Comment on Adguard DNS: Our investigation into the suspicious pressure on Archive.today

tux0r@feddit.org ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• pulsewidth@lemmy.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Your comment makes no sense with respect to this story.

  I don’t use AdguardDNS’s services but they are going above and beyond in their response to this spurious claim, seems very professional to me. If you read the story and weren’t happy with them and it’s boistered your desire to roll completely unfiltered DNS so that you won’t have any CSAM domains blocked, well… weird flex.

  source

  • 1984@lemmy.today ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I think maybe he just meant that the pressure from organisations to make dns services more censored is a reason to run your own dns service.

    But I agree with you. The solution is not to stop using public dns services, its to bring attention to things like this and not let it happen in the shadows. Adguard were amazing here and wrote a very good blog post to inform the community.

    source

    • tux0r@feddit.org ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Both is true, actually.

      source
  • Nollij@sopuli.xyz ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Not OP, but the most obvious and popular alternative to Adguard DNS is a (self-hosted) Pi-hole. That setup is effectively protected from such attacks, in no small part because it’s self-hosted.

    source

    • TuxEnthusiast@sopuli.xyz ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I’m self-hosting AdGuard Home, will i be affected?

      source

      • tux0r@feddit.org ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Unless you use unbound with it, yes.

        source