News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mmm, Pi-hole by ryandrake on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @09:49AM (#18075875)
This should just be dnsmasq, for which source code is readily available and inspectable. You can (and should) compile it yourself if you don’t trust someone else’s binary.

You can also inspect the block lists to ensure they all go to 0.0.0.0 if you’re worried about mitm attacks.

Re:Mmm, Pi-hole by gruez on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @09:58AM (#18075959)
you could do the same with ublock
Re:Mmm, Pi-hole by ryandrake on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @10:11AM (#18076093)
Not on a network-wide basis, and not on non-browsers. I don’t think anyone here is saying don’t use a browser-based blocker too. I use both a browser plugin on the client and dnsmasq on my network.
Re:Mmm, Pi-hole by jack12 on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @12:27PM (#18077600)
I think the blog post is saying that, especially in the quote that started this thread. The post portrays ad-blocking browser extensions as not worth the risk, discussing both the questionable value of blocking all ads and also the possible risk of the extension being sold to a malware creator. It then presents Pi-hole as a safe alternative to browser-based blockers.
Re:Mmm, Pi-hole by gruez on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @12:39PM (#18077727)
when i said

>you could do the same with ublock

that was in response to

>This should just be dnsmasq, for which source code is readily available and inspectable. You can (and should) compile it yourself if you don’t trust someone else’s binary.