Live data from Hacker News

Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

mullvad.net

141–150 of 231 posts

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Translation: one of Mullvad’s two cofounders has donated money to Örebropartiet, a left-leaning Swedish political party that promotes strict and restrictive immigration laws.

There's no such thing as a left-leaning party that harsh on immigration. Only parties that call themselves left-leaning. You may as well speak of a capitalist party that wants to seize and redistribute the means of production.

"There's no such thing as a left-leaning party that harsh on immigration."

This was probably the most ignorant thing I've read today. You're knowledge of political history must not extend very far.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has its problems, but it's consistently in the top 15 most democratic nations in the world. Calling a solidly democratic nation "fascist" is a rhetorical reversal straight out of the authoritarian playbook.

Germany’s last officially fascist government was democratically elected

Citation needed.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#143

These was one of the fastest DoH services for pipelined queries over single TCP connection IME, it was much faster than Quad9 for this purpose First Mullvad shuts down its Google search proxy Now its DoH service What's next

NB. I don't use Windows and I don't use "Private DNS". I'm referring to using HTTP/1.1 pipelining^1 with a TCP client plus TLS forward proxy or HTTP/2 with an ldns-based client to fetch DNS data in bulk, outside the browser, from the command line. I got some incredible speeds from Mullvad

1. Not every service still supports 1.1, RFC recommends H2

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#144

Does anyone know of good alternatives that also block ads? Seems Quad9 doesn't.

I have a router with adguard on it so I can locally filter everything.

Sometimes you need to unblock things to ensure something works properly, so having it be local is better in my opinion.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#145
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds more like we should end copyright worldwide.

Indeed it needs to happen, and even here on HN, it can be difficult for some to admit and acknowledge. It'd be great for this to be the first major relinquishment of nation-state power to happen without violence, without backroom deals, without wedge politics and flag waving. Just... let it go. It's beyond obvious that copyright is not going to exist in 1000 years. Every creature on earth - especially the internet -…

> It'd be great for this to be the first major relinquishment of nation-state power

Intellectual property serves corporate interests and the idea of "nations" you are forced to have in your head are the exclusive servants the interests of capital. Ironically, tragically, that's what's holding us back from dismantling it in the first place, even a critic of it can't articulate it properly.

Sorry that will be undecipherable for HN. Let me try again: The defense you get in this pigstall is the individual that copyright is protecting. You just hate the small businesses and individual artists. Instead of the trillion dollar industry holding the copyrights and the practice of exploiting copyright on works by authors who died decades ago. The commodification of copyright of something produced by the lowest bidder, crappiest AI and cheapest third world labor you can get your literal bloody hands on. Or even a vaccine against the literal plague or cure for cancer protected by intellectual property.

To make something immaterial with no cost to reproduce, a commodity, to trade and invest and speculate in is the part to argue if you want to dismantle it, identify the rotten bits of the system even peasants can smell. If you are a billionaire or even trillionaire then just argue like everybody on HN always does, because it's identical.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#146
What does everybody here think about Daniel Berntsson, founder and co-owner of Mullvad, personally donating 5 million Swedish krona to the populist Örebro party, criticized for its stances on race & immigration?

I'm not trying to start an unhealthy discussion about this topic, genuinely curious about your opinion on the matter.

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#148
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I use Firefox on Android with ublock origin, it works great. But using adblocking DNS on your phone will also block most in-app ads which is a big quality of life improvement. I could also use a VPN to keep my phone always on my home network and thus behind my own ad blocking DNS but Mullvad's adblocking DNS was really nice and convenient.

Really? I never found it effective unless I messed with certs on my phone. For example, DNS blocking isn't going to block YouTube ads if you're using the app since they don't need to respect your DNS, but it will if you're in browser because they can't control that. For apps I always use revanced.

Ads from providers like Google AdMob and AppLovin are blocked. Apps could bundle their own DNS or DoH resolver or use hardcoded static IP addresses but in my experience most do not.

Youtube ads do not get blocked by DNS adblock because Youtube ads are served from the same domains as the content and thus DNS blocking would be counterproductive. I don't think it has anything to do with respecting DNS.

I don't have the Youtube app installed to test but the Internet suggests that at least in 2023 it was very possible to block the Youtube android app (content and all) via DNS, which hints it does not bypass system DNS. [1]

[1] https://superuser.com/questions/713289/blocking-youtube-andr...

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#149
Hi - I'm with Quad9 (CTO). I'm going to try to put together a single post replying to some of these topics.

First: We welcome the Mullvad users who will be shifted onto our systems, and we appreciate that Mullvad contacted us instead of doing this unilaterally. Since we have no signup process, they could have just moved users across but we very much appreciate their cooperation and communication, both with us and with the users of the service - this is exactly how an ideal transfer should go, at least from our perspective.

I'll try to make some short summaries of some of the points here, and a reply on each.

"You should just run your own DNS server - it's easy." - Yes, we agree that for a small company or home running your own recursive resolver is a reasonable solution. You probably won't get the threat mitigation depth of service that Quad9 offers, but you may not want that. Privacy also suffers a bit, since it's still the same IP address (your home "public" address) sending queries to authoritative servers, probably unencrypted. A good middle compromise is to run PiHole or AdGuard software, and forward your queries to Quad9 via an encrypted connection. (see below) This mixes your queries in with a large number of other users, and gets the potential improvements of having a much larger active cache nearby which will have "hot" answers. Running a home resolver for yourself or even a few dozen (or even a few hundred) people is not difficult. But with all services, things change with scale. As the query volume and number of locations grow, you soon find yourself hitting all possible exception cases, instantly. Many millions of requests a second requires a lot of time, expertise, and money to ensure nearly 100% uptime. We are admittedly quite a small group - less than 10 full time - but even that is under-staffed for supporting more than 100 million daily users. We do quite a bit with a very small resource set, and I doubt it could be done less expensively with the same robustness for the same scale. Again, we appreciate Mullvad's sponsorship to help keep this expanding at our normal weekly growth rate of around 2%.

"I want ad blocking, and Quad9 doesn't do that" - Correct, Quad9 does not do ad blocking at this time. There are good solutions like PiHole or AdGuard extensions that provide this functionality, and getting local control and logging of your DNS queries is probably useful for power users. There are also commercial platforms that provide this capability, and they may provide significantly more "knobs" for what you want to block. Quad9 is a non-profit - we're not out to corner the market, and as long as privacy and security is increased for the end user, we're all for commercial solutions!

"Quad9 blocks domains in Germany" - Currently there are no mandatory blocks that Quad9 is integrating or enforcing on our DNS platform, from any external party. We did briefly block some domains as a result of legal actions against us in Germany. The good news is that we won that case in Germany, after two years and three appeals and an enormous amount of time and money (which despite Germany's "loser pays" rule, is not even close to expenditures.) https://quad9.net/news/blog/quad9-turns-the-sony-case-around... The bad news is that the identical thing is happening now in France where we have a number of legal cases open against Quad9, and we do not see an end to this any time soon as long as there is an open question in the EU about what a content-neutral intermediary is and is not required to do.

"Mullvad exiting creates more centralization, and that is bad." On the fact that centralization is bad, we agree. DNS resolver centralization is not a great thing, and it seems to be trending in the wrong direction. It's not just large public resolvers - consolidation in the ISP industry is causing more and more of the world's internet-using population to utilize a smaller number of recursive servers. Those servers are operated (mostly) by law-abiding companies, and so there is a strong interest by various parties interested in control of content to "put a hand on the available throat" even though it's the wrong throat to choke. We're busy with some ideas of how to solve this, both from a legal defense position as well as a technology position - stay tuned in the coming months. In the meantime, you can contribute a few euros/francs/dollars to us and we'll have more funds to pay for legal defense in France and hopefully up to the EU courts. https://quad9.net/donate/

"Government agencies can tap data" - Quad9 is based in Switzerland. Despite what may be common knowledge from movies, there is a very formal and rigorous process for governments (Swiss or non-Swiss) to demand data. It is (ultimately) transparent, and managed in a way that is quite well structured - this is, after all, what the Swiss have been doing with financial data for many years. More importantly: Quad9 stores no user data about queries. There isn't anything to demand - the box of data is quite empty. Because of this technological decision and our wide announcement of it (https://quad9.net/about/transparency-report/) we have never received a request for data. As for technological methods: Quad9 operates in 200+ widely-separated locations, with no backbone or central data transport network - it is intentionally 'islanded'. It would be a significant challenge to intercept data at all those locations, though we're certain that there are many queries that are observed due to their presence on various ISP or cable networks which are under surveillance. We support all major DNS encryption methods today (even the two that run on QUIC - HTTP/3 and DOQ) and we encourage users to use one of those for their communications to us. We are also one of the few major resolvers experimenting with ADOx, which encrypts messages between the recursive resolver and authoritative server. (https://dnsprivacy.org/adox_status_and_deployment/)

Re: Shutting down our public encrypted DNS

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, Quad9 is censoring some domains in Europe (notably in France and Italy) following injunctions issued by rights holders [1]. That was not the case with Mullvad's DNS. [1] https://quad9.net/news/blog/italian-blocking-demands-followi...

> The German courts entirely disregarded our use of geo-IP lookups on queries, and asserted that since tests via a VPN were able to resolve the domain, we were in breach of court orders Seriously, what the fuck? So you're supposed to block VPNs as well? What's next, Tor exit nodes? New VPN and Tor nodes as they pop up? I really don't like where this is going.

What's even worse: the court fined us because they claimed this use case was in some way in contempt of their ruling. Then, when we won the overall case, that money was never returned because it wasn't specifically referenced by the final court. The response from the lower court was effectively: "Well, you will need to sue the court to get that money back."

Edit: I'm with Quad9 (CTO)

Post reply on HN