Diversion Diversion 4.3.3 - the Router Ad-Blocker, released April 02 2023

[Dux]

It is possible to map all ipv6 request to the same ipv4 address by specifying ::ffff:192.168.50.3 for ipv6 replies instead of [::]. This will allow ipv4 to also handle ipv6 blocking. pixelserv-tls and dnsmasq understand these modifications. When pixelserv-tls recieves it , it assumes it is from ipv4, dnsmasq does all the magic. (this will only work with pixelserv-tls, generic diversion-lite blocking would have to be ::, since the main is 0.0.0.0 )

I have IPv4 requests mapped to 192.168.50.3 using generic Diversion-Lite blocking, if I also want to apply it to IPv6 requests, what exactly should I specify in the for IPv6 box? Should I leave it blank or do I specify a code (I'm not clear on what you meant by [::])? Thank you.

 

[SomeWhereOverTheRainBow]

I have IPv4 requests mapped to 192.168.50.3 using generic Diversion-Lite blocking, if I also want to apply it to IPv6 requests, what exactly should I specify in the for IPv6 box? Should I leave it blank or do I specify a code (I'm not clear on what you meant by [::])? Thank you.

::ffff:c0a8:3203 is what you would use to replace ipv6, other wise blocked ipv6 requests get handled by [::], but my post is old and has nothing to do with diversion lite, it is meant for diversion standard.

 

[Skeptical.me]

Hi.

Does anyone have a Hosts file with Reddit addresses to block their ads?

 

[Treadler]

Maybe try this…….

frontpage : teddit

Teddit is a free and open source alternative Reddit front-end focused on privacy. Teddit doesn't require you to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

teddit.net

 

[Jack Yaz]

hi all! can anyone share some insight as to how type=65 blocking is achieved in Diversion? is it purely in dnsmasq, or are there firewall rules involved as well?

 

[Treadler]

hi all! can anyone share some insight as to how type=65 blocking is achieved in Diversion? is it purely in dnsmasq, or are there firewall rules involved as well?

Firewall rules I believe.

 

[Jack Yaz]

can you share the applicable rules? i'm trying to help someone track down why YazFi is bypassing it and not sure what I'm looking for without going through Diversion's code

Firewall rules I believe.

 

[Treadler]

can you share the applicable rules? i'm trying to help someone track down why YazFi is bypassing it and not sure what I'm looking for without going through Diversion's code

They’re here in the forum somewhere, I’ve done much searching but no joy.
I’ll keep hunting……

 

[Treadler]

can you share the applicable rules? i'm trying to help someone track down why YazFi is bypassing it and not sure what I'm looking for without going through Diversion's code

Discussion here….

Diversion - Diversion - the Router Ad-Blocker v4.2.x (see new thread for 4.3.x)

Anywayz, Does Diversion work on firmware as old as 380.70? Sure does, all functions work on it. One of my RT-AC66U test routers remains in perpetuity on that firmware. The other runs Johns fork.

www.snbforums.com

 

[Jack Yaz]

Discussion here….

Diversion - Diversion - the Router Ad-Blocker v4.2.x (see new thread for 4.3.x)

Anywayz, Does Diversion work on firmware as old as 380.70? Sure does, all functions work on it. One of my RT-AC66U test routers remains in perpetuity on that firmware. The other runs Johns fork.

www.snbforums.com

Thanks, that helps loads

 

[SomeWhereOverTheRainBow]

The biggest problem with using the type65 firewall rules is that it seems to break functionality of using certain web browsers on certain websites as well.

 

[Mogsy]

The biggest problem with using the type65 firewall rules is that it seems to break functionality of using certain web browsers on certain websites as well.

I remember asking you for help with this. On iOS devices checking dnscheck.tools it wont’t give the latency result and slow to check other DNSSEC extensions

 

[Treadler]

All Apple house here.
Type 65 blocking solved the mystery of ads from blocked domains appearing. All fixed now.

 

[chongnt]

The biggest problem with using the type65 firewall rules is that it seems to break functionality of using certain web browsers on certain websites as well.

Yes, unfortunately it breaks some site. For the time being, I don't feel much of the impact yet so I still have the rules applied.

I remember asking you for help with this. On iOS devices checking dnscheck.tools it wont’t give the latency result and slow to check other DNSSEC extensions

Same happened to www.dnssec-or-not.com
As see from packet capture, iOS device only send HTTPS query to this site. There is no response because HTTPS query is dropped by our rule. By the time it send a Type A query, it is to "bad.dnssec-or-not.com". So, this DNSSEC test site does not work when we block type 65 query.
In a way, the rule is working as expected by dropping type 65 HTTPS query.

In comparison, sample below is what normally happened. iOS device send HTTPS query followed by type A query. HTTPS query is dropped. Type A query is processed by adblock. In this sample, it is blocked and the response is 0.0.0.0.
If we do not apply type65 blocking here, this HTTPS query will get resolved and not blocked.

 

[chongnt]

All Apple house here.
Type 65 blocking solved the mystery of ads from blocked domains appearing. All fixed now.

Actually it does break some sites. For such sites, it appears idevice keep sending HTTPS query and does not revert to type A query. In my normal usage, I don't remember hitting this issue so I keep the rule. Once we are used to ads free browsing, it is an eyesore to see ads popping up in browser or apps.

 

[SomeWhereOverTheRainBow]

Actually it does break some sites. For such sites, it appears idevice keep sending HTTPS query and does not revert to type A query. In my normal usage, I don't remember hitting this issue so I keep the rule. Once we are used to ads free browsing, it is an eyesore to see ads popping up in browser or apps.

I like how pihole blocks these query- it returns an empty response whereas the firewall rule simply refuses to connect. Probably why some sites break.

 

[John Fitzgerald]

How do you fix this error? Showed up after Entware update on my AX58U #1, standalone.

i Updating ads counter...

/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /


A uninstall and reinstall of Diversion from backup didn't work, fresh install didn't work.
Uninstalled Skynet and reinstalled, appears OK.
Unbound, appears OK.

 

[SomeWhereOverTheRainBow]

How do you fix this error? Showed up after Entware update on my AX58U #1, standalone.

i Updating ads counter...

/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /
/opt/bin/grep: warning: stray \ before /


A uninstall and reinstall of Diversion from backup didn't work, fresh install didn't work.
Uninstalled Skynet and reinstalled, appears OK.
Unbound, appears OK.

Check this thread

Scribe - Scribe "Grep" Error Has Recently Appeared?

Is anyone else seeing a Scribe cli error after the most recent updates to Entware and/or upgrading to Merlin 388.1? Can't pin down when it changed exactly but now when I run an "s" command for "Show scribe status" it mostly appears to be OK but mixed in there I get a grep: warning: stray \...

www.snbforums.com

 

[John Fitzgerald]

Check this thread

Scribe - Scribe "Grep" Error Has Recently Appeared?

Is anyone else seeing a Scribe cli error after the most recent updates to Entware and/or upgrading to Merlin 388.1? Can't pin down when it changed exactly but now when I run an "s" command for "Show scribe status" it mostly appears to be OK but mixed in there I get a grep: warning: stray \...

www.snbforums.com

This only shows up briefly when you call up Diversion option #1, not anything else.

This is in spite of force updating AMTM, Diversion, Skynet and Unbound, after the Entware update.
Also this seems to have only happened on 1 of 4 routers. Maybe needs a second look on my part.

Thank you for the link.

 

[John Fitzgerald]

As an experiment I started over, FD the drive and install all scripts from scratch. Format JFFS.

Problem gone.
So my feeling is that the Entware update does not play well with Diversion and that the integration could not be accomplished. The other scripts appeared not to be affected. FWIW.