Undertaker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 6:14 AM, dcs18 said: The actual reason why Simple DNSCrypt blocks blacklisted IDM domains before Windows Firewall Control (WFC) and even ahead of AdGuard, is the fact that it operates at a level deeper than either Windows Firewall Control (WFC) or AdGuard — Simple DNSCrypt is present right at the very entry-point of the Network Adapter. Expand Yep, by default SImpleDNSCrypt is monitoring the port responsible for dns requests(53) by monitoring process svchost.exe AdGuard by default doesn't monitor that process. So, a true comparison would involve filtering svchost through AdGuard and then seeing who blocks it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 7:11 AM, Undertaker said: On 2/24/2018 at 6:14 AM, dcs18 said: The actual reason why Simple DNSCrypt blocks blacklisted IDM domains before Windows Firewall Control (WFC) and even ahead of AdGuard, is the fact that it operates at a level deeper than either Windows Firewall Control (WFC) or AdGuard — Simple DNSCrypt is present right at the very entry-point of the Network Adapter. Expand Yep, by default SImpleDNSCrypt is monitoring the port responsible for dns requests(53) by monitoring process svchost.exe AdGuard by default doesn't monitor that process. So, a true comparison would involve filtering svchost through AdGuard and then seeing who blocks it first. Expand Although have had no time to audit either Simple DNSCrypt or svchost requests — have found the following ports (in toto) being monitored, so far:— 53 443 553 1053 2053 4434 5353 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Ain't that too many allowed? Why is DNSCryt even monitoring them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 It basically monitors port # 53 and upon failing to gain access for whatever be the reason, it pings the next port for availability . . . . . which in my personal opinion is not a bad idea since unless it gains access the internet connectivity is blocked, in any form (on the affected computer.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 8:13 AM, dcs18 said: It basically monitors port # 53 and upon failing to gain access for whatever be the reason, it pings the next port for availability . . . . . which in my personal opinion is not a bad idea since unless it gains access the internet connectivity is blocked, in any form (on the affected computer.) Expand That is strange because the parent program(the command line dnscrypt-proxy) is able to achieve this without any other port requirement(except ofc the default port 53). @vhick What is the IP range you want to block and for which program/app it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 Can someone confirm whether AdGuard is able to block itself from calling home using the following rule— 194.177.22.245^$network,important,app=AdguardSvc.exe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 3:51 PM, dcs18 said: Can someone confirm whether AdGuard is able to block itself from calling home using the following rule— Expand You can't filter AdGuard files/processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 Bloody scoundrels — wasted my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowledge-Spammer Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 3:51 PM, dcs18 said: Can someone confirm whether AdGuard is able to block itself from calling home using the following rule— 194.177.22.245^$network,important,app=AdguardSvc.exe Expand But can block with firewaĺl i think On 2/24/2018 at 5:24 PM, dcs18 said: Bloody scoundrels — wasted my time. Expand No wasted time u have Learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 6:14 AM, dcs18 said: The IP Address Tabs on the all-new Simple DNSCrypt are present but greyed out — looks as though they're being re-coded, as well. Expand The IP Address Tabs aren't available on the latest Simple DNSCrypt 0.5.2 either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 On 2/24/2018 at 7:52 AM, Undertaker said: Ain't that too many allowed? Why is DNSCryt even monitoring them? Expand Here's the reason:— Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 25, 2018 Author Share Posted February 25, 2018 DW Contacts & Phone & Dialer Pro is now 3.0.7.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowledge-Spammer Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 8.20 406 were is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recruit Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 On 2/25/2018 at 7:14 PM, knowledge said: 8.20 406 were is Expand Below : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowledge-Spammer Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 but on site it did say 8.20 406 is missing ? were is 406 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recruit Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 On 2/25/2018 at 7:40 PM, knowledge said: but on site it did say 8.20 406 is missing ? were is 406 ? Expand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knowledge-Spammer Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 Maybe i miss see things i was sure was 406 but maybe i no see right i was use tablet my mistake sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 On 9/25/2017 at 5:17 AM, Undertaker said: On 9/25/2017 at 4:58 AM, Undertaker said: In the meanwhile, have paired Acrylic DNS proxy with Dnscrypt-proxy for my system. Expand While earlier, SimpleDNScrypt was giving me ping times in excess of 80 ms; using DNScrypt-proxy(BikinHappy Singapore server) with Acrylic DNS proxy on my 1 Mbps connection(after FUP), the result are as follows:- Expand After playing around with Simple DNSCrypt, decide to combine it with Acrylic DNS Proxy — but, did not find any gains in ping times. The Developers seem to have made improvements in Simple DNSCrypt's own DNS caching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 7:51 AM, dcs18 said: The Developers seem to have made improvements in Simple DNSCrypt's own DNS caching. Expand Yep DNSCrypt v2's DNS caching mechanism is at par with Acrylic DNS Proxy. On 2/26/2018 at 7:51 AM, dcs18 said: After playing around with Simple DNSCrypt, decide to combine it with Acrylic DNS Proxy — but, did not find any gains in ping times. Expand How exactly did you set it up this combo? AFAIK, it's not possible to use the combo of Simple DNScrypt with Acrylic DNS Proxy. Here's how my DNSCrypt-proxy paired with Acrylic DNS Proxy performed:- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 I combined Acrylic DNS Proxy first with Simple DNSCrypt, on port # 53 and then on port # 40 — the combination worked on both the ports but on port # 40, I lost the full capabilities of Simple DNSCrypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 That is not how it works out. How do you know the combination was working? The mere running of services(of both the program) is not an indication. My guess is when you used the combo on port 53, only Simple DNSCrypt was working although Acrylic service maybe running in background and when you shifted to port 40(because Simple DNScrypt can't use local address:port), it failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recruit Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 @Undertaker = VIP Congrats. Bro ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Like a Boss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcs18 Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 1:03 PM, Undertaker said: How do you know the combination was working? Expand Due to my relatively higher internet speed my tests were not targeted toward Acrylic DNS Proxy as was my concern for traffic encryption with Simple DNSCrypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undertaker Posted February 27, 2018 Share Posted February 27, 2018 On 2/26/2018 at 7:40 PM, dcs18 said: my tests were not targeted toward Acrylic DNS Proxy Expand I don't quite understand the purpose of installing Acrylic then? Because neither were your test targeted towards it nor the combo setup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.