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

441–450 of 695 posts

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

#441

Post by rdsubhas »

eastdakota wrote: post #378
rdsubhas wrote: post #84

> We will never sell your data or use it to target ads. Period. Won't sell != Won't collect > We will never log your IP address (the way other companies identify you) Never log IP != Never log anything Bonus: The way other companies identify you ~= There are other ways Edit: Looks like many people assume I'm nitpicking. So here are more specific questions: * Is logging a hashcode of the IP considered as "not logging…

I'm fine with nitpicking. Let me try and be clear: We're not logging IPs. We inherently receive them when they connect to the service, but we don't write them to disk and flush them quickly (i.e., seconds or minutes). We're not logging hashes of IPs. We're not logging ASNs of the IPs connecting to the service. We do log the other parts of a DNS query in order to help prevent abuse and debug issues. However, we've com…

Thank you for the clarification.

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

#442

Post by thaumasiotes »

bogomipz wrote: post #438
thaumasiotes wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the bank recently committed fraud on a massive scale by creating more than a million fake deposit accounts and 560,000 credit card applications for customers without their knowledge or approval. Suppose you were a Wells Fargo depositor and a Wells Fargo teller opened a fake account in your name without consulting you. What harm did you suffer? How massive is this fraud if you measure it in a more useful way than "n…

>"Suppose you were a Wells Fargo depositor and a Wells Fargo teller opened a fake account in your name without consulting you. What harm did you suffer?" Are you joking? The fake accounts were set up in order to bilk customers out of money in the form of overdrafts fees and penalties. "Some customers noticed the deception when they were charged unexpected fees, received credit or debit cards in the mail that they did…

I do know about this story. The purpose of the fake accounts was to meet sales quotas. Fees earned for the bank were accidental and usually nonexistent, for the obvious reason that if you charge your unwitting customer money, they are much more likely to realize they have an account with you.

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

#443

Post by chrissnell »

jumelles wrote: post #405
bogomipz wrote: post #376

>"And we wanted to put our money where our mouth was, so we committed to retaining KPMG, the well-respected auditing firm, to audit our code and practices annually and publish a public report confirming we're doing what we said we would." It's worth pointing out that KPMG was Wells Fargo's independent auditor while the bank recently committed fraud on a massive scale by creating more than a million fake deposit accou…

Genuinely asking, what are some companies that would be a good choice for this sort of thing?

Many privacy activists believe that the best proof of a no-logging assertion is for a court to order a provider to turn over logs and for the company to be unable to do so.

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

#444

Post by chrissnell »

nodesocket wrote: post #388
hartator wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are on ethernet, I am able to get 1-2ms pings. On same AT&T Fiber Gigabit. Wifi ruins both bandwidth and latency for me.

AT&T Fiber Gigabit in Nashville TN. iMac ~ ping 1.1.1.1 PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.688 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.814 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.153 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.752 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.755 ms 64 bytes from 1.1.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.789…

Given that they're a CDN, I would expect them to. I'm jealous that BNA has AT&T peering but Kansas City has minimal/no peering.

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

#445

Post by magoghm »

chrissnell wrote: post #317
cleanbrowsing wrote: post #299

And look at these ping times: CloudFlare Google DNS Quad9 OpenDNS NewYork 2 msec 1 msec 2 msec 19 msec Toronto 2 msec 28 msec 17 msec 27 msec Atlanta 1 msec 2 msec 1 msec 19 msec Dallas 1 msec 9 msec 1 msec 7 msec San Francisco 3 msec 21 msec 15 msec 20 msec London 1 msec 12 msec 1 msec 14 msec Amsterdam 2 msec 6 msec 1 msec 6 msec Frankfurt 1 msec 9 msec 2 msec 9 msec Tokyo 2 msec 2 msec 81 msec 77 msec Singapore 2…

Where are you testing from? I'm going to guess: a datacenter. Residential customers won't see anything this fast. I'm in a small town in Kansas, connected by 1 Gbit ATT fiber. I'm getting ~26ms to 1.1.1.1 and ~19ms to my private DNS resolver that I host in a datacenter in Dallas. Google DNS comes in around 19ms. I suspect that Cloudflare and Google DNS both have POPs in Dallas, which accounts for the similar numbers…

I'm in Mexico:

1.1.1.1 60 ms

8.8.8.8 20 ms

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

#446

Post by tzs »

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

The POSIX spec (IEEE 1003.1) says the same thing for inet_addr(), so it does occur in an actual spec.

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

#447

Post by ENOTTY »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #310

So, one thing I'd love to see clarified: APNIC was interested in studying the junk traffic to 1.1.1.1. Cloudflare's DNS will not log or track. So what is logged and tracked for APNIC's research purposes? Everything but DNS? Everything but DNS and HTTPS requests directly to 1.1.1.1 (presumably people looking for details on Cloudflare DNS?). What's being studied? Fun fact: CCNA classes regularly use 1.1.1.1 as a router…

Really hoping this question gets answered. It seemed contradictory to me.

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

#448

Post by bogomipz »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #442
bogomipz wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Suppose you were a Wells Fargo depositor and a Wells Fargo teller opened a fake account in your name without consulting you. What harm did you suffer?" Are you joking? The fake accounts were set up in order to bilk customers out of money in the form of overdrafts fees and penalties. "Some customers noticed the deception when they were charged unexpected fees, received credit or debit cards in the mail that they did…

I do know about this story. The purpose of the fake accounts was to meet sales quotas. Fees earned for the bank were accidental and usually nonexistent, for the obvious reason that if you charge your unwitting customer money, they are much more likely to realize they have an account with you.

>"Fees earned for the bank were accidental and usually nonexistent,"

"Approximately 85,000 of the accounts opened incurred fees, totaling $2 million. Customers' credit scores were also likely hurt by the fake accounts.[43] The bank was able to prevent customers from pursuing legal action as the opening of an account mandated customers enter into private arbitration with the bank."

"The bank paid $110 million to consumers who had accounts opened in their names without permission in March 2017." The money repaid fraudulent fees and paid damages to those affected."[1]

That's 85,000 of what you call "non-existent" fees totaling 2 million dollars. And whether or not those were secondary effects of the fraud is completely immaterial.

It's a rather bizarre position to want to defend a bank that not only defrauded its customers but has also admitted to doing so. But you are entitled to that. What you aren't entitled to however is your own alternative facts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_account_fraud_scan...

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

#450

Post by sizzle »

buyx wrote: post #435
bogomipz wrote: post #376

>"And we wanted to put our money where our mouth was, so we committed to retaining KPMG, the well-respected auditing firm, to audit our code and practices annually and publish a public report confirming we're doing what we said we would." It's worth pointing out that KPMG was Wells Fargo's independent auditor while the bank recently committed fraud on a massive scale by creating more than a million fake deposit accou…

KPMG was also implicated in the massive South African "state capture" scandal involving the (now fugitive) Gupta family and former president Jacob Zuma. Among other things, KPMG issued a-later withdrawn-report that was used to undermine the well-respected finance minister, so that a more malleable person could be installed, while also auditing the Guptas during their worst excesses. Lest we choose to dismiss this as…

Sounds interesting, got any sources for further reading?
Post reply on HN