added WDBP to Edge (Chromium).Windows Defender Browser Protection is an extension for Google Chrome, but its inside Edge chromium and smartscreen...
They are similar, but not the same. The extensions react first I believe, which explains your experience. There is no point in keeping WDBP. Add BDTL if you want additional protection, e.g. it may catch phishing sites that SS misses.So, is WDBP exactly the same as MDSS?
WDBP seems to react before MDSS.
Both all cloud?
Yes, MDSS blocks mal downloads.
Just wondering whether they use same database?
I'm not wanting additional protection.They are similar, but not the same.
Hi @oldschool,They are similar, but not the same. The extensions react first I believe, which explains your experience. There is no point in keeping WDBP. Add BDTL if you want additional protection, e.g. it may catch phishing sites that SS misses.
Absolutely. I believe it's available for Firefox and certainly is for Chromium browsers.So for users of alternative OS (E.g. Linux, ChromeOS) do you believe WDBP is still relevant?
Thank you for your feedback, I've retain the said extensions.Absolutely. I believe it's available for Firefox and certainly is for Chromium browsers.
We use cookies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audience is coming from.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.