https://oisd.nl
-
@totowentsouth I split the check to determine whether it's an EasyList and the parsing. Now there's a first pass through the file for checking for the EasyList headers and entries before moving on to the actual parsing (which I also refined).
I checked and the offending entries are not ending up in the file anymore. Let me know if you can reproduce the fix.
-
@andrebrait I updated my patch to include 4da5a631ae8d82a109fa7880429eff63c4cfa46f and all is well when using the EasyPrivacy list. Thanks!
-
@totowentsouth I gave it some polishing, cleaned up the commit history and produced the pfblockerng-adblock-clean branch (now on 7c3a4eaef2c714c9d97466ec2430e7e867cfd414) .
Could you give it a last go so I have someone else test it? -
@andrebrait I updated a pfSense box to 7c3a4eaef2c714c9d97466ec2430e7e867cfd414.
I think the extraction of IP addresses in DNSBL is no longer extracting and storing those IPs...This particular pfSense install was using pfblockerng-next -- i.e. before pfblockerng-adblock. FWIW, I uninstalled pfblockerng and removed orphaned files. Then I installed pfblockerng-devel and applied a patch to install 7c3a4. I have yet to try pfblockerng-adblock.In particular, DNSBLIP_v4.txt is absent and original/DNSBL_v4.orig has only one entry 127.1.7.7.
Here is an example of a list that includes domains and IPv4:
https://malware-filter.gitlab.io/malware-filter/phishing-filter.txt
I will do more testing and verification in the next day or so.Edit & Update: https://malware-filter.gitlab.io/malware-filter/phishing-filter-agh.txt is their adblock style. After switching to this list, the IPs are extracted. All is well now.
-
This post is deleted! -
@andrebrait I began a solution for automated test coverage of pfBlockerNG's DNSBL and IP list consolidation. The setup is a little involved and undocumented. I'll flush some documentation for it over the next few days. It is on github at babilon/pfblockerng-tests. I'm now able to trivially run a suite of tests against changes to pfBlockerNG.
-
@andrebrait Functionally, everything appears well. I noticed these duplicate calls to shell functions:
diff --git a/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc b/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc index df3dc385c5f2..03e9990d64cd 100644 --- a/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc +++ b/net/pfSense-pkg-pfBlockerNG-devel/files/usr/local/pkg/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.inc @@ -9119,8 +9119,6 @@ function sync_package_pfblockerng($cron='') { // Consolidate all exclusions exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_assemble_exclusions_file unused unused unused {$elog}"); - exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_assemble_redundants_file unused unused unused {$elog}"); - // Process Whitelists foreach ($postprocess_dnsbl as $header_esc) { @@ -9139,8 +9137,6 @@ function sync_package_pfblockerng($cron='') { exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_remove_redundant {$header_esc} unused unused {$elog}"); } - exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_cleanup_exclusions_file unused unused unused {$elog}"); - exec("{$pfb['script']} dnsbl_py_cleanup_redundants_file unused unused unused {$elog}"); } -- -
@totowentsouth the function names are slightly different. One set assembles/removes the master exclusions file and the other assembles/removed the master "might make other entries redundant" file.
Because EasyLists can also contain exclusions, in order to minimize the processed lists as much as possible, I've added a post-processing step to process all files and remove block entries that would be nullified by exclusions, as well as a step to remove redundant entries (e.g. mail.google.com becomes redundant if a wildcard rule for google.com exists).
The old logic already did that a bit, but in a different manner.
Or am I missing what you're referring to?
-
@andrebrait
my bad on the duplication claim. I shoulda tried <shift># and I'd have seen the difference.
All is well. I retract my previous claims of issues. Sorry for any inconviences.
I've applied the latest to all my pfSense boxes BTW. -
Hi @andrebrait
just wanted to ask if there's any progress in implementaion of Adblock syntax in pfBlockerNG ? -
@emikaadeo yes. I went through some issues in my personal life that affected how much time I could put into it, but I should be able to start working on it again, gradually.
The implementation does exist and it does work, but it has not been merged yet
-
@andrebrait
Thank you for answer.
I hope you're OK -
What is the best OISD list to use as of right now on the latest non-deval build?
