Linux Mint

Bug #1133777
Comment #13

Comment 13 for bug 1133777

Revision history for this message

Michael Farrell (micolous) wrote on 2013-10-20: Re: [Bug 1133777] Re: DNS hijacked in default installation by OpenDNS

#13

Clement, can you provide a statistic for those with broken DNS that went
away after pushing OpenDNS by default?

The problems people experience with their resolver would occur on **any
other operating system they use**. Is there something about Mint's
resolver configuration that is causing these problems "just for Mint"? Are
there timeout values that are much shorter?

If you look at the comment above from David @ OpenDNS, he says specifically
that he only wants OpenDNS to be used with user consent, and that they've
deliberately not done deals with ISPs to use their DNS. This should be
reason enough to cease pushing out OpenDNS.

Not to the mention you're leaking out DNS queries to a non-authoritative
third-party without telling the user about it. Big privacy oops if you're
trying to clean up after the Canonical-Amazon mess.

In some configurations of resolv.conf, the order does not matter, and it
will cycle through or randomise the name servers in use. This would break
local DNS. There is also a limit of three resolvers in use, and the
behaviour if there are more is undefined.

I'd rather Mint not break the resolver configuration of those of us with
working resolvers in order to fix those with broken ones. And really, if
they're playing with installing another operating system on their computer,
they should be able to fix their router's DNS forwarder if it's broken.

On 19 October 2013 05:27, Clement Lefebvre <email address hidden> wrote:

> It's a common problem. Many people seek help saying they can't connect
> to the Internet and when we troubleshoot we find out they're already
> connected, they're routing works and all they need is DNS resolution.
>
> If we used a fallback which properly failed on wrong DNS, that wouldn't
> be a problem right?
>
> As far as I know, the tail is used only if the local DNS doesn't manage
> to resolve the domain name, so it shouldn't break anything.
>
> I might be wrong, please elaborate on this if I am.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1133777
>
> Title:
> DNS hijacked in default installation by OpenDNS
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/linuxmint/+bug/1133777/+subscriptions
>

Clement, can you provide a statistic for those with broken DNS that went
away after pushing OpenDNS by default?

The problems people experience with their resolver would occur on **any
other operating system they use**.  Is there something about Mint's
resolver configuration that is causing these problems "just for Mint"?  Are
there timeout values that are much shorter?

If you look at the comment above from David @ OpenDNS, he says specifically
that he only wants OpenDNS to be used with user consent, and that they've
deliberately not done deals with ISPs to use their DNS.  This should be
reason enough to cease pushing out OpenDNS.

Not to the mention you're leaking out DNS queries to a non-authoritative
third-party without telling the user about it.  Big privacy oops if you're
trying to clean up after the Canonical-Amazon mess.

In some configurations of resolv.conf, the order does not matter, and it
will cycle through or randomise the name servers in use.  This would break
local DNS.  There is also a limit of three resolvers in use, and the
behaviour if there are more is undefined.

I'd rather Mint not break the resolver configuration of those of us with
working resolvers in order to fix those with broken ones.  And really, if
they're playing with installing another operating system on their computer,
they should be able to fix their router's DNS forwarder if it's broken.

On 19 October 2013 05:27, Clement Lefebvre <root@linuxmint.com> wrote:

> It's a common problem. Many people seek help saying they can't connect
> to the Internet and when we troubleshoot we find out they're already
> connected, they're routing works and all they need is DNS resolution.
>
> If we used a fallback which properly failed on wrong DNS, that wouldn't
> be a problem right?
>
> As far as I know, the tail is used only if the local DNS doesn't manage
> to resolve the domain name, so it shouldn't break anything.
>
> I might be wrong, please elaborate on this if I am.
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1133777
>
> Title:
>   DNS hijacked in default installation by OpenDNS
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/linuxmint/+bug/1133777/+subscriptions
>