Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

blog.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 695 posts

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#281

Post by aexaey »

dieulot wrote: post #144
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #116

TIL you can also use 1.1 and it will expand to 1.0.0.1 $> ping 1.1 PING 1.1 (1.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=28.3 ms 64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=33.0 ms 64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=55 time=43.6 ms 64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=55 time=41.7 ms 64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=55 time=56.5 ms 64 bytes from 1.0.0.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=55 t…

The most useful case for this shortcut is 127.1 -> 127.0.0.1

0, which is a shorthand for 0.0.0.0 is likely the most code-golf-y way to write localhost, as many [EDIT: Linux] systems alias 0.0.0.0 to 127.0.0.1:

  $ ping 0
  PING 0 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
  64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.032 ms
Of course, don't expect this to work universally. A lot of software will try to be clever with input validation, and fail.

Tangentially related: https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/email_address_quiz/

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#282

Post by sigjuice »

nerdwaller wrote: post #257
sigjuice wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What spec says that 127.1 and 127.0.0.1 are equivalent?

I don’t actually think it’s in a spec formally but is in a common c lib[0]. > a.b > Part a specifies the first byte of the binary address. Part b is interpreted as a 24-bit value that defines the rightmost three bytes of the binary address. This notation is suitable for specifying (outmoded) Class C network addresses. [0]: https://linux.die.net/man/3/inet_aton

Thanks. I just came across the man page myself while I was writing this tiny program.

  $ cat 127.1.c
  #include 
  #include 
   
  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
  {
      struct in_addr addr;
   
      if (inet_aton(argv[1], &addr))
          printf("%08x\n", addr.s_addr);
   
      return 0;
  }
  $ make 127.1 CFLAGS=-Wall
  cc -Wall     127.1.c   -o 127.1
  $ ./127.1 1.1
  01000001
  $ ./127.1 127.1
  0100007f

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#283

Post by bostik »

runningmike wrote: post #82
tialaramex wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We will never log your IP address (the way other companies identify you). And we’re not just saying that. We’ve retained KPMG to audit our systems annually to ensure that we're doing what we say." Now, audits are generally not worth very much (even, perhaps even especially, from a Big Four group like KPMG), but for this type of thing (verifying that a company isn't doing something they promised they would not do) th…

Where is the technical audit report published? Open access url please.

Having dealt with KPMG recently (which I do at least once a year...), I would not expect to see the report.

KPMG's risk department - the lawyers' lawyers - appears to be violently allergic to their customers disclosing any report to outside parties. Based on my experience you can get a copy, but first you and the primary customer need to submit some paperwork. And among the conditions you need to agree with is that you don't redistribute the report or its contents.

Disclosure: I deal with security audits and technical aspects of compliance.

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#284

Post by pdcerb »

JD557 wrote: post #176

I wish that they talked a bit more about their stance regarding censorship. They have a small paragraph talking about the problem, but they don't talk about the "solution". While Cloudflare has been pretty neutral about censoring sites in the past (notably, pirate sites), the Daily Stormer incident put them in a though spot[1]. They talk a bit about Project Galileo (the link is broken BTW, it should be https://www.cl…

Actually, they have already suspended the service for sci-hub, albeit under a court order.

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/02/05/1944225/cloudflare-t...

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#285

Post by teeray »

s3nnyy wrote: post #250
mastax wrote: post #239

If you want to figure out what the fastest DNS server is for you, I suggest this freeware utility https://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm

Is there a thing like this for macOS?

This will run fine under Wine on macOS. Steve has said many times on the SN podcast that he tests under Wine to ensure compatibility.

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#287

Post by bogomipz »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #199
bogomipz wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"They are NOT saying Google is lying and collecting the data." The OP did not say that cloudflare is "saying" that. The OP very clearly said they are "insinuating" it. And yes under the heading "DNS's Privacy Problem" the post mentions: "With all the concern over the data that companies like Facebook and Google are collecting on you,..." I think that juxtaposition of this statement under a bolded heading of "DNS's P…

Bear in mind, Google's changed its mind before and can again at any time. For instance, when they bought DoubleClick they promised not to connect it with the Google account data they had. Then they changed that policy later.

That does not change the the fact that Cloudflare is insinuating something something about Google's DNS.

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#289

Post by lugg »

NamTaf wrote: post #170
technion wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just trying to make Australians jealous aren't you? ping 1.1.1.1 Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=58 Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=366ms TTL=58 Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=58 Reply from 1.1.1.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=58 ping 8.8.8.8 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=402ms TTL=59 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=59 Reply from 8.8.8.8: bytes=32 time=373ms TTL=59 Reply…

I'm getting ~40-50ms on both on Internode from Brisbane.

What do you get to internode from there? (@192.231.203.132)

I'm halfway up to newcastle getting ~10ms across the board, 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, and 192.231.203.132.

Of course performance on each is a different matter.

1.1.1.1 is giving the best response times @ 8-11ms.

Internode's is giving decent @ 10-14ms

8.8.8.8 is a bit wonky, sometimes I hit a 10ms route once they cache it, but propagation is very slow and most responses are 140-180ms.

Re: 1.1.1.1: Fast, privacy-first consumer DNS service

#290

Post by dweekly »

bluejekyll wrote: post #146

DNS-over-HTTPS doesn’t make as much sense to me as DNS-over-TLS. They are effectively the same thing, but HTTPS has the added overhead of the HTTP headers per request. If you look at the currently in progress RFC, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-doh-dns-over-https-04 , this is quite literally the only difference. The DNS request is encoded as a standard serialized DNS packet. The article mentions QUIC as being…

How much overhead? Is the request or response larger than a single packet?
Post reply on HN