I read a bit about using a different DNS for Privacy and I think the best one should be quad9? Or is there anything better except self hosting a DNS?
I read a bit about using a different DNS for Privacy and I think the best one should be quad9? Or is there anything better except self hosting a DNS?
Authoritative name servers.
Good enough write-up about it here: https://docs.pi-hole.net/guides/dns/unbound/
The only problem there is that if you are going for privacy all of the traffic between your unbound and the authoritative servers is unencrypted. It us certainly a trade-off involving trusting a 3rd party, but with a busier public DNS server there can be a level of plausible deniability due to the aggregation and shared caching involved.
Kinda. You can always route your traffic over a VPN. Further, from the unbound page:
Edit: to be clear, I run unbound but I don’t recall how much I hardened it. The config file is fairly large and I was mostly focusing on speed and efficiency since it’s running on an already busy raspberry pi.
Sure, which at least increases the burden from observing just your traffic to your ISP to observing your ISP and your VPN provider. That traffic is still unencrypted upon egress from your VPN. If you’re going through the effort of using a VPN I think using a public DNS server could make more sense as they can’t tie your query to your actual IP. (Also this is all thinking about an upstream for PiHole or similar, so always some sort of local server for your clients to use)
The question was about privacy. Routing your DNS traffic through a VPN puts your unencrypted traffic out of an endpoint with all sorts of other connections. That’s a privacy gain.
Further, using DNS-over-TLS or DNS-over-Https encrypts your query end-to-end.
Using both in concert prevents the DNS servers from knowing your IP and anyone along the route from knowing your query.
Sure, but we were talking about using Unbound, or some other recursive resolver, locally. Unbound doesn’t use DoH or DoT for its queries, and most/all authoritative servers don’t offer DoT/DoH.
You would have to use some local stub resolver, route its traffic over a VPN, and then use public resolver(s) that provide DoH/DoT (and those still use plaintext DNS to do their resolution, the benefit you get there is the shared cache and semi-anonymization due to aggregation). Whether that is good enough is up to you.
You run a local resolver for your household and enable DNS encryption where supported. Using a VPN for everything removes your ISP from the loop. It’s a matter of privacy layers and your threat model. If you want to play with TLAs you’ll need to try way harder.
If my threat model realistically involved TLAs or other state-sponsored actors I would not be advertising what I do or do not know on a public forum such as Lemmy, haha.
This conversation was in the conext of running Unbound, which is a recursive resolver and AFAIK DNS “encryption” isn’t a thing in a way that helps in this scenario… DoH, DoT, and DNSCrypt are all only concerned/deployed by recursive servers, meaning unbound isn’t using those. DNSSEC only provides authentication (preventing tampering) of the response, not any sort of encryption/hiding.
Thanks! Good write-up indeed.