4 ms·

(2022). That contract was awarded to Whalebone https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-commission-entrusted-whalebone-development-dns4eu-/ https://www.linkedin.

(2022). That contract was awarded to Whalebone https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-commission-entrusted-whalebone-development-dns4eu-/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-commission-entrusted... and the project has a website https://www.joindns4.eu/ https://www.joindns4.eu/ This background article covers a lot of the whys and hows: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2023.2295937?scroll=top&needAccess=true https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23738871.2023.2... including mentioning similar projects in the UK and Canada. It says public access to it (as an option, alongside other public DNS services) will be available from 2025.

stavros 3y ago
I have thought "man, I wish my DNS server didn't let me visit this torrent website I want to visit" exactly zero times. I wonder if this is some misguided "torrent sites are malicious, so users should be able to block them" thing, rather than a "the government needs to ban torrent sites because they're illegal". It's bizarre to make a DNS resolver like this, and then make it opt-in.
- bazzargh 3y ago
  The stated purpose of the thing isn't to block torrents. It's to avoid the EU being critically dependent on US infrastructure (and a lot more words), particularly government departments - also the stated reason for the UK version, both of which launched for access from government offices first? They make it clear on the website that it is optional so that it cannot be used for censorship.
  - stavros 3y ago
    That clarifies things, and makes more sense, thank you.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > They make it clear on the website that it is optional so that it cannot be used for censorship. But then why is it blocking those sites? All that would do is reduce adoption and thwart their stated purpose.
    - bazzargh 3y ago
      is it blocking anything? It was one of a shopping list of requirements that it be capable of complying with court orders. I expect they don't want to repeat the Quad9 situation, where it just blocked requests from all of Germany. And as others in the thread mention, things that court orders may block aren't just torrents - eg malware. Also, given that it's mainly aimed (so far) at government departments and telcos, it's not clear that that would reduce adoption at all.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > is it blocking anything? It was one of a shopping list of requirements that it be capable of complying with court orders. Presumably the court orders would be to block things, right? > I expect they don't want to repeat the Quad9 situation, where it just blocked requests from all of Germany. Best way to resolve this is to not have laws requiring DNS servers to censor things, and make those laws as inconvenient to enforce as possible to encourage that outcome. > And as others in the thread mention, things that court orders may block aren't just torrents - eg malware. But as soon as they start blocking torrents then people stop using it and it can no longer block malware. > Also, given that it's mainly aimed (so far) at government departments and telcos, it's not clear that that would reduce adoption at all. Users can choose not to use their telco's DNS if it starts blocking things they don't want it to, which in turn limits use of the service by end users. It may even limit use of the service by telcos if they get customer complaints or notice that customers are switching from their DNS, which they don't want if they're redirecting NXDOMAIN to ad spam or using/selling DNS query data etc.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    Thanks for digging up the details! Digital sovereignty might have been the initial reason (and a sensible one). What's actually being delivered seems to be a DNS service for blocking malicious sites with real time threat intelligence feeds, for Telcos to upsell to their customers with antivirus-style security scaremongering. That difference in focus is pretty troubling. It's taking away focus from the important part of delivering a robust DNS service, making the service more expensive to build out initially, and then also making it far more expensive to operate in perpetuity since they'll be spending the large majority of their time on maintaining the threat intel.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  It's not only bizarre but counterproductive. In theory you could create a DNS resolver that only blocks unambiguous threats, like actual malware domains, and then people would have a reason to opt in. But as soon as you start adding things to the list that give the users a reason to stop using it, they stop using it.

stavros 3y ago

I have thought "man, I wish my DNS server didn't let me visit this torrent website I want to visit" exactly zero times. I wonder if this is some misguided "torrent sites are malicious, so users should be able to block them" thing, rather than a "the government needs to ban torrent sites because they're illegal". It's bizarre to make a DNS resolver like this, and then make it opt-in.

bazzargh 3y ago
The stated purpose of the thing isn't to block torrents. It's to avoid the EU being critically dependent on US infrastructure (and a lot more words), particularly government departments - also the stated reason for the UK version, both of which launched for access from government offices first? They make it clear on the website that it is optional so that it cannot be used for censorship.
- stavros 3y ago
  That clarifies things, and makes more sense, thank you.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > They make it clear on the website that it is optional so that it cannot be used for censorship. But then why is it blocking those sites? All that would do is reduce adoption and thwart their stated purpose.
  - bazzargh 3y ago
    is it blocking anything? It was one of a shopping list of requirements that it be capable of complying with court orders. I expect they don't want to repeat the Quad9 situation, where it just blocked requests from all of Germany. And as others in the thread mention, things that court orders may block aren't just torrents - eg malware. Also, given that it's mainly aimed (so far) at government departments and telcos, it's not clear that that would reduce adoption at all.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > is it blocking anything? It was one of a shopping list of requirements that it be capable of complying with court orders. Presumably the court orders would be to block things, right? > I expect they don't want to repeat the Quad9 situation, where it just blocked requests from all of Germany. Best way to resolve this is to not have laws requiring DNS servers to censor things, and make those laws as inconvenient to enforce as possible to encourage that outcome. > And as others in the thread mention, things that court orders may block aren't just torrents - eg malware. But as soon as they start blocking torrents then people stop using it and it can no longer block malware. > Also, given that it's mainly aimed (so far) at government departments and telcos, it's not clear that that would reduce adoption at all. Users can choose not to use their telco's DNS if it starts blocking things they don't want it to, which in turn limits use of the service by end users. It may even limit use of the service by telcos if they get customer complaints or notice that customers are switching from their DNS, which they don't want if they're redirecting NXDOMAIN to ad spam or using/selling DNS query data etc.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Thanks for digging up the details! Digital sovereignty might have been the initial reason (and a sensible one). What's actually being delivered seems to be a DNS service for blocking malicious sites with real time threat intelligence feeds, for Telcos to upsell to their customers with antivirus-style security scaremongering. That difference in focus is pretty troubling. It's taking away focus from the important part of delivering a robust DNS service, making the service more expensive to build out initially, and then also making it far more expensive to operate in perpetuity since they'll be spending the large majority of their time on maintaining the threat intel.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
It's not only bizarre but counterproductive. In theory you could create a DNS resolver that only blocks unambiguous threats, like actual malware domains, and then people would have a reason to opt in. But as soon as you start adding things to the list that give the users a reason to stop using it, they stop using it.