DNS was supposed to replace hand-maintained hosts files. And I don't think running my own DNS is as reliable as using a professionally-configured endpoint like Google or OpenDNS. Plus it's inconvenient. Plus I don't see how it prevents DNS poisoning?
Well, I could prove it to you. Side by side speed test.
As for reliability, if you lose access to your "professioinally-configured endpoint" you're SOL. You can't do lookups (assuming you don't know how to do them by hand). Meanwhile I'm unaffected.
I would not have done this for myself and tell you about it if it wasn't faster. I'm not gathering info on users or selling anything. I'm not telling you what to do proclaiming I'm an "expert". I'm just an end user, like you.
When you use an open resolver, you are sharing a cache with everyone else who uses it. Some might do nefarious things to the cache.
When you use a resolver listening on 127.0.0.1 you are sharing it with whoever can access localhost on that port. i.e., no one (hopefully)
"professionally-configured" C'mon. You sound like a marketer's dream. Be a hobbyist. Be a hacker. Experiment. Thinks for yourself. Or don't.
I will grant that a hosts file or a local DNS server is faster than a 3rd-party DNS, assuming I have the site in my cache already. But if I visit a new site, I'm going to have to look it up somewhere, and the DNS server that my local DNS server contacts could have the exact same cache poisoning problem.
Nope. (Granted, this is possible if the domain name resgitrant designates an open resolver as authoritative but almost no one does that. The reasons should be obvious.)
How much time have you devoted to learning how DNS works?
Not much. My main question is: how is the DNS server that my DNS server asks for an address, different from the DNS server that my DNS client asks for an address?
Comments
DNS was supposed to replace hand-maintained hosts files. And I don't think running my own DNS is as reliable as using a professionally-configured endpoint like Google or OpenDNS. Plus it's inconvenient. Plus I don't see how it prevents DNS poisoning?
Well, I could prove it to you. Side by side speed test.
As for reliability, if you lose access to your "professioinally-configured endpoint" you're SOL. You can't do lookups (assuming you don't know how to do them by hand). Meanwhile I'm unaffected.
I would not have done this for myself and tell you about it if it wasn't faster. I'm not gathering info on users or selling anything. I'm not telling you what to do proclaiming I'm an "expert". I'm just an end user, like you.
When you use an open resolver, you are sharing a cache with everyone else who uses it. Some might do nefarious things to the cache.
When you use a resolver listening on 127.0.0.1 you are sharing it with whoever can access localhost on that port. i.e., no one (hopefully)
"professionally-configured" C'mon. You sound like a marketer's dream. Be a hobbyist. Be a hacker. Experiment. Thinks for yourself. Or don't.
I will grant that a hosts file or a local DNS server is faster than a 3rd-party DNS, assuming I have the site in my cache already. But if I visit a new site, I'm going to have to look it up somewhere, and the DNS server that my local DNS server contacts could have the exact same cache poisoning problem.
Nope. (Granted, this is possible if the domain name resgitrant designates an open resolver as authoritative but almost no one does that. The reasons should be obvious.)
How much time have you devoted to learning how DNS works?
Not much. My main question is: how is the DNS server that my DNS server asks for an address, different from the DNS server that my DNS client asks for an address?