A way to overcome DNS censorship.

[space5 2]

It seems authoritative DNS servers block some VPN servers. DNS censorship is becoming increasingly annoying.

If airvpn uses uncensorable DNS servers like https://dns.watch/ and https://hdns.io, then authoritative DNS servers can't censor airvpn servers.

Or, airvpn can run a central DNS server or a few instead of one per server.

[OpenSourcerer 1361]

On 6/21/2023 at 8:57 AM, space5 said:

Or, airvpn can run a central DNS server or a few instead of one per server.

I remember a proposition that AirVPN should build something of a DNS infrastructure for all servers in which every server only acts as a forwarder instead of being a DNS server itself. This was proposed in the wake of VPN servers being restricted, and in isolated cases DNS upstream resolvers returning SERVFAILs when resolving certain names.It was received rather positively, but is no more than an idea at this point.
 

On 6/21/2023 at 8:57 AM, space5 said:

If airvpn uses uncensorable DNS servers like https://dns.watch/ and https://hdns.io, then authoritative DNS servers can't censor airvpn servers.

No such thing as "uncensorable". AirVPN utilizes their own DNS servers precisely because you can't control DNS resolution with other parties. See for example:.

[space5 2]

19 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

No such thing as "uncensorable". AirVPN utilizes their own DNS servers precisely because you can't control DNS resolution with other parties. See for example:

Nothing is totally uncensorable, yet. But, you can increase censorship resistance by using things like handshake dns.
Handshake DNS top level domains don't support TLS because TLS on handshake domains requires DANE and web browsers don't support DANE.
I think web browsers don't support DANE on purpose in order to support central authority(ICANN) of DNS infrastructure.

[OpenSourcerer 1361]

7 hours ago, space5 said:

I think web browsers don't support DANE on purpose in order to support central authority(ICANN) of DNS infrastructure. 

You have a very unhealthy tendency to jump to dangerous conclusions without investing even a sliver of time into researching topics for yourself. I've seen this on multiple threads now. It's extremely unhealthy for a community having someone extensively doubting every technical thing like this, without providing backup material, and voicing those doubts as if we live in some kind of dystopian world. Please look at your actions in the mirror and reflect on them, what you are doing borders on toxicity. Consider this a warning; these forums are not a stage for ostrichism!

Having written that, here are some pieces to get you started on answering the question:
https://www.hezmatt.org/~mpalmer/blog/2015/07/14/why-dane-isnt-going-to-win.html
https://www.imperialviolet.org/2015/01/17/notdane.html
https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/dnssec-dane-and-the-failure-of-x-509/
.

[space5 2]

4 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

a sliver of time into researching topics for yourself.

I don't have an evidence for lobbying behind DANE, but there certainly has been power interest in DNS censorship. There is nothing wrong with suspecting such lobbying could have happened. I didn't say it certainly happened. That would be factually wrong without further research.

4 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

voicing those doubts as if we live in some kind of dystopian world

It is already dystopian in regions like north korea, china, and pakistan. But, things can either improve or degrade. Nothing is set in stone at this stage. Being put in prison for just publishing political contents on the internet is certainly dystopian. If you don't think it's dystopian, you can present your own arguments. And, my belief is that people already live in varying degrees of dystopian nightmares in different regions. In some regions, it's not nearly as dystopian, but it's still pretty bad.

4 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

Consider this a warning; these forums are not a stage for ostrichism!

If you think I'm wrong, I challenge you to methodically present your own arguments against my specific points instead of suddenly telling me I'm toxic and unhealthy. Truth can look horrifying, assuming I'm right about my points. Is it toxic to look at horrible truths?

I'm inviting you to a real discussion here. If you methodically point out where and how I am wrong, I would be happy to discuss.

[space5 2]

13 hours ago, OpenSourcerer said:

You have a very unhealthy tendency to jump to dangerous conclusions without investing even a sliver of time into researching topics for yourself.

In retrospect, I'd like you to present a proper explanation on why you think I'm unhealthy and toxic. From my perspective,

• I haven't spammed the forum. I haven't really posted many posts. In fact, I'm trying not to post unless I need to post.
• I haven't intentionally lied. I could be wrong, but that's not lying.
• I haven't coerced anyone.
• I haven't forced anyone to pay attention to my posts by using quotes and user handles multiple times. If people tell me to stop bothering them to pay attention to my comments, I wouldn't bother them.
• I didn't intentionally hurt anyone or anyone's feelings.
• It's only natural for humans to cast doubts on the usual suspects. The doubts could be wrong, but feasible. Scientific process requires proposing guesses and being wrong multiple times. I haven't said I was right when I casted doubts. And, I haven't intentionally hurt anyone or anyone's feelings by violating their personal space with unwanted attention. I'm not trying to force them to pay attention to my posts. I'm just passing by and leaving a few comments occasionally on this forum. I may be a bit active on this forum now, but don't take my participation in the forum for granted. I could stop being active soon.
  • That being said, I haven't really tried to prove my doubts because proving my doubts was not my intention. If someone knows extensive agreements between governments on internet spying and various dystopian nightmares that actually happen in different regions, it is only natural to suspect authorities for anything that they have motivation to pursue. What I don't know is whether they targeted DANE specifically, but if they didn't target DANE specifically and DANE was not implemented in web browsers due to lack of interest, authorities are certainly targeting other things. We all know that authorities are trying various ways to censor DNS and the internet. In some regions, facebook and twitter and wikipedia are blocked. In china, most websites are blocked. Deep packet inspection is now mundane reality. So, don't take my doubts on secret DANE lobbying literally. See it as a metaphor for attempts by authorities to censor the internet in various ways that they can pursue. I was merely trying to guess what they were going to do next.
• VPN attracts certain kinds of people. I'm one of the kinds. On VPN forums, you will certainly see people who know a lot of negative things and cast negative doubts. Paying attention to negative things is not bad if you train yourself to calmly respond to the negative. If you don't believe me, go to subreddits. Subreddits about VPN and privacy have people who talk a lot of negative things.

[space5 2]

By the way, it might seem that I'm trying to roast you, but I'm trying to be respectful.

[SurprisedItWorks 49]

Just a friendly suggestion, one passed on to me years and years ago in a job interview: lean away from the language "I think that" unless you have evidence leading to a logical conclusion.  A simple change to "I suspect that" or "I wonder whether" can go a long way to communicating your actual degree of certainty.

[OpenSourcerer 1361]

On 6/26/2023 at 3:23 PM, space5 said:

There is nothing wrong with suspecting such lobbying could have happened

Suspicion is based on information points which must be brought to light to warrant further consideration, otherwise it's nothing but accusatory, baseless assumptions hurting everyone: You, because it becomes clear you didn't do the research; others, because they are led to believe something that is unproven; and the accused, because refuting such a claim in the wake of others convincing each other through cognitive bias becomes extremely challenging and potentially hurting. If you cannot bring in information points to support a suspicion, do not suspect anything publically in the first place.
 

On 6/26/2023 at 3:23 PM, space5 said:

If you don't think it's dystopian, you can present your own arguments

No, I agree with you that, in certain regions, the status quo is challenging. But I was not referring to those regions; the majority of the world lives in constitutional states not exploiting the populace, including the continents of North America, Europe and Australia.
 

On 6/26/2023 at 3:23 PM, space5 said:

Truth can look horrifying

Oooh, the irony…
 

On 6/26/2023 at 3:23 PM, space5 said:

I'm inviting you to a real discussion here. If you methodically point out where and how I am wrong, I would be happy to discuss. 

Then let's change to private messaging. Message me first if you're really interested.