• ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I’m surprised it didn’t just have google’s DNS hardcoded to bypass your pihole.

    • randombullet@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I redirect all out going dns requests to my self hosted DNS server.

      Only one I can’t block is DoH. DoT is easily blocked and my firewall picks up on it.

      • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Could you block DoH entirely on the network level and cause it to fallback? I guess you’d have to have a list of common DoH IP addresses to block.

        • towerful@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          44 minutes ago

          You have the destination IP to work with, thats it. Otherwise it just looks like any other HTTPS traffic.

          I guess if you uplpaded your own root CA cert tgen you could man-in-the-middle for deeper packet inspection.
          Or, i guess, try using eMudhra’s compromised private keys and hope the clients havent been updated yet

          • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 minutes ago

            Right, I guess as more DoH servers become available, it’ll be harder to track, but you could intercept and blackhole any HTTPS traffic to one.one.one.one and other popular servers to have them fallback.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      That ought to be illegal.

      (No, seriously: disobeying DNS the owner set by DHCP ought to count as “exceeding authorized access” under the CFAA.)

      • molehill_siesta@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Unfortunately the monkey’s paw would curl here and using DNS other than that provided by your ISP would become illegal.

        (I know there’s a difference between your devices using their network to access the internet and your “purchased” (licensed software running on) your device using your network to access the internet - but the monkey doesn’t care)

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        RFC 2132 says DHCP option 6 provides “a list of Domain Name System name servers available to the client”. That’s a MAY use, not a MUST use. You are welcome to block DNS requests to outside servers if you prefer.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          RFCs are subordinate to laws. If I, the device and network owner, want my device to use the DNS I set and the device does differently, I want the rogue corp prosecuted and IDGAF what some goddamn RFC says!

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I don’t think you’d be able to find a court receptive to that argument.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              Every court that disagrees is tyrannical and needs to be fucking abolished.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 hours ago

          No, because the law cares about intent, not technical details. Having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that’s what I, the owner, wanted is fine; having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that’s what some non-owner entity wanted against my will as the owner is not.

          • aksdb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Rather: they are free to do protocol negotiation with the DNS server I supply. If it speaks DoH, go for it.