<quote>
My answer says it's a bad idea: https://www.zdnet.com/article/...
</quote>
<p>
Article says we should use DNS-over-TLS instead of DNS-over-HTTPS for a variety of reasons which are all bullshit. <em>"DoH doesn't actually prevent ISPs user tracking"</em> - neither does DNS-over-TLS, so that's bullshit. <em>"DoH bypasses enterprise policies"</em> - Configure the user's browser for them, and <a href="http://kb.mozillazine.org/Locking_preferences">prevent them</a> from <a href="https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9131254?hl=en">changing</a> the relevant preferences. Don't permit the user to install another browser. <em>"DoH weakens cyber-security"</em> See prior answer. Of COURSE people selling security software that depends on DNS inspection will tell you it's a bad idea. Their software is a worse idea. <em>"DoH helps criminals [...] Using DoH, users can bypass DNS-based country or ISP-wide firewalls. The problem is that DoH also bypasses DNS-based blocklists put in place for legitimate reasons, like those against accessing child abuse websites, terrorism content, and websites with stolen copyrighted material."</em> That's a feature, not a bug. Government filters are <em>always</em> abused. They <em>always</em> blacklist some content for political reasons, <em>sooner or later</em>. <em>"DoH shouldn't be recommended to dissidents"</em> Because it doesn't stop tracking? Neither does DNS-over-TLS, fuckers. That's also not an argument against the protocol. It's an argument against recommending it to dissidents. <em>"DoH centralizes DNS traffic at a few DoH resolvers"</em> - Yes, by default, Mozilla's configuration of DoH does that, by sending all users to Cloudflare. But Chrome's doesn't, so this is a half-lie. Arguably, it's more of a lie than that, since there are so many more Chrome users.</p>
<p>That article was shit, and you should feel like shit for citing it.</p>
<quote>for reasons stated in the article + more.</quote>
<p>Okay, so since the article is a garbage fire, what's the + more?</p>