5 ms·

> So you're going to trust any company who isn't in this business I never said that. I said that I'm not going to trust a company that has this business model

> So you're going to trust any company who isn't in this business I never said that. I said that I'm not going to trust a company that has this business model. That by no means implies that I'm going to blindly trust a company with another business model, rather that trust in such a company is possible.

mehrdadn 8y ago
OK, then you didn't answer my question either. I was not asking "which companies would you not trust, and by what rationale"? The question I asked was: "Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private, and by what rationale do you find them more believable than Google?" Telling me you wouldn't trust someone who meets some disqualifying criterion isn't useful if you have so many disqualifying criteria that you wouldn't trust anybody, which frankly is the impression I get reading people's comments on this issue. If you have an actual company that you would trust, and a clear rationale for doing so, that's where we can have a real discussion.
- pdkl95 8y ago
  > Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private You presupposing that it is necessary to send all DNS traffic to one entity. I run a local recursive nameserver (unbound) instead of sending all of my queries to a different nameserver. Combined with aggressive caching, any particular DNS server (from .ROOT-SERVERS.NET down to the specific authoritative nameservers for a specific domain) is only able to view a tiny subset of my browsing behavior. Most of the time the query to the final authoritative nameserver is to be followed quickly by a TCP SYN packet that reveals roughly the same information. Yes, running the full recursive resolver locally can be very slightly* slower than asking e.g. the local ISP's server that probably has the query cached. Fortunately, local caching limits this (very minor) problem to only the first request for a domain.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Running a recursive resolver isn't really that great from a "trust no one" perspective, because the .com nameservers are getting a decidedly not tiny subset of your access activity.
    - teddyh 8y ago
      QNAME minimization is about to fix that.
    - pdkl95 8y ago
      The TLDs are only queried for the NS records of the second-level domain, and the A (or AAAA) records of the those NS names. This is cached, often for longer than the record's specified TTL. The rest of the traffic is with the 0delegated nameserver,
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        The second level domain under com is the important part 95% of the time.
        pdkl95 8y ago
        > This is cached, often for longer than the record's specified TTL. NS records don't change very often. They can see that I looked up the delegation data about "example.com" once every $CACHE_TTL (~months). They do not get repeated queries at the beginning of every session I have with a website. A lot of security is about being in the habit of minimizing attack surface. The only thing a TLD (or ISP) nameserver needs to know if I want to use the Doomain Name System is "pdkl95 asked for example.com's nameserver once last month" Instead of giving Google (or whomever) an update e.g.: ;; ANSWER SECTION: news.ycombinator.com. 300 IN A 209.216.230.240 ...every 5 minutes. This is not trying to stop someone discovering that I have ever been a domain; I'm limiting the ability to model my pattern of life[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern-of-life_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern-of-life_analysis
        8y ago
- earenndil 8y ago
  The answer is that yes, I don't -- fully -- trust anyone or anything I don't personally know. With that said, there are criteria by which I decide to trust a given company more or less, such as their business model, age, track record, size, and target audience. For example, I have some trust in apple because their business model relies on selling hardware and they have a decent track record (apple v fbi). I also have some trust in microsoft because a significant portion of their target audience is enterprise -- banks run windows me, the economy runs on excel. They have enterprise software that come with certain guarantees, and if they break those guarantees for me, a $10 customer, then they'll lose the $10 million customers, so I feel secure in using their enterprise software. However, this is tempered by windows 10 spyware, and makes me more reluctant to use consumer versions of their software.
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    I'm seeing what amounts to a lot of complaints and negative comments about what you wouldn't do, but for some reason you're still not actually answering the question of what you would do. The question has been quite clear and concrete: which DNS servers you would rationally trust more than Google's, and why. So far all I see that you've said is that you don't trust Google, that you in fact don't fully trust anyone, and that you would trust Microsoft and Apple more than Google---all three of which dodge the actual question of whose DNS servers you would use and why you would rationally trust them more than Google. Apple and Microsoft don't have public DNS servers (AFAIK? if they have ones that you're advocating then by all means correct me) so it wouldn't make any difference even if you'd trust them with your newborn baby. Regardless of whom else you pick, it really does not make any difference whether that DNS server(s) is getting 1% of your trust or 99% of it -- it's still going to be the one getting your queries, and I'm trying to understand whose server(s) you're picking and why it's rational to choose theirs over Google's.
    - speedplane 8y ago
      Most people pay for ISP service and get a DNS server included in the price. It's a clear quid-pro-quo. If they don't respect your privacy, or they generally behave badly, you can switch providers (assuming you're not one of the 50 Million US citizens with only one ISP provider). Even if you have an evil ISP, and they're selling your data for $0.50/month, you're still paying them $50/month for service. A bunch of angry customers could change their policy quickly. Few ISPs would try to squeeze those extra quarters from you, given the potential blow-back (some do, and they'll get their comeuppance). However generally, ISPs incentives are to keep you as a customer and get your fitty beans every month. However, with Google, it's not clear why they are giving DNS services away for free or what they're getting in return. It clearly costs them some money to do so, and they're not being paid for it directly. It's possible that they're doing it purely altruistically, but they also have an extremely long history of using data for advertising or other forms of monetization. I'm not saying that if you use 8.8.8.8, you'll search ads will target you. But I would bet they use your anonymized browsing history to fight bots, test internet speeds at various locations, identify browser technology, and who knows what.
- speedplane 8y ago
  I think much of the distrust stems from: "why is google doing this". It costs some amount of money to operate a DNS service, and it's pretty reasonable to think that Google is getting something in return. Pretty much every other service they offer for "free" pays for itself by monetizing usage patterns and content, so it's no leap at all that they are offering DNS services with a similar quid-pro-quo. Even if they don't use your traffic history to help with personalized advertising, they could conceivably use it for other things (e.g., bot detection, usage stats). Google discusses what they collect in their privacy policy (https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy), but not how they use it.

mehrdadn 8y ago

OK, then you didn't answer my question either. I was not asking "which companies would you not trust, and by what rationale"? The question I asked was: "Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private, and by what rationale do you find them more believable than Google?" Telling me you wouldn't trust someone who meets some disqualifying criterion isn't useful if you have so many disqualifying criteria that you wouldn't trust anybody, which frankly is the impression I get reading people's comments on this issue. If you have an actual company that you would trust, and a clear rationale for doing so, that's where we can have a real discussion.

pdkl95 8y ago
> Whom do you believe would keep your DNS data private You presupposing that it is necessary to send all DNS traffic to one entity. I run a local recursive nameserver (unbound) instead of sending all of my queries to a different nameserver. Combined with aggressive caching, any particular DNS server (from .ROOT-SERVERS.NET down to the specific authoritative nameservers for a specific domain) is only able to view a tiny subset of my browsing behavior. Most of the time the query to the final authoritative nameserver is to be followed quickly by a TCP SYN packet that reveals roughly the same information. Yes, running the full recursive resolver locally can be very slightly* slower than asking e.g. the local ISP's server that probably has the query cached. Fortunately, local caching limits this (very minor) problem to only the first request for a domain.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Running a recursive resolver isn't really that great from a "trust no one" perspective, because the .com nameservers are getting a decidedly not tiny subset of your access activity.
  - teddyh 8y ago
    QNAME minimization is about to fix that.
  - pdkl95 8y ago
    The TLDs are only queried for the NS records of the second-level domain, and the A (or AAAA) records of the those NS names. This is cached, often for longer than the record's specified TTL. The rest of the traffic is with the 0delegated nameserver,
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      The second level domain under com is the important part 95% of the time.
      - pdkl95 8y ago
        > This is cached, often for longer than the record's specified TTL. NS records don't change very often. They can see that I looked up the delegation data about "example.com" once every $CACHE_TTL (~months). They do not get repeated queries at the beginning of every session I have with a website. A lot of security is about being in the habit of minimizing attack surface. The only thing a TLD (or ISP) nameserver needs to know if I want to use the Doomain Name System is "pdkl95 asked for example.com's nameserver once last month" Instead of giving Google (or whomever) an update e.g.: ;; ANSWER SECTION: news.ycombinator.com. 300 IN A 209.216.230.240 ...every 5 minutes. This is not trying to stop someone discovering that I have ever been a domain; I'm limiting the ability to model my pattern of life[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern-of-life_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern-of-life_analysis
        8y ago
earenndil 8y ago
The answer is that yes, I don't -- fully -- trust anyone or anything I don't personally know. With that said, there are criteria by which I decide to trust a given company more or less, such as their business model, age, track record, size, and target audience. For example, I have some trust in apple because their business model relies on selling hardware and they have a decent track record (apple v fbi). I also have some trust in microsoft because a significant portion of their target audience is enterprise -- banks run windows me, the economy runs on excel. They have enterprise software that come with certain guarantees, and if they break those guarantees for me, a $10 customer, then they'll lose the $10 million customers, so I feel secure in using their enterprise software. However, this is tempered by windows 10 spyware, and makes me more reluctant to use consumer versions of their software.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  I'm seeing what amounts to a lot of complaints and negative comments about what you wouldn't do, but for some reason you're still not actually answering the question of what you would do. The question has been quite clear and concrete: which DNS servers you would rationally trust more than Google's, and why. So far all I see that you've said is that you don't trust Google, that you in fact don't fully trust anyone, and that you would trust Microsoft and Apple more than Google---all three of which dodge the actual question of whose DNS servers you would use and why you would rationally trust them more than Google. Apple and Microsoft don't have public DNS servers (AFAIK? if they have ones that you're advocating then by all means correct me) so it wouldn't make any difference even if you'd trust them with your newborn baby. Regardless of whom else you pick, it really does not make any difference whether that DNS server(s) is getting 1% of your trust or 99% of it -- it's still going to be the one getting your queries, and I'm trying to understand whose server(s) you're picking and why it's rational to choose theirs over Google's.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    Most people pay for ISP service and get a DNS server included in the price. It's a clear quid-pro-quo. If they don't respect your privacy, or they generally behave badly, you can switch providers (assuming you're not one of the 50 Million US citizens with only one ISP provider). Even if you have an evil ISP, and they're selling your data for $0.50/month, you're still paying them $50/month for service. A bunch of angry customers could change their policy quickly. Few ISPs would try to squeeze those extra quarters from you, given the potential blow-back (some do, and they'll get their comeuppance). However generally, ISPs incentives are to keep you as a customer and get your fitty beans every month. However, with Google, it's not clear why they are giving DNS services away for free or what they're getting in return. It clearly costs them some money to do so, and they're not being paid for it directly. It's possible that they're doing it purely altruistically, but they also have an extremely long history of using data for advertising or other forms of monetization. I'm not saying that if you use 8.8.8.8, you'll search ads will target you. But I would bet they use your anonymized browsing history to fight bots, test internet speeds at various locations, identify browser technology, and who knows what.
speedplane 8y ago
I think much of the distrust stems from: "why is google doing this". It costs some amount of money to operate a DNS service, and it's pretty reasonable to think that Google is getting something in return. Pretty much every other service they offer for "free" pays for itself by monetizing usage patterns and content, so it's no leap at all that they are offering DNS services with a similar quid-pro-quo. Even if they don't use your traffic history to help with personalized advertising, they could conceivably use it for other things (e.g., bot detection, usage stats). Google discusses what they collect in their privacy policy (https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy), but not how they use it.