1. 9
  1. 6

    This, in conjunction with greater limitations on plugins for ad-blocking, seems like a bit of a longer term play to “keep serving ads” at all cost. Hopefully I’m wrong about this being a longer term play, and chrome/google will also support the “use-application-dns.net” method1 for disabling DoH, or simply keep with what they have proposed in the article (enabling only when DoH and dns configuration intersects with a few chosen dns provides), so folks can keep using things like pi-hole if they choose.

    1. 5

      Presumably you can run a DoH server on a pi-hole, right?

      1. 1

        I’m not sure why you’d want to?

        1. 4

          So you can connect clients that want to use DoH.

          1. 2

            Not sure why I would need DoH on my switched (not a hub) home LAN to talk to my local pihole instance, when the native resolver works fine…but sure… Why not. Seems like that could be useful for some folks.

            1. 2

              If, say, chrome were to decide to go DoH only for Security Reasons (tm)?

        2. 1

          Of course you can. Or on a VPS you’re hosting something else on.

        3. 3

          Your concern is addressed at the very beginning of the article. DoH will be enabled (at least for now) only for specific white-listed DNS providers who are known to support DoH. If you have configured a different DNS server, then regular port 53 will be used.

          Additionally, there exists (at least for now) a flag to disable the feature.

          1. 3

            My concern is not addressed, since it is about what chrome may do in the future.

            Also, I did reference that part about the feature currently being enabled for intersection of chosen providers and configs in my comment already. Weird.