9 ms·

Your ISP is literally selling this information right now in the US. What are you even talking about? Use google if you don't like CF, or just disable it! Do a

Your ISP is literally selling this information right now in the US. What are you even talking about? Use google if you don't like CF, or just disable it! Do a little threat modeling here please. Let's say CF sells this data, what do they know about you other than your IP and the sites you visit? While your ISP,employer,school,etc... Can tie that activity to you as a person. Being compelled legally? I did not know privacy meant breaking laws, suddenly law enforcement can't do the same thing with your ISP dns? This is not adding a new party that can surveil you, this is reducing risk by separating who can see your DNS from who can see your traffic. The idea is to have eSNI ubiquity to where TLS traffic will conceal the sites you visit while DoH will conceal the traffic metadata. Oh, and beauty of DoH: you can run it through a web proxy, and if you have alot of users behind a NAT it becomes very hard to pin point which actual machine generated the DNS lookup.

OrgNet 7y ago
Your ISP can still see the IPs that you are talking to... What are you talking about? They can even see the url even if you dont use them as your DNS
- e12e 7y ago
  > They can even see the url Only for plaintext http. For ssl/https - the hostname/ip can leak with SNI, but should be safe with ESNI (encrypted SNI). The URL should be in the request, which comes after the TLS handshake (hence SNI, so that the server can pick a certificate before knowing the HTTP HOST header). SNI is a problem - but not much worse than the fact that a mitm can see who talks to who (IP) - IMNHO.
  - nullc 7y ago
    ESNI is not in use yet (or just doesn't work). Start up tcpdump and check yourself. At best even it were currently use it only provides protection for sites which are hosted behind DOS mitigation services. (usually cloudflare...)
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      You need the right TLS lib for it to work, browsers support it. I've seen big sites like facebook and cloudflare use it.
    - TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
      You can check it here: https://encryptedsni.com/ -> https://www.cloudflare.com/ssl/encrypted-sni/
  - gsich 7y ago
    ESNI is still in draft.
    - e12e 7y ago
      Quite. I didn't mean to imply a host/ip header wouldn't leak today - but I see how my comment can be read that way. In fact, siblings point about cf (cloud flare) is relevant - as cf eats the world, SNI will potentially be more of a problem; if you connect to site A via IP a, and B via ip b - not much is revealed if host headers A and B leaks, given that traffic to a and b is already obvious. But when you connect to cf on a "nearby" IP c, it suddenly becomes more of a problem that host headers for A, B, D and E are leaking. Not necessarily worse than when your ISP could see you talking to IP a and b - but worse in the sense that you reveal some information to your ISP that would otherwise only be known to cf.
  - OrgNet 7y ago
    so we agree the ESNI is not in used?
mike-cardwell 7y ago
"Your ISP is literally selling this information right now in the US" Your ISP will literally still be able to sell this information after DoH is rolled out. Because they can see what IPs you're connecting to and in most cases hostnames can be trivially and automatically determined knowing only the IP. Unless we centralise HTTP through a handful of gateways like we're doing with DNS (hello Cloudflare). At which point, why even bother calling it the web anymore.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Very limited with TLS. With webhosts, the PTR record means little. CDNs also obfuscate your destination. Shared hosting sites only care about the host field in the encrypted HTTP as well. Especially given the oversaturation of IPv4. Keep in mind, it's not just what you visit but how often as well and a lot other details (dns is cached)
  - gioele 7y ago
    > Very limited with TLS. With webhosts, the PTR record means little. TLS+SNI sends the `Host` you are connecting to in plain text. eSNI is not yet widely deployed. Centralizing DNS without centralizing HTTP (e.g. domain fronting) does not solve the leak of connection metadata.
dogecoinbase 7y ago
I trust Cloudflare and Google (the other major DoH proponent) not to sell my data, because they have no need to do so. They are subject to law enforcement inquiries just like everyone else, so this does nothing for privacy in that regard (and actually increases the attack surface). This also does not separate who can see your DNS from who can see your traffic, in fact it consolidates it, and this is why both Google (who controls the browser) and Cloudflare (who serves a large portion of the internet) are proponents of it. It allows them to aggregate DNS information alongside request information in a way they could not previously. I am aware that they both have policies in place which purport to prevent this behavior. It would certainly not be the first time Google violates their stated policies in the mission of serving advertisements, or the first time Cloudflare aggressively consolidates internet infrastructure to the detriment of the open web.
- godelski 7y ago
  > I trust Cloudflare and __Google__ (the other major DoH proponent) not to sell my data, because they have no need to do so. Isn't Google's entire business model... data collection? Maybe Google won't sell the data, but they'll use it and sell the information they gather with it (i.e. ad targeting). I'm not sure this is meaningfully better than selling data (though there are definitely arguments to be made there). AFAIK CF isn't in the business of ads and really data collection is just a waste of their disk space.
floatingatoll 7y ago
Note that US ISP "Comcast/Xfinity" does not, so at the very least, that's one safe harbor amidst the rest. https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/privacy-with-comcasts-xfinity-internet-service https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/privacy-with-comcasts-...
- windexh8er 7y ago
  Cloudflare states the same thing. In fact, Cloudflare provides much more detail than Comcast/Xfinity [0]. And, personally, I actually believe Cloudflare. If I have to choose between the two companies it's a no brainer. This is Cloudflare's business, and their business relies on them upholding their privacy promise. Comcast/Xfinity has, in the past, engaged in DNS hijacking [1]. Comcast has had the worst ACSI score over all other businesses in the US more than once and consistently ranks very low [2]. Comcast won the worst company in America in 2014 by the Consumerist [3]. Comcast has intentionally deceived it's customers as we understand due to lawsuits [4]. I'm not sure what sort of jaded world we live in if one can say Comcast/Xfinity is a "safe harbor amidst the rest" with mountains of public information stating the complete opposite. [0] https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/privacy-policy/ https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-priv... [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/comcasts-dns-redirect-service-goes-nationwide/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/comcasts-dns-red... [2] https://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/press-2019/press-release-telecommunications-2018-2019 https://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/pr... [3] https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcast-your-2014-worst-company-in-america/ https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcas... [4] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-announces-lawsuit-against-comcast-more-100-million https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-announces-lawsu...
  - MoronInAHurry 7y ago
    Cloudflare's business lost them over $100 million last year alone. The way they operate right now is not a viable business, and we have no idea what they will change when they need to become one.
throw0101a 7y ago
> Your ISP is literally selling this information right now in the US. What are you even talking about? Every time Firefox starts up it probably phones home to check for updates. The incoming request is traceable from the user's IP and Mozilla could figure out if the user is with a privacy-violating ISP: they could then only enable OS-bypassing DoH for those users. Those who run Firefox in corporate networks would be unaffected, as would those who are were 'good' ISPs. Also, as someone in Canada, I downloaded the "English" version of Firefox, which probably meant "en_US" locale: guess what, I'm affected. As are plenty of less technical people who don't understand about going into about:config and changing things to "en_CA".
- Marsymars 7y ago
  > Also, as someone in Canada, I downloaded the "English" version of Firefox, which probably meant "en_US" locale: guess what, I'm affected. As are plenty of less technical people who don't understand about going into about:config and changing things to "en_CA". The en-ca locale was only added to Firefox in September 2018, I think it's the default for any new downloads since then, but FF won't automatically change the locale for existing installs.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Can't you just disable DoH?
    - Marsymars 7y ago
      Sure, my point was just tangential to clarify on the availability of the en-ca locale for Firefox. I don't even know that DoH is based on the installed browser's locale in the first place. (I'd guess that it isn't, as I'd expect many non-US users use the en-us locale.)
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      > Can't you just disable DoH? I'm just going to tell my mother in her 60s about editing about:conf settings. This shouldn't be opt-out.
fefe23 7y ago
Sorry for channeling the dude here but that is just, like your opinion man. I think many of the critical voices now are coming from the EU. We have data protection laws. The ISP can't just sell browsing data. That has been illegal since before we had data protection laws, that is actually legally the same as opening other people's letters and reading them. So ... different threat model over here. I am always using the US-EN Firefox version because frankly why would I use translated software when I can understand and use the original. I hope you can see how it might be of concert to me whether Mozilla decides to give my browsing data to Cloudflare, whom I have about as much reason to trust as GCHQ or the NSA.
- kzrdude 7y ago
  > I am always using the US-EN Firefox version because frankly why would I use translated software when I can understand and use the original. This is maybe not the topic of discussion, but the argument is that your computer is your tool, and the computer should speak your language and adapt itself to you, and not the other way around. For this reason I like and prefer software that speaks my native language! However, I don't have patience for bad translations, and in those cases I'll avoid the translated apps. Not a problem for Firefox!
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    I absolutely loathe software in my native language. I will go out of my way to avoid it, because it makes everything more complicated.
  - afiori 7y ago
    From my point of view translated software often just means that googling errors is harder
    - coribuci 7y ago
      It's worse than that. Some words did not exist in the target language (the computers are relatively new compared to the age of the language) so they had to be created. Nothing is more annoying than to search for words which make no sense.
dang 7y ago
> What are you even talking about? Can you please edit swipes like that out of your comments when posting to HN? They break the site guidelines and provoke others into doing worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- gshulegaard 7y ago
  I think it's a good call out to keep in mind the guidelines, but technically the original comment also breaks guidelines. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I would suggest trying to avoid the appearance of personal bias when calling out guidelines infractions on a comment without also calling out infractions within the context equally.
  - dang 7y ago
    I don't see how the GP comment broke the site guidelines. "Snake oil" is close to name-calling, but I don't think it's really over the line, and if we started moderating HN comments for that kind of thing, there would be a huge backlash from the community. Is there something else that I missed? These things are matters of degree in any case, and "what are you even talking about" is clear cut.
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      Person a: I like the blue stuff in oranges Person b: what are you even talking about? Oranges do not have a blue inside. Now what is a swipe about this or breaking a guidline. It did give the impression ( to me at least) as if I was being picked on. But I think in reality you probably misunderstood the tone and intent. Of course this is just my opinion, what you say is the law here and I intend to abide.
      - dang 7y ago
        I believe you, but intent unfortunately doesn't communicate itself well in internet forums, so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20burden%20disambiguate&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... In this case the phrase was one that commonly communicates dismissiveness, which is why I interpreted you the way I did. If you read the guidelines it's clear that (to take your example) such a reply can be shortened to "Oranges do not have a blue inside". However: no harm done! I appreciate your reply and your intention.
alwillis 7y ago
It’s much worse than you think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22418005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22418005
foresto 7y ago
> Your ISP is literally selling this information right now No, mine is not. > Use google if you don't like CF Google is no better. > or just disable it! It is never okay to hijack my DNS lookups. Posting a note someplace about how it can be restored does not change the fact that you hijacked it, and does not make it okay. > This is not adding a new party that can surveil you Given that the DoH provider is a new party with which most of my requests had no contact before, that is an absurd claim. > this is reducing risk by separating who can see your DNS from who can see your traffic. No, it is not. My ISP can still see the domain names of sites I visit, via both SNI and OCSP. They can also deduce the same information in most cases, via address correlation. (Thankfully, I chose an ISP that respects privacy.) This change quietly hands my lookups over to another party as well. If I hadn't noticed the announcement, or didn't have enough technical knowledge to fully understand and revert the change before it went live, my lookups would be pwned. > The idea is to have eSNI ubiquity to where TLS traffic will conceal the sites you visit I don't care what your idea is for the future. It doesn't exist today, so is not relevant to what you have done today. (And even if it did, it would not excuse hijacking my DNS lookups.)
- growse 7y ago
  They're not doing it in secret. Use a different browser if you don't like it, or fork it. Mozilla have made a value judgement that DoH is more useful to end users than the supposed privacy loss. You're free to disagree, but neither of you is objectively correct.
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    > or fork it Seems like this is where things are going. None of the main browsers respect users enough today to the point that they might not even stay usable without forking.
  - coribuci 7y ago
    > They're not doing it in secret. Use a different browser if you don't like it, or fork it. They are not doing it in plain sight either. > Mozilla have made a value judgement that DoH is more useful to end users than the supposed privacy loss. You're free to disagree, but neither of you is objectively correct. Mozilla made a lot of "value judgement" lately just like Chrome. That's why i try to switch to seamonkey.
belorn 7y ago
> Do a little threat modeling here please Yes, lets do some threat modeling. In the first model we have the ISP that host a DNS resolver. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. In the second model we have a CDN that host a DNS resolver. Where is the CDN hosted? At the ISP. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. How has the threat model changed? The CDN has a contract between it and the ISP, and legally this should mean that the ISP have no legal right to look in the server that they host and copy the information. For law enforcement this should change nothing. I don't expect the CDN contract with the ISP to radically limit the secret police, nor the regular police, or even the courts ability to demand censoring of websites. The last part might however generate some court cases and thus delays before things return to the same situation we have today.
- coribuci 7y ago
  > > Do a little threat modeling here please > Yes, lets do some threat modeling. In the first model we have the ISP that host a DNS resolver. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. > In the second model we have a CDN that host a DNS resolver. Where is the CDN hosted? At the ISP. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. hosts : files,dns Damn it. When the bloody browser bypasses the OS then it is really a big problem.

OrgNet 7y ago

Your ISP can still see the IPs that you are talking to... What are you talking about? They can even see the url even if you dont use them as your DNS

e12e 7y ago
> They can even see the url Only for plaintext http. For ssl/https - the hostname/ip can leak with SNI, but should be safe with ESNI (encrypted SNI). The URL should be in the request, which comes after the TLS handshake (hence SNI, so that the server can pick a certificate before knowing the HTTP HOST header). SNI is a problem - but not much worse than the fact that a mitm can see who talks to who (IP) - IMNHO.
- nullc 7y ago
  ESNI is not in use yet (or just doesn't work). Start up tcpdump and check yourself. At best even it were currently use it only provides protection for sites which are hosted behind DOS mitigation services. (usually cloudflare...)
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    You need the right TLS lib for it to work, browsers support it. I've seen big sites like facebook and cloudflare use it.
  - TheGrassyKnoll 7y ago
    You can check it here: https://encryptedsni.com/ -> https://www.cloudflare.com/ssl/encrypted-sni/
- gsich 7y ago
  ESNI is still in draft.
  - e12e 7y ago
    Quite. I didn't mean to imply a host/ip header wouldn't leak today - but I see how my comment can be read that way. In fact, siblings point about cf (cloud flare) is relevant - as cf eats the world, SNI will potentially be more of a problem; if you connect to site A via IP a, and B via ip b - not much is revealed if host headers A and B leaks, given that traffic to a and b is already obvious. But when you connect to cf on a "nearby" IP c, it suddenly becomes more of a problem that host headers for A, B, D and E are leaking. Not necessarily worse than when your ISP could see you talking to IP a and b - but worse in the sense that you reveal some information to your ISP that would otherwise only be known to cf.
- OrgNet 7y ago
  so we agree the ESNI is not in used?

mike-cardwell 7y ago

"Your ISP is literally selling this information right now in the US" Your ISP will literally still be able to sell this information after DoH is rolled out. Because they can see what IPs you're connecting to and in most cases hostnames can be trivially and automatically determined knowing only the IP. Unless we centralise HTTP through a handful of gateways like we're doing with DNS (hello Cloudflare). At which point, why even bother calling it the web anymore.

badrabbit 7y ago
Very limited with TLS. With webhosts, the PTR record means little. CDNs also obfuscate your destination. Shared hosting sites only care about the host field in the encrypted HTTP as well. Especially given the oversaturation of IPv4. Keep in mind, it's not just what you visit but how often as well and a lot other details (dns is cached)
- gioele 7y ago
  > Very limited with TLS. With webhosts, the PTR record means little. TLS+SNI sends the `Host` you are connecting to in plain text. eSNI is not yet widely deployed. Centralizing DNS without centralizing HTTP (e.g. domain fronting) does not solve the leak of connection metadata.

dogecoinbase 7y ago

I trust Cloudflare and Google (the other major DoH proponent) not to sell my data, because they have no need to do so. They are subject to law enforcement inquiries just like everyone else, so this does nothing for privacy in that regard (and actually increases the attack surface). This also does not separate who can see your DNS from who can see your traffic, in fact it consolidates it, and this is why both Google (who controls the browser) and Cloudflare (who serves a large portion of the internet) are proponents of it. It allows them to aggregate DNS information alongside request information in a way they could not previously. I am aware that they both have policies in place which purport to prevent this behavior. It would certainly not be the first time Google violates their stated policies in the mission of serving advertisements, or the first time Cloudflare aggressively consolidates internet infrastructure to the detriment of the open web.

godelski 7y ago
> I trust Cloudflare and __Google__ (the other major DoH proponent) not to sell my data, because they have no need to do so. Isn't Google's entire business model... data collection? Maybe Google won't sell the data, but they'll use it and sell the information they gather with it (i.e. ad targeting). I'm not sure this is meaningfully better than selling data (though there are definitely arguments to be made there). AFAIK CF isn't in the business of ads and really data collection is just a waste of their disk space.

floatingatoll 7y ago

Note that US ISP "Comcast/Xfinity" does not, so at the very least, that's one safe harbor amidst the rest. https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/privacy-with-comcasts-xfinity-internet-service https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/privacy-with-comcasts-...

windexh8er 7y ago
Cloudflare states the same thing. In fact, Cloudflare provides much more detail than Comcast/Xfinity [0]. And, personally, I actually believe Cloudflare. If I have to choose between the two companies it's a no brainer. This is Cloudflare's business, and their business relies on them upholding their privacy promise. Comcast/Xfinity has, in the past, engaged in DNS hijacking [1]. Comcast has had the worst ACSI score over all other businesses in the US more than once and consistently ranks very low [2]. Comcast won the worst company in America in 2014 by the Consumerist [3]. Comcast has intentionally deceived it's customers as we understand due to lawsuits [4]. I'm not sure what sort of jaded world we live in if one can say Comcast/Xfinity is a "safe harbor amidst the rest" with mountains of public information stating the complete opposite. [0] https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-privacy/privacy-policy/privacy-policy/ https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/commitment-to-priv... [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/comcasts-dns-redirect-service-goes-nationwide/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/08/comcasts-dns-red... [2] https://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/press-2019/press-release-telecommunications-2018-2019 https://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/pr... [3] https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcast-your-2014-worst-company-in-america/ https://consumerist.com/2014/04/08/congratulations-to-comcas... [4] https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-announces-lawsuit-against-comcast-more-100-million https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-announces-lawsu...
- MoronInAHurry 7y ago
  Cloudflare's business lost them over $100 million last year alone. The way they operate right now is not a viable business, and we have no idea what they will change when they need to become one.

throw0101a 7y ago

> Your ISP is literally selling this information right now in the US. What are you even talking about? Every time Firefox starts up it probably phones home to check for updates. The incoming request is traceable from the user's IP and Mozilla could figure out if the user is with a privacy-violating ISP: they could then only enable OS-bypassing DoH for those users. Those who run Firefox in corporate networks would be unaffected, as would those who are were 'good' ISPs. Also, as someone in Canada, I downloaded the "English" version of Firefox, which probably meant "en_US" locale: guess what, I'm affected. As are plenty of less technical people who don't understand about going into about:config and changing things to "en_CA".

Marsymars 7y ago
> Also, as someone in Canada, I downloaded the "English" version of Firefox, which probably meant "en_US" locale: guess what, I'm affected. As are plenty of less technical people who don't understand about going into about:config and changing things to "en_CA". The en-ca locale was only added to Firefox in September 2018, I think it's the default for any new downloads since then, but FF won't automatically change the locale for existing installs.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Can't you just disable DoH?
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    Sure, my point was just tangential to clarify on the availability of the en-ca locale for Firefox. I don't even know that DoH is based on the installed browser's locale in the first place. (I'd guess that it isn't, as I'd expect many non-US users use the en-us locale.)
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > Can't you just disable DoH? I'm just going to tell my mother in her 60s about editing about:conf settings. This shouldn't be opt-out.

fefe23 7y ago

Sorry for channeling the dude here but that is just, like your opinion man. I think many of the critical voices now are coming from the EU. We have data protection laws. The ISP can't just sell browsing data. That has been illegal since before we had data protection laws, that is actually legally the same as opening other people's letters and reading them. So ... different threat model over here. I am always using the US-EN Firefox version because frankly why would I use translated software when I can understand and use the original. I hope you can see how it might be of concert to me whether Mozilla decides to give my browsing data to Cloudflare, whom I have about as much reason to trust as GCHQ or the NSA.

kzrdude 7y ago
> I am always using the US-EN Firefox version because frankly why would I use translated software when I can understand and use the original. This is maybe not the topic of discussion, but the argument is that your computer is your tool, and the computer should speak your language and adapt itself to you, and not the other way around. For this reason I like and prefer software that speaks my native language! However, I don't have patience for bad translations, and in those cases I'll avoid the translated apps. Not a problem for Firefox!
- Mirioron 7y ago
  I absolutely loathe software in my native language. I will go out of my way to avoid it, because it makes everything more complicated.
- afiori 7y ago
  From my point of view translated software often just means that googling errors is harder
  - coribuci 7y ago
    It's worse than that. Some words did not exist in the target language (the computers are relatively new compared to the age of the language) so they had to be created. Nothing is more annoying than to search for words which make no sense.

dang 7y ago

> What are you even talking about? Can you please edit swipes like that out of your comments when posting to HN? They break the site guidelines and provoke others into doing worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

gshulegaard 7y ago
I think it's a good call out to keep in mind the guidelines, but technically the original comment also breaks guidelines. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I would suggest trying to avoid the appearance of personal bias when calling out guidelines infractions on a comment without also calling out infractions within the context equally.
- dang 7y ago
  I don't see how the GP comment broke the site guidelines. "Snake oil" is close to name-calling, but I don't think it's really over the line, and if we started moderating HN comments for that kind of thing, there would be a huge backlash from the community. Is there something else that I missed? These things are matters of degree in any case, and "what are you even talking about" is clear cut.
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    Person a: I like the blue stuff in oranges Person b: what are you even talking about? Oranges do not have a blue inside. Now what is a swipe about this or breaking a guidline. It did give the impression ( to me at least) as if I was being picked on. But I think in reality you probably misunderstood the tone and intent. Of course this is just my opinion, what you say is the law here and I intend to abide.
    - dang 7y ago
      I believe you, but intent unfortunately doesn't communicate itself well in internet forums, so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20burden%20disambiguate&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... In this case the phrase was one that commonly communicates dismissiveness, which is why I interpreted you the way I did. If you read the guidelines it's clear that (to take your example) such a reply can be shortened to "Oranges do not have a blue inside". However: no harm done! I appreciate your reply and your intention.

alwillis 7y ago

It’s much worse than you think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22418005 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22418005

foresto 7y ago

> Your ISP is literally selling this information right now No, mine is not. > Use google if you don't like CF Google is no better. > or just disable it! It is never okay to hijack my DNS lookups. Posting a note someplace about how it can be restored does not change the fact that you hijacked it, and does not make it okay. > This is not adding a new party that can surveil you Given that the DoH provider is a new party with which most of my requests had no contact before, that is an absurd claim. > this is reducing risk by separating who can see your DNS from who can see your traffic. No, it is not. My ISP can still see the domain names of sites I visit, via both SNI and OCSP. They can also deduce the same information in most cases, via address correlation. (Thankfully, I chose an ISP that respects privacy.) This change quietly hands my lookups over to another party as well. If I hadn't noticed the announcement, or didn't have enough technical knowledge to fully understand and revert the change before it went live, my lookups would be pwned. > The idea is to have eSNI ubiquity to where TLS traffic will conceal the sites you visit I don't care what your idea is for the future. It doesn't exist today, so is not relevant to what you have done today. (And even if it did, it would not excuse hijacking my DNS lookups.)

growse 7y ago
They're not doing it in secret. Use a different browser if you don't like it, or fork it. Mozilla have made a value judgement that DoH is more useful to end users than the supposed privacy loss. You're free to disagree, but neither of you is objectively correct.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  > or fork it Seems like this is where things are going. None of the main browsers respect users enough today to the point that they might not even stay usable without forking.
- coribuci 7y ago
  > They're not doing it in secret. Use a different browser if you don't like it, or fork it. They are not doing it in plain sight either. > Mozilla have made a value judgement that DoH is more useful to end users than the supposed privacy loss. You're free to disagree, but neither of you is objectively correct. Mozilla made a lot of "value judgement" lately just like Chrome. That's why i try to switch to seamonkey.

belorn 7y ago

> Do a little threat modeling here please Yes, lets do some threat modeling. In the first model we have the ISP that host a DNS resolver. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. In the second model we have a CDN that host a DNS resolver. Where is the CDN hosted? At the ISP. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. How has the threat model changed? The CDN has a contract between it and the ISP, and legally this should mean that the ISP have no legal right to look in the server that they host and copy the information. For law enforcement this should change nothing. I don't expect the CDN contract with the ISP to radically limit the secret police, nor the regular police, or even the courts ability to demand censoring of websites. The last part might however generate some court cases and thus delays before things return to the same situation we have today.

coribuci 7y ago
> > Do a little threat modeling here please > Yes, lets do some threat modeling. In the first model we have the ISP that host a DNS resolver. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. > In the second model we have a CDN that host a DNS resolver. Where is the CDN hosted? At the ISP. The traffic goes from the client to the server hosted by the ISP. hosts : files,dns Damn it. When the bloody browser bypasses the OS then it is really a big problem.