so odd!
Maybe my firewall vacuum tubes warm up faster! 
How does safe search work in real life? Do you find it blocking things you hoped it wouldnāt?
It is best to open a new thread when changing subjectsā¦
2 Likes
The label and link to SafeDNS is not consistent with IP Address 146.185.167.43. I believe this should be SecureDNS
ā¦
For the past few days it hasnāt been working ā no response from SYN_SENT
And that IP Address doesnāt respond to ping
1 Like
SecureDNS has been shutdown since the 30th of April 2020. Please do not use SecureDNS anymore.
1 Like
Excellent! Two count-em two problems
- The label and link to SafeDNS is wrong ā not for 146.185.167.43
- 146.185.167.43 is now out of service and should be removed from the list
1 Like
Quad9 blocks malware sites. Wouldnāt this be considered a Hosted Blacklist?
Technically yes.
Interesting posts about quad9 from chairman of the board of directors Bill Woodcock
Hi,
yes, thanks for catching this. 
Would you mind editing the Wiki page accordingly? (Your login credentials work
there as well, drop me a line in case of any trouble.)
Thanks, and best regards,
Peter MĆ¼ller
I added the filtering servers to the Unusable section, but was hesitant to blow away the entries above under servers that support TCP/UDP and DOT, because technically they do (as do many other entries under Unusable).
Iāll leave that for someone else to decide.
Iāll just say, Iām not really happy with the verbiage āUnusable DNS Providersā. They obviously are usable, they just either donāt support DNSSEC at all or break DNSSEC for sites that they block, which depending on the user, may or may not be a deal breaker. Iād prefer something like āFiltering DNS Providers that May Negatively Impact DNSSECā or something similar.
I use Quad9 because of it privacy policies. And on the surface I think it is a good thing Quad9 helps with malware sites. So to me it is a āUsable DNS Providerā.
Is there such thing as a high privacy, high speed, DNS provider that doesnāt break ābadā DNSSEC? Is this a DNS unicorn?
I would still recommend to remove them from the top then, because the point of the table was to recommend something to people. If they are in the bottom table, they are not recommended.
That was the idea of the page.
Removed Quad9 from recommended providers and rephrased Unusable section to ānot recommendedā.
1 Like
Thank you.
1 Like
While i reading this thread
I inform myself here
I ask me now is this something for our DNS providers that are not recommended?
1 Like
Snopyta (FI) service havenāt work in ages. Maybe it should be removed from list?
censurfridns.dk gives certificate error for some reason, itās been like that days maybe weeks.
Iāve come across Blah dns service but not sure if itās good enough for wiki list since it does filtering. There are servers in Finland, Germany, Singapore, Japan and Switzerland
A hobby Adblock DNS project with HTTP/3, DoH, DoT, DoQ, DNSCryptv2 support.
1 Like
Just looking through this a bit quick. So much info. I have read the wiki page and its recommendations but at first glance it seems one has to be picky if wanting filtration and dnssec from the same provider.
It appears this DoT server is also dead and has been that way for a long time:
> Comcast / Xfinity (beta) 96.113.151.145 dot.xfinity.com
1 Like
The IPFire wiki is editable by the community users. You can login with your IPFire People credentials and make the changes yourself.
It might be a good idea to contact the censurfri people about that error in case they donāt know of the problem. There are various ways to contact the censurfri admin.
https://blog.uncensoreddns.org/contact/
1 Like