371–380 of 519 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a coffee shop, but certainly a hotel room, to cast some entertainment on the TV rather than rely on a laptop.
The hotel thing can be a pain if there is some sort of per device login portal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees but... what possible reason would you have for taking a Chromecast to a coffee shop?
The problem here is you are falling in the same trap as the Google engineers here. Why would ______ want to do _______ with their ______ device? You can make a locked down device that only does a very limited subset of functions, but you really should make that known to the user before hand. "This device requires access to $X servers to function". If you have secret requirements that go far beyond user expectations,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cast itself requires you to use googles services to use the product. It bounces off of Google's servers for app & stream setup, along with authentication. So does it really matter if it uses 8.8.8.8 to resolve the connection to google vs. some other DNS server? It's still going to connect to google's data center to do the singular function of the device. And as the product itself is billed as an internet streaming ap…
> So does it really matter if it uses 8.8.8.8 to resolve the connection to google vs. some other DNS server? It might since there are DNS providers (OpenDNS, AdGuard) that help create blacklists or use one out of the box (family filters, privacy oriented filters, etc). Also, not sure if true, but Google might be required to comply with local laws and 'block' websites through NXDomains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TIL! This upsets me more than the Chromecast using Google's DNS. I barely use Chrome anymore (just for testing really) but the thought that any domain I wish to go to can be overridden by the browser by default - that's scary. I mean what if Google doesn't like your website's content. They can block it on their DNS server and 99.999% of Chrome users would think something was wrong with your site. Thank you, I hate it…
In theory, couldn't Firefox's certificate store blacklist the TLS certificate your website uses, with the same user-confusing result?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds interesting. Do you have a write up about creating such a setup?
No, I don't, but it's conceptually pretty easy (the devil is always in the details). I'm sure you could find something on the net describing this better. What I've done is, first, to block the HTTPS port from going anywhere except to my proxy. If you want to use HTTPS in my network, you have to install my cert. That cert is used to negotiate the HTTPS connection to the proxy. The proxy then has access to the plain-te…
Expect more of this once “DNS over HTTPS” takes hold. Nothing Google makes will ever respect your DHCP-server or local network settings ever again.
> Expect more of this once “DNS over HTTPS” takes hold. I do. DNS-over-HTTPS is why I've modified my network so I can MITM all HTTPS connections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consumer of the DNS is the Chromecast. Its preference is 8.8.8.8 .
A Chromecast isn't an agent with free will and intentions, the user is. When I set my DNS settings to a different DNS server than Google's, my preference is just that: different from Google's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't using a company's product exactly when you'd expect a dependency on that company's service?
This is an artificial dependency. There is no good reason why this device should require a specific nameserver. Here are some reasons I can think of that this would be required: * Getting device metrics for Google's internal use * DNS lookups that are only available from querying google directly - in other words, recursion is disabled for some records needed by the device The first case should be entirely optional, t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was rude because the DNSOP WG mailing list (to which this email was sent to) isn't a google support forum. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/about/ outlines what the DNS WG is about. Ranting about how Google's devices are terrible isn't an appropriate use of this communication channel.
I assume he does not want support. He wants to highlight a threat to DNS choice.
DNSSEC do not protect against this.