Google DNS at 010.010.010.010 • Hacker News Board

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#91

Post by JeremyNT » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 1:29 AM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #62

JonathanMerklin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you perhaps think that DNS log data could be valuable for Google? As always, when a product is free...

Is it any worse than the harvesting my ISP is likely doing?

The surveillance is additive (unless you use). Since DNS traffic is not encrypted, the ISP still sees everything even if you switch it, and now so does Google.

The practical benefit is that some ISPs run bad DNS servers that e.g. automatically redirect nxdomains to their spam pages. If you use Google or Cloudflare you can bypass this particular anti-feature.

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#92

Post by nobody9999 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 1:46 AM UTC

JeremyNT wrote: post #91

Redoubts wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it any worse than the harvesting my ISP is likely doing?

The surveillance is additive (unless you use). Since DNS traffic is not encrypted, the ISP still sees everything even if you switch it, and now so does Google. The practical benefit is that some ISPs run bad DNS servers that e.g. automatically redirect nxdomains to their spam pages. If you use Google or Cloudflare you can bypass this particular anti-feature.

>The practical benefit is that some ISPs run bad DNS servers that e.g. automatically redirect nxdomains to their spam pages. If you use Google or Cloudflare you can bypass this particular anti-feature.

As I discussed here[0], my goto DNS server is 192.168.xxx.91.

Which is to say I run my own recursive resolver. This avoids ISP DNS server issues as well as other issues (like these[1][2]). Also, Google/Cloudflare/whoever don't get to log my DNS queries.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29026077

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828317

[2] https://community.spotify.com/t5/Desktop-Windows/Random-Stop...

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#93

Post by EastOfTruth » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 1:53 AM UTC

sodality2 wrote: post #90

EastOfTruth wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can your ISP route the traffic if according to you it doesn't know where it goes? You need a VPN if you want to hide your traffic destinations from your ISP... not encrypted DNS

The DNS lookup would be encrypted. The IP would of course not be. This means the ISP would be able to see the IP but not domain [1] of your destination. [1]: See SNI: https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-sni/

So what's the percentage of IP addresses that host more then one domain?

Also, I remember reading something like HTTPS was leaking URLs...

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#94

Post by sodality2 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 2:09 AM UTC

EastOfTruth wrote: post #93

sodality2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DNS lookup would be encrypted. The IP would of course not be. This means the ISP would be able to see the IP but not domain [1] of your destination. [1]: See SNI: https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-sni/

So what's the percentage of IP addresses that host more then one domain? Also, I remember reading something like HTTPS was leaking URLs...

Basically every single site hosted on any CDN or other cloud host. What's the percentage of people that host their site on dedicated links? Probably a decent percentage, and probably the big 10 sites, but maybe not as many of the others..?

Though as mentioned this is moot due to SNI, in most cases :(

> Also, I remember reading something like HTTPS was leaking URLs...

Yep, that's SNI

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#95

Post by phantomathkg » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

pxc wrote: post #63

tialaramex wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an IPv4 address. No TLD is allowed to be a series of digits in order to avoid any confusion about this. Whether your URL parser considers that octal IPv4 addresses are a reasonable thing is up to each individual parser. On the whole I'd suggest user-facing software should not permit this because it's pointlessly confusing. Rust took a patch that says if you try to convert (for example) 010.010.010.010 to an…

Yeah, I meant the .google name the IP redirects you to in the browser

Of course it is, part of gTLD https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strin...

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#96

Post by phantomathkg » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 2:27 AM UTC

EastOfTruth wrote: post #60

another DNS to avoid... using anything but your ISP's DNS decrease privacy... unless you are using a VPN, then the DNS should be from your VPN's ISP

At least if you use Google or Cloudflare, you won't suffer from DNS hijack, whereas your ISP, would. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_hijacking

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#97

Post by kortex » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:06 AM UTC

EastOfTruth wrote: post #60

another DNS to avoid... using anything but your ISP's DNS decrease privacy... unless you are using a VPN, then the DNS should be from your VPN's ISP

My ISP's (spectrum) DNS is trash. Not only is it slow, it hijacks misses and redirects to their garbage landing page. And I'm sure they snoop in me and sell data all the same.

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#98

Post by notriddle » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:04 AM UTC

zeroimpl wrote: post #51

_ache_ wrote: post #17

Yeah ... Just use 1.1. Cloudflare is way better. It doesn't even look like an IP. And you just can't have shorter.

Feels like next somebody should setup a DNS system at 2.0.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4#First_and_last_subnet_add...

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#99

Post by kiwijamo » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

tata71 wrote: post #55

sixothree wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why on earth would anyone want to use google's DNS.

Have you used malicious ISP DNS resolution?!

Not every ISP has malicious DNS resolution. For many people outside the US, their ISP DNS server is a superior option to Google DNS.

Re: Google DNS at 010.010.010.010

#100

Post by hn_throwaway_69 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

keymone wrote: post #75

pbiggar wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you provide the GET parameter "source" (which means you try /the-url?source"), it prints a pretty-printed version of the source code. So basically it allows the reader to read the source directly without hunting it down on github of something.

Doesn’t this just highlight that php development ecosystem doesn’t value quality much? What even is a “file” in context of a web request? What about dependencies or logic defined in other files? This is just bizarre, I can’t see a sane codebase where this would be preferable to going on GitHub and pressing “.”

On the contrary, doesn't it highlight that the PHP development ecosystem values simplicity? That is, a simple application (which this is) can be contained within one file, rather than something requiring several folders, dependencies, and an 'init' command?

I don't understand your criticism and I suggest you might not either.