3 ms·
Nice! Another alternative is to use a different protocol, i.e., instead of using DNS over 53/udp, use dnscrypt (ports 443 TCP/UDP) via something like dnscrypt-p
by madars 3y ago
Nice! Another alternative is to use a different protocol, i.e., instead of using DNS over 53/udp, use dnscrypt (ports 443 TCP/UDP) via something like dnscrypt-proxy. This has an additional benefit of not leaking your DNS queries to your ISP.
- esafak 3y agoDo you need another list of servers for that or can you use the one above?
- madars 3y agodnscrypt is a separate protocol so you'd need a different list of servers. But those are readily available and tagged with their filter (e.g. no malware or no adult domains) and privacy (e.g. no log, no edns-client-subnet, qname minimization) policies. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DNSCrypt/dnscrypt-resolvers/master/v3/public-resolvers.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/DNSCrypt/dnscrypt-resolver... https://dnscrypt.info/public-servers/ https://dnscrypt.info/public-servers/
- oxygen_crisis 3y agoI'm actually enforcing encrypted DNS and blocking destination port 53 outbound on my firewall at home, that's why I couldn't re-run the script I was using to test the current availability and response times on all these. (It wouldn't be a lot of work to run the tests from one of my cloud servers or disable the firewall rule temporarily, but I figured someone on HN might tell me which ones stopped working and spare me the effort.)