Experimenting with same-provider DNS-over-HTTPS upgrade

https://blog.chromium.org/2019/09/experimenting-with-same-provider-dns.html

by migueldemoura • 7 years ago

22 56 7 years ago

blog.chromium.org

Lio• 7 years ago

I'd be interested to know if this will affect the ability of things like Pi Hole to block advertising and user tracking via DNS?

londons_explore3• 7 years ago

DoH won't become required for many years yet.

icebraining3• 7 years ago

I'm sure Pi Hole will have DoH support, so it should be fine as long as you can still change the server (in the browser and/or OS). The only snag might be mobile apps, in case they hardcode a DNS/DoH server instead of using the system config; that may be hard to change without rooting the device.

throw0101a2• 7 years ago

I'm sure Pi Hole will have DoH support ...

We'll see.

Pi Hole uses DNSmasq as its DNS (and DHCP) server, and the few DNSmasq mailing list threads I've seen on the topic seem to indicate that the DNSmasq developers are not interested in either DoT or DoH. One said that it would be difficult to implement because of architectural issues IIRC.

It may be necessary to use a front-end proxy:

* https://dnsdist.org/

tptacek• 7 years ago

Long story short: Chrome will do DoH DNS, but only if your current DNS provider already supports DoH, and, for now, only as an experimental feature.

People are upset about Firefox's new default of routing DoH to Cloud Flare, and I understand why. But it's useful to keep the issues distinct: DoH is a good thing (your ISP should not be able to see your DNS queries), even if routing them to Cloud Flare isn't.

OrwellianChild• 7 years ago

What is a good alternative to Cloudflare? What should we change the Firefox default setting to?

a-raccoon• 7 years ago

A tor client that only passes DNS traffic and nothing more. But does it exist?

tssva• 7 years ago

DoH is a good thing when I configure it on a system level. Each individual app bypassing the system DNS settings to implement DoH within the app is not a good thing.

akerl_2• 7 years ago

As a thought exercise: why is the OS level the correct level for DNS configuration? Why would the LAN not own this?

It seems interesting that the article and many comments here identify the application level as inherently wrong and the OS level as inherently right.

What if you were running docker containers on a server?Is it incorrect for the containers to set their own resolver settings?

iforgotpassword• 7 years ago

On this topic: I recently learned about https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/configuring-networks-di...

Is this just a Mozilla one man show or are there plans by anyone else to support this? Maybe make this a standard? Some googling revealed nothing... Now the way Google does it sounds somewhat reasonable but who knows what the future will bring, or what other software will adapt DoH.

bugmen0t2• 7 years ago

The text on https://use-application-dns.net/ says that it will be attempted to become a standard through the IETF. But only time will tell.

londons_explore3• 7 years ago

DoH would prevent other WiFi users from seeing which websites you visit,

This is false, and downright dangerous information. A network attacker can still see that you are visiting pornhub.com even with DoH, since you are sending the hostname in cleartext as part of the TLS handshake.

Google isn't a snake-oil security solution - they shouldn't be making such false claims.

growse8• 7 years ago

This is false, and downright dangerous information. A network attacker can still see that you are visiting pornhub.com

This won't be true as soon as ESNI gets implemented. (Chrome: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=908132 and Firefox nightlies have it already). However, ESNI is pretty meaningless if you're making plain-text DNS requests, so DoH is a pretty important part of the puzzle.

icebraining3• 7 years ago

Browser support for ESNI is just half of the equation, you also need servers and middleboxes to support it. For example, as of December 2017, over 10% of the traffic seen by Cloudflare was still TLSv1.0: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-tls-1-3-isnt-in-browsers-yet...

pjf• 7 years ago

...and you think the sequence and timing of IP addresses your machine connects to alone can't be used to easily infer the website you're browsing? Neither DoH nor ESNI will make you more secure/private, but DoH will definitely make some companies more powerful. That's not the Internet as we knew it until now.

mike-cardwell3• 7 years ago

It is absolutely true, even after ESNI is implemented. Pornhub does not share their IP with anybody else so encrypted SNI doesn't help.

So we've transitioned from telling our ISP that we're visiting Pornhub, to telling our ISP and some American corporation. Great move.

What's your solution to this? Put every website behind Cloudflare?

Darkstryder• 7 years ago

I agree with you.

However this claim could be true in the future if/when Encrypted SNI (ESNI) for TLS 1.3 is deployed. Although ESNI is at the draft stage [1] and to the best of my knowledge is not at a deployable stage yet.

However it might be finalized and deployed by the time DoH for Chrome is finalized too ?

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-esni/

bugmen0t2• 7 years ago

This might be encrypted too in the future. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-esni-04

londons_explore3• 7 years ago

They could easily have said "DoH, combined with other future technologies, would prevent other WiFi users from seeing which websites you visit"

zzzcpan5• 7 years ago

Drop DoH, then it could be true. As it is DoH is invented to preserve and centralize snooping on DNS.

throwawaynihil2• 7 years ago

The only thing DoH gives anybody .. is even more of your private data to a centralized provider with questionable ethics, and the only company more ethically questionable than Google is Palantir. Run your own local resolver and move on with your life.

growse8• 7 years ago

... private data to a centralized provider with questionable ethics

What, like your ISP?

ndidi2• 7 years ago

Not everybody lives in the US. I trust my ISP. They are cool, and their handling of my data is regulated under the GDPR and other laws. CloudFlare? Not so much.

throwawaynihil2• 7 years ago

Rather than putting real effort into this, I'm just going to say that Paul Vixie, the creator of DNS, advocates for using a local resolver (not your ISP's resolver), and DNSSEC. The internet is supposed to be decentralized, not centralized.

Cloudflare, Google, and all of these other centralized dns/ntp services are hazardous to our health.

I'm sure you're very knowledgable, but if Paul gives DNS advice, listen to him.

nickcw• 7 years ago

Google make this point which I haven't seen in any of the arguments so far:

In particular, we are aware of how DNS can play an important role in ISP-provided family-safe content filtering.

Lots of families with children use their ISP's safe browsing facilities which is usually implemented via alternative DNS servers.

Yes it is not terribly difficult to defeat, but it is cheap and effective for small and non technical children.

This does at least seem like a more sensible experiment than Mozilla's which will break the above scheme for every Firefox user.

GrayShade• 7 years ago

They address it in https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/07/31/dns-over-....

nimrody• 7 years ago

They say it will be enabled only for providers supporting this. Do they mean DNS servers supporting DoH?

If a network DHCP server publishes a local DNS server that is not on the list, DNS traffic will not bt encrypted?

So a network operator wishing to continue spying on its users just needs a local DNS proxy?

throw0101a2• 7 years ago

They say it will be enabled only for providers supporting this. Do they mean DNS servers supporting DoH?

No, they say providers, and mean providers. They are starting their experiment with a whitelist:

* https://www.chromium.org/developers/dns-over-https

If you're already using one of those then Chrome/ium will change from "plain DNS" over to DoH. If you are not using one of them already, then nothing will change.

_Codemonkeyism2• 7 years ago

Does anyone know how much money Mozilla gets from Cloudflare? Do they get any? I've tried to find something in Mozilla financial declarations but haven't found anything.

ndidi2• 7 years ago

Might sound like a conspiracy, but yes, I think they are getting money. They are definitely not sending the entire browsing history of users (DoH) and even the contents (VPN[]) to CloudFlare and getting nothing in return... right?

[] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20927832

_Codemonkeyism2• 7 years ago

I'm not in the business of data, so I don't know what the browsing habit of millions of people are worth.

jwilk• 7 years ago

Archived copy that can be read without JS enabled:

https://archive.is/59JCD

Experimenting with same-provider DNS-over-HTTPS upgrade

Related Stories