3 ms·
It's so easy to install a local copy of Unbound on your desktop, even on a Windows box. I'm surprised when I see hackers using Google or OpenDNS rather than usi
by mike-cardwell 15y ago
It's so easy to install a local copy of Unbound on your desktop, even on a Windows box. I'm surprised when I see hackers using Google or OpenDNS rather than using their own DNS resolver. Unbound supports DNSSEC too.
- luser001 15y agoThanks for this great tip. I've been looking for a simple Windows-based DNS resolver for a while now.
- icebraining 15y agoThe two are not incompatible: I run my own DNS resolver (dnsmasq) which I configured to recurse to Google DNS. The problem is that any domain lookup requires at least two requests: one to the root servers to find out the domain's nameserver, and one to that nameserver to find out its actual records. Google has so many users that it's very unlikely that it isn't already in cache, but as a single user of my own resolver, I'd have to pay that penalty for each domain every couple of hours or less (there are some ridiculously low TTLs out there). Frankly, I think it's worth it.
- stock_toaster 15y agoI am sure you realize, but by pointing to Google DNS, you are making your CDN edge request performance worse (in general). CDNs using GeoDNS will assume your location is the google DNS servers[1], and will use the closest edge node. You would likely get better performance with some sites (those using big expensive CDNs) if you pointed to your ISP's recursors (or used unbound to be your own). [1]: Google's DNS servers are likely anycast multi-homed as well, so it may not be quite as bad as if google only had a couple of centrally located servers. It would still likely skew your closest CDN Edge node a bit.