4 ms·
That assumes that you can trust the networks you connect to. There is a lot of evidence available that there are a lot of networks out there that should not be
by dagenix 8y ago
That assumes that you can trust the networks you connect to. There is a lot of evidence available that there are a lot of networks out there that should not be trusted.
- xg15 8y agoIndeed - which is why e.g. Windows asks you whether your LAN/Wifi is a "home network", "work network" or "public network". You could use the same strategy to find out whether or not you should trust the networks DNS settings.
- j0057 8y agoAssuming DNS resolution still happens in the OS, this is actually a somewhat sensible suggestion! Use DoH on public WiFi (although basic network hygiene suggests you should really use a VPN there), and use the DHCP-provided DNS server on home and work networks.
- sroussey 8y agoAt home, the cable company is just as bad (or the same as) the mobile operator. Neither of these scenarios do you want to trust your ISP, or add to their profile of you. At work though, probable the opposite.
- josteink 8y ago> That assumes that you can trust the networks you connect to. Which an overwhelming part of the world does. Forced DoH is making problems for the clear majority when trying to solve a minor problem for a tiny majority. Clearly that's not going about things the right way. Anyhow: If you don't trust a network... Why are you connecting to it?
- dagenix 8y agoI don't trust most of the networks I connect to. Home network - nope, I don't want to use Verizon's DNS servers; subway wifi - no; Coffee Shop - lol, no. Etc. Why should I have to trust the network I'm connecting to? That seems like a major violation if the end to end principle. It's also just impractical. If the overwheming majority of the wild trusts the networks they are connecting to, that seems like pretty good evidence that DoH or something like it has value.