this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
162 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

1444 readers
2 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Run your own unbound or bind resolvers!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] exu@feditown.com 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Apparently Cisco operates a popular DNS resolver? Never heard of that before.

And definitely don't learn how to use a VPN. Or set up Unbound or Bind or PowerDNS Recursive...

[–] IncongruousMonkey@aussie.zone 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] k_rol@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ah crap, good to know. This sucks though, I was thinking of using it to replace CF. What's left? Quad9 and the unbound type?

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago

ATM I'm using Quad9 and OpenNIC but I'm not sure how much of everything do they cover. I'm also not well aware of any other good "flat DNS" alternative (aka: one you can put right into your /etc/resolv.conf / Windows LAN config, without need of extra internal service).

[–] throws_lemy@lemmy.nz 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Cisco operates from the ISP side, they'll poison DNS through their routers. And you should be aware that your ISP will employ Deep Packet Inspection which can also be done with Cisco routers. That means they can intercept internet traffic, especially if your internet connection is not encrypted.

[–] exu@feditown.com 7 points 5 months ago

ISPs were already required to block the sites. I don't think an additional block on the Cisco side would change anything in that case.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

Guess ill be trying my hand at building my own pfsense router