Just pair 1.1.1.1 with 9.9.9.9 (Quad9) so you have fault tolerance in terms of provider as well.
I haven't been able to find any recourse. The malware was online for a few hours but it has been weeks and there seems to be no way to clear my name. Someone on github (the website is open source) suggested that it's probably because they didn't know of the website, like everyone heard of wetransfer and github and so they don't get the whole domain blocked for malicious user content. I can't find any other difference, but also no responsible party to ask. The false-positive reporting tool on quad9's website just reloads the page and doesn't do anything
¹ I'm aware DNS can't do this, but with a direct way of contacting a very responsive admin (no captchas or annoying forms, just email), I'd not expect scanners to resort to blocking the domain outright to begin with, at least not after they heard back the first time and the problematic content has been cleared swiftly
Sometimes the upstream blocklist provider will be easy to contact directly as well. Sometimes not so much.
You just convinced me to ditch quad9.
I don't see contact info on your profile or website/blog, but I can post here what the outcome is
Edit: I love your blog's theme btw!
> I haven't been able to find any recourse. [...] there seems to be no way to clear my name.
There was no ticket number yet because I was mainly trying to resolve it upstream (whoever made it get into uBlock's default block list, Quad9, and probably other places) and then today when I checked your site specifically, the link in "False Positive? <Please contact us>" (when you do a lookup for a blocked domain) just links back to itself so I couldn't open a case there either. Now that I look at the page again, with the advice in mind from a sibling comment to just email you, I now see that maybe this is supposed to go to the generic contact form and I needn't go through this domain status page. Opening the contact page now, I see that removal from blocklist is a selectable option so I'll use that :)
The ticket number I just submitted is 41905. Not that I'd want you to now apply preferential treatment, I didn't expect my post above to be seen by many people though I very much appreciate that you've reached out here. Makes me think you're actually interested in resolving this type of issue for small website operators, where the complete block without so much as a heads up felt a bit, well, like that might not get me anywhere. If the process just works as it normally should, that's good enough for me! Thanks for encouraging me to actually open a ticket!
This "URL template" thing seems odd – is Windows doing something like creating a URL out of the DNS IP and a pattern, e.g. 1.1.1.1 + "https://<ip>/foo" would yield https://1.1.1.1/foo?
If so, why not just allow providing an actual URL for each server?
The templates you need are:
1.1.1.1: https://cloudflare-dns.com/dns-query
9.9.9.9: https://dns.quad9.net/dns-query
8.8.8.8: https://dns.google/dns-query
See https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/networking/... for info on how to set the templates.
> How Quad9 protects your privacy?
> When your devices use Quad9 normally, no data containing your IP address is ever logged in any Quad9 system.
Of course they have some kinds of logs. Aggregating resolved domains without logging client IPs is not what the implication of "Quad9 is reselling the traffic logs" seems to be.
I am curious though, do you have any suggestions for alternative DNS that is better?
It doesn't say they sell traffic logs outright, but they do send telemetry on blocked domains to the blocklist provider, and provides "a sparse statistical sampling of timestamped DNS responses" to "a very few carefully vetted security researchers". That's not exactly "selling traffic logs", but is fairly close. Moreover colloquially speaking, it's not uncommon to claim "google sells your data", even they don't provide dumps and only disclose aggregated data.
The part about sharing data with "a very few carefully vetted security researchers" doesn't preclude them from leaking domains. For instance if the security researcher exports a "SELECT COUNT(*) GROUP BY hostname" query that would arguably count as "summary form", and would include any secret hostnames.
>https://quad9.net/privacy/policy/#22-data-collected
If you're trying to imply that they can't possibly be leaking hostnames because they don't collect hostnames, that's directly contradicted by the subsequent sections, which specifically mention that they share metrics grouped by hostname basis. Obviously they'll need to collect hostname to provide such information.
Right, but the privacy policy also says there's a separate program for "a very few carefully vetted security researchers" where they can get data in "summary form", which can leak domain name in the manner I described in my previous comment. Maybe they have a great IRB (or similar) that would prevent this from happening, but that's not mentioned in the privacy policy. Therefore it's totally in the realm of possibility that secret domain names could be leaked, no "really having a go with the shoehorn" required.
The very idea strikes me as irresponsible and misguided.
These, if you don't know the host, you will not be able to hit the backend service. But if you know, you can start exploiting it, either by lack of auth, or by trying to exploit the software itself
You should probably be using a trusted TLS certificate for your git hosting. And that means the host name will end up in certificate transparency logs which are even easier to scrape than DNS queries.