7 ms·

Firefox's DOH client ignores /etc/hosts, but it shouldn't be too hard to host your own DOH server [1][2] that you could then configure how you see fit. I can se

Firefox's DOH client ignores /etc/hosts, but it shouldn't be too hard to host your own DOH server [1][2] that you could then configure how you see fit. I can see this pattern becoming widespread someday, and with DOH, people can re-use their experience in setting up webservers. [1] https://github.com/st3fan/tinydoh https://github.com/st3fan/tinydoh [2] https://github.com/m13253/dns-over-https https://github.com/m13253/dns-over-https

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I think there’s great value in DOH caching servers running on home routers; all the benefits of DOH but “regular DNS” between clients and your home router.
peterwwillis 8y ago
You think regular end users having to set up and maintain server software in order to force a name for an IP is going to become a widespread pattern? That's horrifying. I don't want to live in that world.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Regular users today don't use that feature, so you're choosing a rather odd hill to die on. To put this another way: it's a significant benefit for my random non-techie friends to be able to use this new feature plus HTTPSEverywhere. And even as a techie, I don't use a hosts file to block anything. So I'm not bothered by how Firefox chose to implement this, like most people.
  - da_chicken 8y ago
    There's plenty of ad blocking, spyware blocking, ransomware blocking, etc. software that absolutely uses the hosts file to blackhole requests. Much of it is free and intended for home computer use.
    - greglindahl 8y ago
      And what market share do they have? None of my non-techie relatives or friends who've asked me to look at their machines run that kind of software.
      - mortenlarsen 8y ago
        Only the use case with the largest market share matters? That kind of thinking, really irks me.
        greglindahl 8y ago
        No, I don't think like that. It does bother me when Firefox introduces a feature which covers up a huge hole in TLS, and they get a large number of complaints on HN.
        vetinari 8y ago
        Of course it gets large number of complains, when it creates more problems than it solves, and it is papered over "but mainstream users do not need that". Mainstream users do not need most software ever made.
        greglindahl 8y ago
        Did you see someone in this discussion suggesting "but mainstream users do not need that"? I just checked again and I don't see anyone making that suggestion.
        vetinari 8y ago
        It is paraphrased. The argument is, that it improves things for the mythical naive mainstream user, and for where it break things, well they are minority anyway.
        8y ago
- Immortalin 8y ago
  It's easier than ever to host a server transparently for end user software. You don't hear users complaining about node.js running in most Electron apps. A http server for DNS can easily be compiled to binary and ran like any other system daemon.
fanf2 8y ago
That [1] implements a very old draft so I doubt it is compatible with Firefox.
chupasaurus 8y ago
Just run local dnscrypt-proxy (it supports DoH) on your machine/router and everything would be fine.

toomuchtodo 8y ago

I think there’s great value in DOH caching servers running on home routers; all the benefits of DOH but “regular DNS” between clients and your home router.

peterwwillis 8y ago

You think regular end users having to set up and maintain server software in order to force a name for an IP is going to become a widespread pattern? That's horrifying. I don't want to live in that world.

greglindahl 8y ago
Regular users today don't use that feature, so you're choosing a rather odd hill to die on. To put this another way: it's a significant benefit for my random non-techie friends to be able to use this new feature plus HTTPSEverywhere. And even as a techie, I don't use a hosts file to block anything. So I'm not bothered by how Firefox chose to implement this, like most people.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  There's plenty of ad blocking, spyware blocking, ransomware blocking, etc. software that absolutely uses the hosts file to blackhole requests. Much of it is free and intended for home computer use.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    And what market share do they have? None of my non-techie relatives or friends who've asked me to look at their machines run that kind of software.
    - mortenlarsen 8y ago
      Only the use case with the largest market share matters? That kind of thinking, really irks me.
      - greglindahl 8y ago
        No, I don't think like that. It does bother me when Firefox introduces a feature which covers up a huge hole in TLS, and they get a large number of complaints on HN.
        vetinari 8y ago
        Of course it gets large number of complains, when it creates more problems than it solves, and it is papered over "but mainstream users do not need that". Mainstream users do not need most software ever made.
        greglindahl 8y ago
        Did you see someone in this discussion suggesting "but mainstream users do not need that"? I just checked again and I don't see anyone making that suggestion.
        vetinari 8y ago
        It is paraphrased. The argument is, that it improves things for the mythical naive mainstream user, and for where it break things, well they are minority anyway.
        8y ago
Immortalin 8y ago
It's easier than ever to host a server transparently for end user software. You don't hear users complaining about node.js running in most Electron apps. A http server for DNS can easily be compiled to binary and ran like any other system daemon.

fanf2 8y ago

That [1] implements a very old draft so I doubt it is compatible with Firefox.

chupasaurus 8y ago

Just run local dnscrypt-proxy (it supports DoH) on your machine/router and everything would be fine.