Privacy

31991 readers

497 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

[Matrix/Element]Dead
Discord

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Quad9 censoring DNS requests? (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I noticed that Quad 9 is not able to respond to the spy.pet query:

$ dig spy.pet @9.9.9.9 +short
;; communications error to 9.9.9.9#53: timed out

But Cloudflare DNS is able to do it:

$ dig spy.pet @1.1.1.1 +short
104.26.0.165
104.26.1.165
172.67.74.73

And to be sure, I checked another domain with the same TLD to rule out the option that Quad9 is unable to handle the .pet TLD, but I received a correct answer...

$ dig hello.pet @9.9.9.9 +short
3.64.163.50

Does Quad9 censor DNS queries?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (30 children)

Because:

Quad9 blocks lookups of malicious host names from an up-to-the-minute list of threats. (...) If the system detects that the site you want to reach is known to be infected, you’ll automatically be blocked from entry – keeping your data and computer safe.

If you query their "unsecure" servers, it works:

dig spy.pet "@9.9.9.10" +short
104.26.1.165
172.67.74.73
104.26.0.165

I would never use a provider that has the means in place / likes to filter the DNS - you never know when a govt will ask them to kill a certain domain (even for the "unsecure" servers) or redirect things.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Don't all providers have the ability to filter things?

Personally I have very few problems with DNS providers filtering out malware, that sounds like a benefit to me.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Don’t all providers have the ability to filter things?

It depends on what you can consider "the ability". If by ability you mean have to deploy a team of engineers working for a week to make it happens, that's okay, if they've their system built for it things are different.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The ability to selectively respond to DNS requests is integral to the function of DNS. The only real issue here is that there isn't a standard response code indicating the reason for not returning the record like there is in http

[–] [email protected] -3 points 7 months ago

The ability to selectively respond to DNS requests is integral to the function of DNS.

The availability of such feature and how useful it might be to block something is dependent on the actual implementation (software) you're using.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (26 replies)