3 ms·
Well, an advertising company doesn't care about protecting your privacy from themselves as the threat. But protecting you from rival data-miners like unscrupulo
by crunchatized 8y ago
Well, an advertising company doesn't care about protecting your privacy from themselves as the threat. But protecting you from rival data-miners like unscrupulous ISPs could actually help their business model, if you want to look at things cynically.
And protecting DNS queries from local poisoning or outright censorship is the security feature. Having to resort to the 'easy,' non-boat-rocking encryption port of 443 is an implementation detail.
- peterwwillis 8y agoFirst of all, censorship is censorship. It's not an exploit or a bug, it's a purposeful set of laws, policies or regulations meant to restrict the use of something. DNS over HTTPS "improving security" in a censorship context is the same as saying that when a corporate web proxy prevents you from going to PornHub, circumventing that proxy is "improving security". And btw, circumventing censorship may be illegal, or at the very least against official policies. It's also not a security feature because you don't need this to protect against cache poisoning, as DNSSEC already does that.