4 ms·

DNS Resolver Quad9 Loses Global Pirate Site Blocking Case Against Sony

32 points by supriyo-biswas 4y ago

LinuxBender 4y ago
Archive Link [1] [1] - https://archive.ph/aOIIo https://archive.ph/aOIIo
prhrb 4y ago
This sets a very bad precedent and now many more sites will blocked directly from public dns providers
- betaby 4y ago
  That's a Russian style, quite literally.
Havoc 4y ago
> held the DNS service liable for the infringing activities of its users. Making the DNS provider the internet police seems like a spectacularly bad idea
salawat 4y ago
Well... Maybe now people will listen and return to the way things should have been in the first place. Maintaining private books of IP addresses. As long as you have registrars acting as user intermediaries, they will always be targeted by Governments due to their central role in negotiating the connection. Hopefully the line'll stop there. ISP's are close enough to common carrier that the same strategy is unlikely to find ready purchase. Though I won't hold my breath on that one. Somone'll probably try.
- supriyo-biswas 4y ago
  Well they can force CAs to not issue certificates either, which means unencrypted connections that the media conglomerates can ask ISPs to intercept, or having to fall back on a web of trust model, which, unfortunately, hasn't really scaled so far.
tekeous 4y ago
It’ll be interesting if this goes to users not being able to trust their DNS, because router manufacturers can just include their own. Unbound DNS has been around for a while, and they can’t stop a pirate site from broadcasting their own host name. If we all ran our own DNS they can’t sue all of us.
betaby 4y ago
Running resolver locally was a good idea in 90s and still is. It's a trivial workload even for a smartwatch.
- nix23 4y ago
  And your local resolver resolves with what?
  - betaby 4y ago
    You start from root.hints and go from there. Here is good write up https://timothya.com/blog/dns/ https://timothya.com/blog/dns/ In 99.9% of cases installing unbound locally and pointing DNS nameserver to 127.0.0.1 would work.
betaby 4y ago
"The Court wasn’t receptive to this argument, as the DNS resolver already actively blocks malware as one of its features." This is a very important statement and that's precisely why 'malware' filtering was and is a bad idea. One basically ceased to be uninvolved party. I haven't ever used Quad9, however I tried 1.1.1.1 in the past. Unfortunately they were blocking or not resolving plenty of domains. That was during the peak COVID. Privately employee told me that they were filtering 'fake news' sites about COVID. As a collateral plenty of legit content were blocked. Also I was told that block lists or similar won't be released that 'bad actors' won't workaround.

LinuxBender 4y ago

Archive Link [1] [1] - https://archive.ph/aOIIo https://archive.ph/aOIIo

prhrb 4y ago

This sets a very bad precedent and now many more sites will blocked directly from public dns providers

betaby 4y ago
That's a Russian style, quite literally.

Havoc 4y ago

> held the DNS service liable for the infringing activities of its users. Making the DNS provider the internet police seems like a spectacularly bad idea

salawat 4y ago

Well... Maybe now people will listen and return to the way things should have been in the first place. Maintaining private books of IP addresses. As long as you have registrars acting as user intermediaries, they will always be targeted by Governments due to their central role in negotiating the connection. Hopefully the line'll stop there. ISP's are close enough to common carrier that the same strategy is unlikely to find ready purchase. Though I won't hold my breath on that one. Somone'll probably try.

supriyo-biswas 4y ago
Well they can force CAs to not issue certificates either, which means unencrypted connections that the media conglomerates can ask ISPs to intercept, or having to fall back on a web of trust model, which, unfortunately, hasn't really scaled so far.

tekeous 4y ago

It’ll be interesting if this goes to users not being able to trust their DNS, because router manufacturers can just include their own. Unbound DNS has been around for a while, and they can’t stop a pirate site from broadcasting their own host name. If we all ran our own DNS they can’t sue all of us.

betaby 4y ago

Running resolver locally was a good idea in 90s and still is. It's a trivial workload even for a smartwatch.

nix23 4y ago
And your local resolver resolves with what?
- betaby 4y ago
  You start from root.hints and go from there. Here is good write up https://timothya.com/blog/dns/ https://timothya.com/blog/dns/ In 99.9% of cases installing unbound locally and pointing DNS nameserver to 127.0.0.1 would work.

betaby 4y ago

"The Court wasn’t receptive to this argument, as the DNS resolver already actively blocks malware as one of its features." This is a very important statement and that's precisely why 'malware' filtering was and is a bad idea. One basically ceased to be uninvolved party. I haven't ever used Quad9, however I tried 1.1.1.1 in the past. Unfortunately they were blocking or not resolving plenty of domains. That was during the peak COVID. Privately employee told me that they were filtering 'fake news' sites about COVID. As a collateral plenty of legit content were blocked. Also I was told that block lists or similar won't be released that 'bad actors' won't workaround.