291
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ninja@lemmy.world 15 points 10 hours ago

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

[-] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago

Chromecasts do that. I had to intercept port 53 on the router to fix it.

[-] randombullet@programming.dev 4 points 6 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.

[-] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 9 points 8 hours ago

They do, but thankfully with pfSense you can do DNS overrides with firewall rules to force all network devices to use local DNS, blocking everything else.

https://dominetec.com.br/en/redirect-all-dns-requests-to-pfsense-router

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 hours ago

next move is theirs.. knight to queen's dns-over-https

[-] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 43 minutes ago

That’ll get blocked too.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 17 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 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 13 points 8 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)

[-] technohacker@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago

Counter point on that, that might affect the legality of DNS over HTTPS

[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 7 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 1 points 6 hours ago

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

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 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 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 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 7 points 8 hours ago

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

[-] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago

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

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2026
291 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

89117 readers
3965 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS