[creesch]

Sure, but that is not the context here. So I am still unsure about the "evil" aspect of it all.

Even if someone else has to use it. Certainly, when it is someone in their household who can access the administration for their client devices/applications as well.

Other people affected might be those who make use of the authors wifi. Where the author can also opt for guest wifi using regular DNS. Or not even do it on router basis and really a per-client basis.

The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things. But that is pretty far removed from the context of this article.

[sulandor]

> The only context in which it is potentially "evil" or malicious is when people unknowingly get things blocked or redirected to the wrong things.

that was kind of my point;

dns-infrastructure should not knowingly give wrong answers because that will make it less useful and more of a hassle down the road

[tmottabr]

DNS and all the overall infra should do whatever the owner of the infra want it to do.

If i as the network admin don't want you to access some site i will block it, and blocking it at DNS level is one of the ways i have to achieve this and if i catch you trying to circumvent it you will be booted from my network in no time.

That is what local DNS servers are for and what solutions like Pi-Hole and AdGuard Home were desinged to accomplish..

There are many legitimate user cases that require you to mess with DNS. example, you can force google safe search in your network to all devices, google own instructions are to create a cname redirecting www.google.com to safesearch.google.com at your local DNS server.

So no, block or redirecting stuff in my DNS not only is not evil, it is required in many cases.

If you are trying to do something that is being blocked in the local network either talk to the network admin and explain why you need to do that and check if he can fix it for you and if he cant\wont then go do it somewhere else..

Also, most, if not all, the large enterprises do dns level blocking, as they should.. Go try work around this and i bet you they will call you out, insist and you will be job hunting in no time..

[sulandor]

well, there is certainly a lot to be said for efficiently checking boxes.

just wanted to point out that dns-level blocking introduces a discrepancy to a shared truth, which creates problems and is hence more costly than it might appear.

[tmottabr]

Don't know what shared truth you are referring too.. truth is totally relative...

I have stuff that i can only access inside my home network, so here the truth is one.. Out in the internet those same addresses do not exist, so out there the truth is another..

This is also the same for most, if not all, enterprises, there is always stuff that can only be accessed either on the internal network or via VPN..

There are address that point to different endpoints depending on the network you are connected, and this is by design, again the network wide google safe search is an example.

Same thing for streaming services and CDN's, the same address will return a different endpoint depending on your location..

This happen even for direct IP address without using DNS, Quad9 for example have dozens of servers that provide service to the address 9.9.9.9 for their DNS Server, so depending on your location the same IP address will connect you to a different server that is located closer to you to ensure fast access.

DNS like anything in the network and in computing in general can cause problem if not done correctly.. But then the problem is how it was implemented not the dns blocking or redirecting functionalities on themselves..

[sulandor]

> But then the problem is how it was implemented not the dns blocking or redirecting functionalities on themselves..

redirection and managing your horizons aside, my objection lies with the use for content blocking, because it is the wrong tool for the job.

cheers

[tmottabr]

No, it is not the wrong tool for the job..

It is one tool that is available in our toolbox that we might use or not.. and it is one perfectly valid way of doing it.. It might not fit all workflows or all use cases but that does not make it bad or wrong..

Also, not every endpoint can have ad blocking done locally and having it at the DNS level is a great alternative for those cases..

I honestly use both, all my browsers have local ad blockers to prevent the DNS query from being done in the first place, yet i still have DNS level ad blocker to cover other devices, like TVs for example that now are filled with ads and do not have a method for blocking ads locally..

Also solutions like AdGuard do much more then just ad blocking, like i already mentioned about google safe search, you could just disable the ad blocker and it would still be a great tool to have and i personally consider a must have when you have young kids starting to use the web.

You are within your right to not like this type of solution and are free to not use it in your networks, but stop making BS claims that is the wrong tool for the job or that it is the wrong way of doing it..

What i like most about ad guard home is that almost all configurations can be customized per device.. So if you have some workflow or some device where dns blocking is causing problems you can just disable for that device and still have it for the other devices that need it..

[creesch]

> because that will make it less useful and more of a hassle down the road

You can't just say "it is this because it is this". Clearly the sole user of DNS finds it useful to block through DNS.

What sort of hassles do you even have in mind?