10 ms·

No more ads

188 points by philip1209 12y ago

fiatjaf 12y ago
Well, I remember not even knowing what was DNS, and having the bad luck of having a computer with OpenDNS set as its primary DNS, I don't know why. I only know I thought it was a malware and the first thing I did when I learned it was a DNS server was to change it.
nly 12y ago
So I guess an analogy for this move would be like if Google announced Gmail was going ad-free for freeloaders because their Google Apps platform was now their sole money-spinner. Though, I imagine, vastly different cost structure and conversion rates. I find it hard to be too cynical when OpenDNS were one of the few companies to give DNSCurve a whirl.
- davidu 12y ago
  Your analogy is right. Thanks for the note on DNSCurve. Expect more work here and with DNSCrypt in the future.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DanBlake 12y ago
Its nice to say "we stopped doing it because we love our users" but I always feel like there is something more behind the scenes that makes these things happen. Did chrome or Firefox recently change the way they handle nonexistent DNS answers so that opendns '404 pages' would no longer work? If the writing was on the wall it might make sense for opendns to get ahead of it, since there wouldn't be much they could do to combat browser level changes. Or: Did google/yahoo not renew their search feed agreement with them to be the search provider and/or significantly change the rates? I know google has been coming down very hard on toolbar makers so perhaps this is googles way of getting out of that biz (And forcing opendns's hand)
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  My guess is that a) the ads on the page don't monetize well, b) the ad networks willing to pay to advertise there are sketchy, and c) users complain.
  - greenyoda 12y ago
    "the ads on the page don't monetize well" Agreed. I can't imagine that the average person types in a bad domain name very frequently (compared to, lets say, the number of times they view a Facebook page each day). So you can't really sell a lot of ads this way. Also, if someone makes a mistake with a URL, they're not going to stick around very long to read an ad, since they're already impatient to be somewhere else.
  - davidu 12y ago
    You should see my other response in this thread. Maximizing ad revenue put us in an arms race for a cause we don't even believe in. So why continue it? Our time is far better spent elsewhere.
    - bigbugbag 12y ago
      Then again why engage in this practice in the first place ?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- pzxc 12y ago
  Or maybe the truth is just as they explained it? That people don't like ads, that this fact is the most-cited reason people don't use OpenDNS, that they have an even better revenue model now (security analysis), and that by dropping their old way of doing things they will be able to attract vastly more people to use their service which will make their "security big data" even bigger and thus more useful/profitable? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... (By the way I think this change is awesome. Now if I could only get my cell phone provider -Tmobile cough- to stop hijacking my nonexistent-domain dns queries)
mahouse 12y ago
The amount of users they have lost to Google and other DNS providers without ads and that follow the standards (i.e. NXDOMAIN, etc.) must be big.
jacquesm 12y ago
> Text ads and banners alike, they’re all vectors for the spread of malware. That's an excellent argument pro-ad blockers. Typically ad-blocker users are berated because they're 'stealing from the publishers' or something to that effect, but it makes good sense from a security point of view too. And it rationalizes so much better than 'the web is faster this way' (assuming that's even the case).
- eli 12y ago
  I guess it's good for security... but if your computer can be hijacked by loading a website, you're going to have a bad day even if you're blocking ads. For example, I would bet hacked websites are a much more common malware vector than ads.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Yes, but that does not mean it does not happen and when a very large website gets used to deliver malware through advertising it can be very effective. Such as this top10 dutch website: http://blog.fox-it.com/2012/03/16/post-mortem-report-on-the-sinowallnu-nl-incident/ http://blog.fox-it.com/2012/03/16/post-mortem-report-on-the-...
  - davidu 12y ago
    With the proliferation of real-time auction and backfill ad networks, the ability for a bad user to inject javascript or malicious Flash ads into the ad creative space carried on major sites has grown dramatically over the last few years. It's hard to even tell who is serving up your ads sometimes without pulling out wireshark or some kind of HTTP proxy to look at the request chain.
    - eli 12y ago
      Again, though, if an ad blocker is the only thing standing between you and a zero-day, you need to immediately stop what you're doing and patch your browser. It's true there are bad actors taking advantage of ad networks. There are bad actors hacking Wordpress installs too.
fataliss 12y ago
I've always hated ads. Because most of the time products use it without embracing it and integrating it fully. Anywhoo, I'm happy to see OpenDNS getting out of this revenue model, I hope it's gonna work so other might be inspired! Who knows.
mschuster91 12y ago
Looks like Google's 8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4 stole them quite a bunch of traffic, simply due to it being (often) faster and ad-free. It was e.g. impossible to use OpenDNS on a server doing mail stuff because OpenDNS would resolve everything and their dead mother instead of returning NXDOMAIN. Well, now I think I'll switch over to OpenDNS as soon as they prove to deliver un-manipulated DNS service. One way less for Google to track me. edit: does anyone know if Cloudflare is also in the DNS business, from the resolver side? I know they and Amazon (Route53) do DNS server hosting, but does Cloudflare also provide public resolvers?
- opendais 12y ago
  I wish they would but they aren't as far as I am aware.
- alec 12y ago
  re: "One way less for Google to track me." Google says that they don't use Google DNS for tracking. From the Google DNS privacy page: "We built Google Public DNS to make the web faster and to retain as little information about usage as we could, while still being able to detect and fix problems. Google Public DNS does not permanently store personally identifiable information." They go on in some detail to say how and what they log. https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy
  - mschuster91 12y ago
    But you can bet that at least the NSA and 3-letter-agencies around the world do monitor anything going to or coming from these two IPs. It's just a too convenient target. More distributed resolvers (like with Cloudflare/Amazon datacenters directly linked to ISPs) would make this type of spying orders of magnitude harder (they must actively infiltrate the ISPs network instead of just tapping the DECIX/exchange switches, which e.g. German BND is ALLOWED to do!). Shit, I'd pay for Cloudflare or any other service to build robust, interception-secured DNS servers. Or my provider, but providers have a shameful track record of building fast and reliable DNS servers.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ing33k 12y ago
just trying to figure out this, won't the people who bother changing their DNS also use an Ad-blocker ?
- mcpherrinm 12y ago
  OpenDNS is used in a lot of places like coffee shop wifi where your users aren't the same as the savvier people who set up the internet. At least that's the only place I encounter (and then curse) their "guide". Lots of people not using adblocking there.
wtallis 12y ago
I wonder if they're planning on implementing DNSSEC, given that this change is a prerequisite for full DNSSEC support. They would also have to be willing to use a less user-friendly method of blocking phishing domains (like return an unsigned NXDOMAIN that doesn't validate).
jblow 12y ago
The attempt to put a positive spin on the ad-version is kind of absurd. Translation: "We tried to serve ads in a way that broke basic functionality for many people. But we didn't make that much money, so we are going to stop being malicious actors, and we're going to start following the protocols we're supposed to follow."
- davidu 12y ago
  Except that isn't accurate. I get that's how you see it, but that's just not true. It's ridiculous to say we broke things for many people. Our growth numbers tell a different story. Doesn't mean DNS nerds didn't like creating an account to re-enable standard nxdomain behavior, but it didn't cause issues for most people. We made real money from ads, enough to be profitable with a decent-sized (20+) team. But we never saw a way to go from 5m to 50m or 500m with ads though. And we never loved the ads. I just never thought it aligned our interests with our customers in the right way. I get that Google has figured it out, and Facebook and Twitter sort of have, but we couldn't, and didn't want to. Plus, at the time, you have to recall the browser landscape was wildly different. In fact, it's very possible that we may have created the eventuality of today by doing what we did. Chrome didn't even exist when we started. There was no omnibus. I demo'ed our service to Sundar Pichai back in 2007.
  - wdr1 12y ago
    Hijacking NXDOMAIN for non-existent domains does not follow standards & is definitely breaking things.
    - orf 12y ago
      Agreed, I've run into this behaviour several times and it is confusing and annoying, especially while programming. A DNS response for a non-existent domain shouldn't be "this page full of adverts", it should be "this domain doesn't exist".
    - stuki 12y ago
      The relevant question isn't whether it is "breaking things" in the abstract, but whether it is breaking things in a way meaningfully detrimental to end users. Or, if you really want to stretch it, perhaps also include externalities imposed on the "internet as a whole." In the era before the omnibox, I personally can't see much in the way of "breaking things" on account of OpenDNS. Doesn't mean you and others can't disagree with that, but it's not as cut and dried as your statement seems to imply.
brokentone 12y ago
This is only partially related, but ad quality is just so bad, that it's becoming nearly a moral issue (as essentially is here) making ads the business model. I wonder if there isn't a business case for highly QA'd ads? Or is there too little visibility into that for the average consumer to appreciate the value?
joshfraser 12y ago
Props to davidu for skating to where the puck is going and not where it's been.
zobzu 12y ago
I stopped using opendns when they added ads. I might use it again then.
bluedino 12y ago
We used OpenDNS until we sent out an email that linked to SurveyMonkey - the URL was wrong, it said surveymonkye.com The problem was our QA never caught it, since OpenDNS 'fixed' the request during testing. 24,000 emails later, we were instantly alerted to the bad link.
- mjolk 12y ago
  You pay a QA to read outgoing emails to customers and they don't even click links? Are you hiring?
  - bluedino 12y ago
    They clicked the links. But OpenDNS 'fixes' the request from the browser, sending you to the right URL even if you enter the wrong one. That's why QA didn't catch it.
    - mjolk 12y ago
      Oh weird. It searches for the most relevant thing and flows through? I thought their nxdomain stuff was just to serve ads, not provide redirects to existing sites.
kolev 12y ago
I either use Google Public DNS or DNSCrypt with one of these here (https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/blob/master/dnscrypt-resolvers.csv https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/blob/master/dnscr...). Some providers even support Namecoin and DNSSEC validation.
dickinurass 12y ago
Ad based software rules the internet, anyone who wants no ads wants to kill our jobs. therefor i refuse to click this link.
melville_X 12y ago
A good free alternative is Comodo (8.26.56.26), I trust them slightly more than Google and they have security features such as malware detection. http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/ http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Comodo? This Comodo? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_is.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_... http://youtu.be/pDmj_xe7EIQ?t=4m59s http://youtu.be/pDmj_xe7EIQ?t=4m59s
enscr 12y ago
Search "opendns vs google dns" https://www.google.com/webhp?q=opendns+vs+google+dns#q=opendns+vs+google+dns https://www.google.com/webhp?q=opendns+vs+google+dns#q=opend... One of the top links is titled "OpenDNS vs. Google Public DNS" and points to : http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure There's no mention of Google on that page. How do I trust a company that's tricking users with misleading titles?
- sumedh 12y ago
  That is actually a good point, not sure why you got downvoted.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- davidu 12y ago
  We removed that page when we updated our website. Google is surprisingly slow in this case to update their results. No idea. Nothing we're doing on our end I don't think.
  - enscr 12y ago
    I don't see Google's fault here. The title of this page (still live) http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure/ http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure/ is <title>OpenDNS vs. Google Public DNS</title>
    - davidu 12y ago
      You're right. Maybe something wrong in Wordpress then, it's supposed to redirect you. We killed that page. I'll open a ticket.
blueskin_ 12y ago
Very nice, I might give OpenDNs another try as my backup DNS server now. I hate NXDOMAIN hijacking with a passion. >This experience is one of the only reasons people cite to not use OpenDNS. Yep, because people care about their privacy. I'm surprised OpenDNS didn't notice this before. I will probably start recommending them again now; after all, almost anyone is better to trust with something like DNS than google.
- bigbugbag 12y ago
  They obviously noticed and knew but did not care, as stated in the post OpenDNS is a revenue oriented company as such they're going after the money which for a service nobody's going to pay money for means going the "make them pay with their privacy " way a.k.a. ads.
tty 12y ago
An alternative to all these popular DNS servers is the Swiss Privacy Foundation http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/de/service/server.html http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/de/service/server.html 77.109.138.45 77.109.139.29 No blocking, no logging except for errors (the IP is not logged).
- marquis 12y ago
  I've been using this for about 6 months in various parts of the globe and have been very happy. If there is a donate button on their site (my Deutsch language is lacking) I would like to know.
  - grmarcil 12y ago
    It seems you could become a member for 35 Swiss Francs (~40 USD) per year. http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/en/association/membership.html http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/en/association/membership.ht...
    - marquis 12y ago
      Given it costs at least $25 to send, and more fees to receive, a bank wire transfer it seems strange to only offer this method. Perhaps it is easier if you have a European bank.
unreal37 12y ago
Congrats davidu and opendns on making bold choices and thinking about users despite millions in revenue you could have made.
bigbugbag 12y ago
For those of you who prefer to use a different DNS server from of the one provided by your ISP, thanks to the work of Chris Hill you can make good use of this resolv.conf: http://www.chaz6.com/files/resolv.conf http://www.chaz6.com/files/resolv.conf WARNING: Not to be used as is, be smart and only activate a handful of those DNS servers.

188 points by philip1209 12y ago

Well, I remember not even knowing what was DNS, and having the bad luck of having a computer with OpenDNS set as its primary DNS, I don't know why. I only know I thought it was a malware and the first thing I did when I learned it was a DNS server was to change it.

nly 12y ago

So I guess an analogy for this move would be like if Google announced Gmail was going ad-free for freeloaders because their Google Apps platform was now their sole money-spinner. Though, I imagine, vastly different cost structure and conversion rates. I find it hard to be too cynical when OpenDNS were one of the few companies to give DNSCurve a whirl.

davidu 12y ago
Your analogy is right. Thanks for the note on DNSCurve. Expect more work here and with DNSCrypt in the future.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

DanBlake 12y ago

Its nice to say "we stopped doing it because we love our users" but I always feel like there is something more behind the scenes that makes these things happen. Did chrome or Firefox recently change the way they handle nonexistent DNS answers so that opendns '404 pages' would no longer work? If the writing was on the wall it might make sense for opendns to get ahead of it, since there wouldn't be much they could do to combat browser level changes. Or: Did google/yahoo not renew their search feed agreement with them to be the search provider and/or significantly change the rates? I know google has been coming down very hard on toolbar makers so perhaps this is googles way of getting out of that biz (And forcing opendns's hand)

ChuckMcM 12y ago
My guess is that a) the ads on the page don't monetize well, b) the ad networks willing to pay to advertise there are sketchy, and c) users complain.
- greenyoda 12y ago
  "the ads on the page don't monetize well" Agreed. I can't imagine that the average person types in a bad domain name very frequently (compared to, lets say, the number of times they view a Facebook page each day). So you can't really sell a lot of ads this way. Also, if someone makes a mistake with a URL, they're not going to stick around very long to read an ad, since they're already impatient to be somewhere else.
- davidu 12y ago
  You should see my other response in this thread. Maximizing ad revenue put us in an arms race for a cause we don't even believe in. So why continue it? Our time is far better spent elsewhere.
  - bigbugbag 12y ago
    Then again why engage in this practice in the first place ?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
pzxc 12y ago
Or maybe the truth is just as they explained it? That people don't like ads, that this fact is the most-cited reason people don't use OpenDNS, that they have an even better revenue model now (security analysis), and that by dropping their old way of doing things they will be able to attract vastly more people to use their service which will make their "security big data" even bigger and thus more useful/profitable? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... (By the way I think this change is awesome. Now if I could only get my cell phone provider -Tmobile cough- to stop hijacking my nonexistent-domain dns queries)

mahouse 12y ago

The amount of users they have lost to Google and other DNS providers without ads and that follow the standards (i.e. NXDOMAIN, etc.) must be big.

jacquesm 12y ago

> Text ads and banners alike, they’re all vectors for the spread of malware. That's an excellent argument pro-ad blockers. Typically ad-blocker users are berated because they're 'stealing from the publishers' or something to that effect, but it makes good sense from a security point of view too. And it rationalizes so much better than 'the web is faster this way' (assuming that's even the case).

eli 12y ago
I guess it's good for security... but if your computer can be hijacked by loading a website, you're going to have a bad day even if you're blocking ads. For example, I would bet hacked websites are a much more common malware vector than ads.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Yes, but that does not mean it does not happen and when a very large website gets used to deliver malware through advertising it can be very effective. Such as this top10 dutch website: http://blog.fox-it.com/2012/03/16/post-mortem-report-on-the-sinowallnu-nl-incident/ http://blog.fox-it.com/2012/03/16/post-mortem-report-on-the-...
- davidu 12y ago
  With the proliferation of real-time auction and backfill ad networks, the ability for a bad user to inject javascript or malicious Flash ads into the ad creative space carried on major sites has grown dramatically over the last few years. It's hard to even tell who is serving up your ads sometimes without pulling out wireshark or some kind of HTTP proxy to look at the request chain.
  - eli 12y ago
    Again, though, if an ad blocker is the only thing standing between you and a zero-day, you need to immediately stop what you're doing and patch your browser. It's true there are bad actors taking advantage of ad networks. There are bad actors hacking Wordpress installs too.

fataliss 12y ago

I've always hated ads. Because most of the time products use it without embracing it and integrating it fully. Anywhoo, I'm happy to see OpenDNS getting out of this revenue model, I hope it's gonna work so other might be inspired! Who knows.

mschuster91 12y ago

Looks like Google's 8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4 stole them quite a bunch of traffic, simply due to it being (often) faster and ad-free. It was e.g. impossible to use OpenDNS on a server doing mail stuff because OpenDNS would resolve everything and their dead mother instead of returning NXDOMAIN. Well, now I think I'll switch over to OpenDNS as soon as they prove to deliver un-manipulated DNS service. One way less for Google to track me. edit: does anyone know if Cloudflare is also in the DNS business, from the resolver side? I know they and Amazon (Route53) do DNS server hosting, but does Cloudflare also provide public resolvers?

opendais 12y ago
I wish they would but they aren't as far as I am aware.
alec 12y ago
re: "One way less for Google to track me." Google says that they don't use Google DNS for tracking. From the Google DNS privacy page: "We built Google Public DNS to make the web faster and to retain as little information about usage as we could, while still being able to detect and fix problems. Google Public DNS does not permanently store personally identifiable information." They go on in some detail to say how and what they log. https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy
- mschuster91 12y ago
  But you can bet that at least the NSA and 3-letter-agencies around the world do monitor anything going to or coming from these two IPs. It's just a too convenient target. More distributed resolvers (like with Cloudflare/Amazon datacenters directly linked to ISPs) would make this type of spying orders of magnitude harder (they must actively infiltrate the ISPs network instead of just tapping the DECIX/exchange switches, which e.g. German BND is ALLOWED to do!). Shit, I'd pay for Cloudflare or any other service to build robust, interception-secured DNS servers. Or my provider, but providers have a shameful track record of building fast and reliable DNS servers.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ing33k 12y ago

just trying to figure out this, won't the people who bother changing their DNS also use an Ad-blocker ?

mcpherrinm 12y ago
OpenDNS is used in a lot of places like coffee shop wifi where your users aren't the same as the savvier people who set up the internet. At least that's the only place I encounter (and then curse) their "guide". Lots of people not using adblocking there.

wtallis 12y ago

I wonder if they're planning on implementing DNSSEC, given that this change is a prerequisite for full DNSSEC support. They would also have to be willing to use a less user-friendly method of blocking phishing domains (like return an unsigned NXDOMAIN that doesn't validate).

jblow 12y ago

The attempt to put a positive spin on the ad-version is kind of absurd. Translation: "We tried to serve ads in a way that broke basic functionality for many people. But we didn't make that much money, so we are going to stop being malicious actors, and we're going to start following the protocols we're supposed to follow."

davidu 12y ago
Except that isn't accurate. I get that's how you see it, but that's just not true. It's ridiculous to say we broke things for many people. Our growth numbers tell a different story. Doesn't mean DNS nerds didn't like creating an account to re-enable standard nxdomain behavior, but it didn't cause issues for most people. We made real money from ads, enough to be profitable with a decent-sized (20+) team. But we never saw a way to go from 5m to 50m or 500m with ads though. And we never loved the ads. I just never thought it aligned our interests with our customers in the right way. I get that Google has figured it out, and Facebook and Twitter sort of have, but we couldn't, and didn't want to. Plus, at the time, you have to recall the browser landscape was wildly different. In fact, it's very possible that we may have created the eventuality of today by doing what we did. Chrome didn't even exist when we started. There was no omnibus. I demo'ed our service to Sundar Pichai back in 2007.
- wdr1 12y ago
  Hijacking NXDOMAIN for non-existent domains does not follow standards & is definitely breaking things.
  - orf 12y ago
    Agreed, I've run into this behaviour several times and it is confusing and annoying, especially while programming. A DNS response for a non-existent domain shouldn't be "this page full of adverts", it should be "this domain doesn't exist".
  - stuki 12y ago
    The relevant question isn't whether it is "breaking things" in the abstract, but whether it is breaking things in a way meaningfully detrimental to end users. Or, if you really want to stretch it, perhaps also include externalities imposed on the "internet as a whole." In the era before the omnibox, I personally can't see much in the way of "breaking things" on account of OpenDNS. Doesn't mean you and others can't disagree with that, but it's not as cut and dried as your statement seems to imply.

brokentone 12y ago

This is only partially related, but ad quality is just so bad, that it's becoming nearly a moral issue (as essentially is here) making ads the business model. I wonder if there isn't a business case for highly QA'd ads? Or is there too little visibility into that for the average consumer to appreciate the value?

joshfraser 12y ago

Props to davidu for skating to where the puck is going and not where it's been.

zobzu 12y ago

I stopped using opendns when they added ads. I might use it again then.

bluedino 12y ago

We used OpenDNS until we sent out an email that linked to SurveyMonkey - the URL was wrong, it said surveymonkye.com The problem was our QA never caught it, since OpenDNS 'fixed' the request during testing. 24,000 emails later, we were instantly alerted to the bad link.

mjolk 12y ago
You pay a QA to read outgoing emails to customers and they don't even click links? Are you hiring?
- bluedino 12y ago
  They clicked the links. But OpenDNS 'fixes' the request from the browser, sending you to the right URL even if you enter the wrong one. That's why QA didn't catch it.
  - mjolk 12y ago
    Oh weird. It searches for the most relevant thing and flows through? I thought their nxdomain stuff was just to serve ads, not provide redirects to existing sites.

kolev 12y ago

I either use Google Public DNS or DNSCrypt with one of these here (https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/blob/master/dnscrypt-resolvers.csv https://github.com/jedisct1/dnscrypt-proxy/blob/master/dnscr...). Some providers even support Namecoin and DNSSEC validation.

dickinurass 12y ago

Ad based software rules the internet, anyone who wants no ads wants to kill our jobs. therefor i refuse to click this link.

melville_X 12y ago

A good free alternative is Comodo (8.26.56.26), I trust them slightly more than Google and they have security features such as malware detection. http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/ http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/

higherpurpose 12y ago
Comodo? This Comodo? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_is.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/comodo_group_... http://youtu.be/pDmj_xe7EIQ?t=4m59s http://youtu.be/pDmj_xe7EIQ?t=4m59s

enscr 12y ago

Search "opendns vs google dns" https://www.google.com/webhp?q=opendns+vs+google+dns#q=opendns+vs+google+dns https://www.google.com/webhp?q=opendns+vs+google+dns#q=opend... One of the top links is titled "OpenDNS vs. Google Public DNS" and points to : http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure There's no mention of Google on that page. How do I trust a company that's tricking users with misleading titles?

sumedh 12y ago
That is actually a good point, not sure why you got downvoted.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
davidu 12y ago
We removed that page when we updated our website. Google is surprisingly slow in this case to update their results. No idea. Nothing we're doing on our end I don't think.
- enscr 12y ago
  I don't see Google's fault here. The title of this page (still live) http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure/ http://www.opendns.com/about/global-dns-infrastructure/ is <title>OpenDNS vs. Google Public DNS</title>
  - davidu 12y ago
    You're right. Maybe something wrong in Wordpress then, it's supposed to redirect you. We killed that page. I'll open a ticket.

blueskin_ 12y ago

Very nice, I might give OpenDNs another try as my backup DNS server now. I hate NXDOMAIN hijacking with a passion. >This experience is one of the only reasons people cite to not use OpenDNS. Yep, because people care about their privacy. I'm surprised OpenDNS didn't notice this before. I will probably start recommending them again now; after all, almost anyone is better to trust with something like DNS than google.

bigbugbag 12y ago
They obviously noticed and knew but did not care, as stated in the post OpenDNS is a revenue oriented company as such they're going after the money which for a service nobody's going to pay money for means going the "make them pay with their privacy " way a.k.a. ads.

tty 12y ago

An alternative to all these popular DNS servers is the Swiss Privacy Foundation http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/de/service/server.html http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/de/service/server.html 77.109.138.45 77.109.139.29 No blocking, no logging except for errors (the IP is not logged).

marquis 12y ago
I've been using this for about 6 months in various parts of the globe and have been very happy. If there is a donate button on their site (my Deutsch language is lacking) I would like to know.
- grmarcil 12y ago
  It seems you could become a member for 35 Swiss Francs (~40 USD) per year. http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/en/association/membership.html http://www.privacyfoundation.ch/en/association/membership.ht...
  - marquis 12y ago
    Given it costs at least $25 to send, and more fees to receive, a bank wire transfer it seems strange to only offer this method. Perhaps it is easier if you have a European bank.

unreal37 12y ago

Congrats davidu and opendns on making bold choices and thinking about users despite millions in revenue you could have made.

bigbugbag 12y ago

For those of you who prefer to use a different DNS server from of the one provided by your ISP, thanks to the work of Chris Hill you can make good use of this resolv.conf: http://www.chaz6.com/files/resolv.conf http://www.chaz6.com/files/resolv.conf WARNING: Not to be used as is, be smart and only activate a handful of those DNS servers.