Archive.is’s authoritative DNS servers return bad results to 1.1.1.1 when we query them. I’ve proposed we just fix it on our end but our team, quite rightly, said that too would violate the integrity of DNS and the privacy and security promises we made to our users when we launched the service.

The archive.is owner has explained that he returns bad results to us because we don’t pass along the EDNS subnet information. This information leaks information about a requester’s IP and, in turn, sacrifices the privacy of users. This is especially problematic as we work to encrypt more DNS traffic since the request from Resolver to Authoritative DNS is typically unencrypted. We’re aware of real world examples where nationstate actors have monitored EDNS subnet information to track individuals, which was part of the motivation for the privacy and security policies of 1.1.1.1.

EDNS IP subsets can be used to better geolocate responses for services that use DNS-based load balancing. However, 1.1.1.1 is delivered across Cloudflare’s entire network that today spans 180 cities. We publish the geolocation information of the IPs that we query from. That allows any network with less density than we have to properly return DNS-targeted results. For a relatively small operator like archive.is, there would be no loss in geo load balancing fidelity relying on the location of the Cloudflare PoP in lieu of EDNS IP subnets.

We are working with the small number of networks with a higher network/ISP density than Cloudflare (e.g., Netflix, Facebook, Google/YouTube) to come up with an EDNS IP Subnet alternative that gets them the information they need for geolocation targeting without risking user privacy and security. Those conversations have been productive and are ongoing. If archive.is has suggestions along these lines, we’d be happy to consider them.

I hesitate to compare this to Apple calling themselves “courageous” when removing the headphone jack, but in this case, I think the word is appropriate. I’ll happily stand behind you guys if you take some PR hits while forcing the rest of the industry to make DNS safer – since it is understandable, admittedly, for users to conclude that “Cloudflare is blocking websites, sound the alarms!” at first glance.

Your boss is talking about not "violating the integrity of DNS" and presents this case where upstream archive.is name servers return unexpected data. He proposes that CloudFlare cannot "just fix it" because doing so "would violate the integrity of DNS and the privacy and security promises we made to our users when we launched the service". However, Cloudflare chose to "just fix it" back then by "slapping a bandaid" on something your team saw as a problem instead of abiding by the proper change process. And Cloudflare did so not because of some critical security flaw, but as a cost-cutting measure.

Even if we limit what it means to "violate the integrity of DNS" to the first definition mentioned above (and completely ignore this second definition), Cloudflare "slapped a bandaid" on a PR problem it had a couple of years ago and decided to "just fix it" and "block a domain" by removing the domain and its assets from Cloudflare's infrastructure. [1]

Cloudflare has "violated the integrity of DNS" on more than one occasion using more than one of its own definitions.

Cloudflare "MUST" either adhere to the specification and its change process, or not adhere to the specification and its change process. Cloudflare "CANNOT" choose for both of these statements to be true, and one of them constitutes "violating the integrity of DNS".

[0] https://blog.cloudflare.com/deprecating-dns-any-meta-query-t...

[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

(This is not meant to suggest that archive.is's DNS response is appropriate, or that CF's setup is inappropriate.)

(Just to check my understanding of ECS: it's an extension to DNS that sends the user's subnet in the request, and gets relayed with the request, s.t. an authoritative server can respond with a geo-location appropriate response/IP.)

That assumes that the nameserver and the actual server are run by the same party which quite often is not the case.

Cloudflare can check if nameserver and the actual server are run by different parties, and if so omit subnet information from EDNS response. It is not hard to implement — Google and OpenDNS used to require manual whitelisting to receive EDNS subnet responses (not sure if they still do).

Cloudflare's CDN leaks user's full online identity to Google via reCaptcha, especially when you use Tor. Maybe they should ask Google to be satisfied with client's subnet too?

How?

Cloudflare simply is making a subversive play against their competitor CDNs. Client subnet of a DNS request is used for initial rough mapping by Cloudflare competitors such as Akamai (definitely) and I believe Fastly ( and probably others) . Stripping it easily adds at least a few milliseconds to the time to first byte and most likely results a request re-routing on the second or third request.

After all, no other CDN is operating a well used public resolver.

The irony is one.one.one.one is marketed as getaway to faster internet, while making CDNs that use GeoDNS slower.

All it takes is a bad route to a far away cloudflare POP to make your internet really slower. Case in point. [1]

I really don't find why no EDNS is considered private, as it only sends the IP subnet.[2] And on IPv6 the IP is far more protected.

If you care that much about privacy, you should be using a VPN.

[1] https://pastebin.com/raw/QnbWXU1a

[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7871#section-11.1

Another point; if you care about privacy, why use a 3rd party resolver that you have to "trust"?

Use the ISP resolver; they can see all your traffic anyway if they want to.

Alternatively, cut out all the middle men and run your own recursive resolver. It's not complicated to do so, there's other software than Bind for doing so.

https://cloud.google.com/cdn/docs/release-notes#june_27_2016

Since HTTPS traffic already reveals communicating IPs to nation-state actors, could you clarify what attack vector removing user IP info from authoritative DNS queries protects against?

In what way does Cloudflare publish its PoP geolocation? Is it a Cloudflare-specific API? Why not fake EDNS subnet info by providing the PoP’s?

I notice of course that Google, Facebook, and Netflix still work on 1.1.1.1. Does this mean they’re currently using Cloudflare PoP geolocation in lieu of EDNS subnet information?

CloudFlare decided its DNS should be the authority to the end user and Archive.is's DNS should be the authority only to CloudFlare. CloudFlare is breaking the bond between the end user and the Service provider.

What CloudFlare is doing is centralizing authority to itself rather allowing authority to be distributed to all owners of the domains as intended. An argument can be made that by using 1.1.1.1 you are granting CF permission to act in this role - some users may even prefer it.

The operator of archive.is claims that they suffer from a "massive mismatch" between those query IPs and actual traffic. Any idea why? [Is that claim wrong? Is archive.is to blame? Is cloudflare to blame? Are ISPs badly routing the DNS queries?]

Do you have stats on how well the geolocation works in practice?

[0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8482

The current effect is I stop using 1.1.1.1 when I need archive.is (often) and set it back the next time I’m messing with my network settings.

As an aside, I used to think that when Emerson said that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” he meant that we were foolish to try and be consistent. Increasingly I wonder if instead he meant that when you’re trying to reason with people who may not have the same detailed knowledge of a problem as you, there’s an enhanced importance to being consistent. Unfortunately, most policy makers globally don’t have a detailed understanding of how technical systems like DNS work, so we think it’s especially important we be consistent.

1.1.1.1 does not send EDNS ECS data, specifically because of the privacy concern. So the hypothetical secondary resolver would need to send that data, for people who aren’t concerned about the privacy implications / want to get to archive.is.

Given CloudFlare’s stated message of prioritizing privacy, it seems unlikely they’d stand up infrastructure that behaved like 1.1.1.1 except that it leaked more private information.

You'll need to add a hosts file to your iCloud Drive.

Although, I believe Cloudflare DNS app on iphone uses a VPN iOS API to do it's thing, so it should be possible to put dnsmasq-like functionality into an iOS app. I don't know if this exists already.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

"Earlier today, Cloudflare terminated the account of the Daily Stormer. We've stopped proxying their traffic and stopped answering DNS requests for their sites. We've taken measures to ensure that they cannot sign up for Cloudflare's services ever again."

I'll keep using non-logging, encrypted OpenNIC servers, since you seem to selectively censor instead of only blocking terrorists and cp.

The Daily Stormer is free to get their business elsewhere and it's still up on the internet. Cloudflare didn't want to be associated to this kind of content, and thus terminated their business relation.

We don't NEED Cloudflare to keep the internet integrity (if we did, it will go pretty badly...) but we do need DNS to keep the internet integrity.

> I'll keep using non-logging, encrypted OpenNIC servers, since you seem to selectively censor instead of only blocking terrorists and cp.

Why are you censoring Cloudflare? /s

CloudFlare is very basic infrastructure and there are a handful of companies providing such infrastructure, thus a group can be effectively deleted from the Internet if these companies decide or are pressured to do so. (Example of pressuring: Patreon dropped some accounts at the behest of Mastercard.)

So maybe the real question is, "does this notion of the integrity of DNS extend to other basic infrastructure services?"

Imagine it's HTTP, and the site sent a 404 to your proxy, but you knew it generally sent a 200 to other proxies, what should you do? Send the 404, or override it with your own status code? Cloudflare is saying they are not OK with overriding codes.

Such a post might A) get better SEO than an HN thread for 'cannot access archive.is [or ...]' and B) help change its behaviour.

I assume they'd just have to go along with such legal demands, or withdraw from the relevant country, unless the penalty for not complying was very small.

It will probably become an issue some day. In Australia, for example, courts can issue DNS bans of particular sites to individual ISPs. You can avoid these bans entirely by using a service like Cloudfare DNS.

  $ host -t a lancaster.ac.uk
  lancaster.ac.uk has address 148.88.65.80

  $ host -t a lancaster.ac.uk 1.1.1.1
  Using domain server:
  Name: 1.1.1.1
  Address: 1.1.1.1#53
  Aliases: 
  
  lancaster.ac.uk has address 148.88.65.80

The concept of Free Speech is the most important right we have as humanity, while I may not agree with some peoples words I will fight for their right to say those words

And do not even come at me with "well they are private company" we impose all kinds of regulations on private companies when it comes to basic human rights like free speech and Free Association for example private companies can not refuse service based on race, sex, age, etc.

yet you WANT them to censor content, censor speech. You want them to apply your left authoritarian world view to legal speech, and yes everything you have cited is LEGAL SPEECH in the USA.

If there are actual threats, True Threats as defined in US law, then the police should be involved and the people arrested. If there is defamation or other illegal speech then the courts should be involved

It should NOT be the position of private companies to regulate speech online

Platform Access Is A Civil Right. https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civi...

I realize that’s a slippery slope, but I just don’t trust the public to filter for themselves any more.

Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression, and you just want to strip it away because of fear...

How can you not see how utterly dangerous this idea is, how can you ignore all of human history to believe it is a good idea to suppress speech.

It is not a slippery slope at all, is termination of basic human rights, is the the return to the dark ages, to Totalitarianism.

You hope that be installing a regime of censorship and speech control you will end "lies" and/or "hate" when in reality you will ensure its continued existence and growth while taking away peoples power to challenge it in the open light of public debate

Generally, an independent judiciary is the arbitrator of truth.

Free speech has never been absolute. Free speech does not protect intentionally false speech. For example, tricking people to give you money is fraud. Libel is too. You can support free speech while also protecting truth. When the issue pops up, a judge determines who's right and wrong.

Almost all of the content the Authoritarian left wants to be banned today the independent judiciary has already ruled many times to be Legal Speech under the US definition of Free Speech

> Free Speech is the most powerful tool Minorities and oppressed people through out the world have to end their oppression,

So in order to protect the opressed, we should allow their opressors an equal platform to share their totalitarian views?

The other side(what we currently have) is equally as bad, if not worse. Right now you have a situation where the BBC in the name of "fairness" gives equal air time to a political party who only exist as a protest vote, and they allow for climate change denier to air their views against scientists. Public debate doesn't work based on facts, it works based on emotions, and it doesn't matter how nuanced or level headed your response is, "think of the children" or "the government is trying to suppress our rights" are emotional arguments that consistently Trump facts and reason. Free speech isn't a right for you to have a platform to voice your opinion, it's a right to not have your opinion be suppressed by the government.

I don't have a solution, but at some point you have to accept that tolerance of intolerance is intolerance, and when we're talking about a single incident of a platform that claims Marital Rape is ok [0],and that murdering 50 people because of their religion is "a prank" [1], they are objectively the opressors, not the opressed.

[0] https://dailystormer.name/some-states-want-to-prevent-husban...

[1] https://dailystormer.name/the-difference-between-a-mosque-sh...

Yes. That's one of the founding principles of America. Cloudflare is a common carrier like a telco, not a hosting provider. The content on websites that use them as a CDN shouldn't be paid attention to by Cloudflare one way or another, as long as it's legal. This is their position, and it's the correct and most moral one. You also seem to be missing the fact that Cloudflare famously banned Daily Stormer; the only time they've ever banned any website: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

The best way to empower extremists is by trying to stamp them out. You can never, ever win when your primary weapon is censorship. Fascism thrives and festers in darkness.

yes, for many reasons. One Should not be celebrating Moving the Cliff of Censorship on the bias of "Dangerous Individuals" like Facebook recently did. [2]

>Free speech isn't a right for you to have a platform to voice your opinion, it's a right to not have your opinion be suppressed by the government.

100% incorrect, Free Speech is a social concept that is often codified into law as through out history governments are the ones that often use the power of censorship to silence dissent, however threats by government is NOT the only threat to free speech.

Free Speech is a cultural value first, it has become a legal articulation based on that cultural value. [2] Platform Access Is A Civil Right, You should now have the same right to speak on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram that you do in a public park.[0]

If you would not celebrate government censoring opinions you dislike why would you celebrate corporations doing it?

>>I don't have a solution, but at some point you have to accept that tolerance of intolerance is intolerance

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you, you can not fight intolerance by suppression. it has never worked in all of history, it only makes the extremism more extreme and violent. One can make the strong case that the more society pushes these people out of the sunlight the more violent they become, and if they allowed the modern public square, where their idea's would be challenged, debated and debunked there is a high probity there would be LESS violence.

Censorship does nothing but drive extremism under ground allowing it to fester, become more extreme, and then you get violence. This is also true for other forms of Censorship. Take for example the recent bills to "stop human trafficking" by censoring platforms and making them liable for it. Did it actually stop any human trafficking... No, all it did was drive it under ground making it harder for law enforcement to track and stop, while suppression lots of legitimate speech, had massive negative effects on voluntary sex workers, and untold other unintended consequences. This censorship was a net negative both in its stated goal, and for freedom in general. It accomplished nothing but taking the rights away from people.

Once your Nation has a "Chief Censor" [1] you know you have gone away from anything that could be considered Free Speech

[0] https://humanevents.com/2019/05/03/platform-access-is-a-civi...

[1] https://youtu.be/QH_IZnKzqKA?t=68

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOwJz1p6aag

The logical extension of your argument is the public not trustworthy enough to even choose their leaders.

Free speech isn't a danger to democracy, thinking like this is.

Silicon Valley is full of Authoritarians that believe the Tech Companies should be our overlords and be allowed to choose what "truth" is, and who can revel that "truth" to you

[0] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-look...

Where does daily stormer fall in the “etc.” part?

Many states, including California, have political ideology has a protected class as well.

IMO companies run a foul of that when they start banning people for subjective ideology based reasons like "hate speech" which is not illegal in the US, and is every much based in political ideology to make the determination as to what is "hate".

Users/programs/IoT can choose to use DNS-over-TLS or DNS-over-HTTPS, but that's not Cloudflare's fault.

[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-to-chinas-wosign-well-...

Would like to point out that Cloudflare's resolver is EDNS compliant, it just doesn't send the client subnet.

See: https://twitter.com/archiveis/status/1018691421182791680 (picture of tweet https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/cloudflare/optimized/3X/8/2/8... )

Based on that tweet, the owner has a personal grudge against Cloudflare and is choosing to return bad results.

"Having to do" is not so direct here. Absence of EDNS and massive mismatch (not only on AS/Country, but even on the continent level) of where DNS and related HTTP requests come from causes so many troubles so I consider EDNS-less requests from Cloudflare as invalid.

> EDNS Client Subnet > >1.1.1.1 is a privacy centric resolver so it does not send any client IP information and does not send the EDNS Client Subnet Header to authoritative servers.

Cloudflare's requests are of course perfectly valid, with @archiveis actively deciding not to service them.

> We’re aware of real world examples where nationstate actors have monitored EDNS subnet information to track individuals, which was part of the motivation for the privacy and security policies of 1.1.1.1.

So it's not just "Cloudflare benefits from pushing anycast" (even if that's part of it).

Don't take Cloudflare's PR seriously, they are completely full of it. They used to be more honest, but those days are long gone.

There is no guarantee the name server they are querying is the same as the server in the A result, and the idea is to reduce the number of points where people other than the A result and the client know that they plan to talk to each other.

It's not bullshit.

That's ok. Let me try to explain a bit more:

Queries to 1.1.1.1 are going over public internet. And even though they are encrypted, they also carry metadata with them, including IP addresses of who is doing them, precise time, rough size, various OS specific stuff, etc. And packets going out to authoritative servers from 1.1.1.1 are in clear text. There is a very tiny window of possible queries out of 1.1.1.1 for encrypted data coming in from some IP address and therefore only a tiny number of possible responses from authoritative servers. Given that and enough intercepted data all over the world it is easy to correlate clear text DNS responses with IP addresses or who got responses from cache and on which popular website ended up, etc.

I think that makes the privacy argument a fairly valid thing.

1. Use of EDNS client subnet information harms user privacy, by providing information that would not otherwise be there.

2. Many users on a single global DNS provider lowers the amount of points that needs to be attacked to obtain DNS information.

However, you position your statement as if #2 somehow render #1 moot, which is an entirely subjective evaluation from the perspective of a user, and also not at all relevant to the discussion of #1, as that on its own is not 1.1.1.1 specific.

For an example of why this is very subjective, the user may believe that the security of ISP DNS servers is likely not trustable, and that infiltrating countless ISP DNS services would likely be much less work than infiltrating one of the larger providers, such as 1.1.1.1, with better security practices.

The only things relevant to this discussion is whether or not it is sensible to respond with bogus data to a valid request that does not contain optional fields, and separately whether or not it is sensible for a DNS provider to not contain these fields.

Many setups proxy everything but dns traffic.

That's why this topic is a thing.

https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/Preventing...

Depends who runs the authoritative servers - if you hit the authoritative DNS services for most of my domains, you are providing your information to 123-Reg (or, increasingly, Google), if you start a TCP connection, you are providing it to me.

Given they serve their pages over tor, I don't buy that explanation at all. Assuming location of client == location of CloudFlare source would give them a rough match in most cases. In tor they're almost guaranteed to be wrong.

I’m not sure I see what kind of logic goes into this argument.

https://ednscomp.isc.org/ednscomp/6ed2aca587

EDNS Compliance Tester says that archive.is has some issues.

https://dnsflagday.net

> Minor problems detected! > This domain does not support latest DNS standards.

Cloudflare has decided for privacy reasons they will not relay eDNS0 client subnet data - which yes, can reveal a portion of the IP of the requestor - but is used by CDN services in order to provide nearest servers or (in some cases) country specific content.

My guess here is archive.is feels they have some need to restrict what content is provided to where in the world, and as a result, without ECS in the request, takes you to a cname which essentially null routes you back to your local loop interface.

Source: Founder of DNSFilter.com - we support ECS, I coded it.

Couldn't that be done later, by blocking the actual HTTP TCP connections instead of blocking the DNS requests? Maybe it's an efficiency issue, that they want the higher-efficiency blocking by DNS rather than lower-efficiency blocking during HTTP TCP, but that seems a little strange to me.

Unfortunately, Archive.is has to fix it from their nameservers and we cannot do anything from our side. You can ready more about it here: https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-error-1001/182...

Disclaimer: I work at Cloudflare

One time they blocked the whole Finland because the owner had problems with customs and somehow related the incident with Russia while saying Finnish gov and bur businesses can never be independent.

- 1.1.1.1

- Neustar DNS

- AdGuard DNS

But they don't block Quad9 or CleanBrowsing that also do not send the EDNS subnet. Very curious way of blocking itself out of the Internet. OpenDNS blocks it (sends to their block page):

https://dnsblacklist.org/?domain=archive.is

Would love to hear from someone from archive.is what is going on.

Most recursive DNS severs on Internet can be categorized in two groups: local DNS servers, offered by Internet providers to their users, and enormous "generic" DNS like Google's 8.8.8.8. When someone makes a DNS request to those servers, they will in turn forward it to DNS servers of web page you are requesting. Content Delivery Networks use DNS to determine, which server should serve your request: if your DNS request arrived from Africa, CDN's DNS server will return IP in Africa. Of course, _users_ don't send DNS requests to CDN's server — recursive DNS servers do. In the past almost everyone used DNS, offered by their Internet provider, — CDN's had to use GeoIP or even static lists of providers to determine origin of that request. When world-wide DNS servers like Google's 8.8.8.8 started to gain popularity, that approach was broken, so EDNS was developed.

Cloudflare is a CDN. They are selling their CDN services for money. At the same time they are encouraging end users to use free DNS server, that does not support EDNS on purpose (they admit so on their website). In effect they are creating a situation, when competing CDNs are at disadvantage and can't determine, what country user comes from. Cloudflare itself does not suffer from that disadvantage, because they control both 1.1.1.1 and DNS, used by their clients' websites.

And Cloudflare is EDNS-compliant. They simply choose not to enable the optional EDNS extension released in 2016 for sending the client subnet for privacy reasons.

Here's what RFC7871 – Client Subnet in DNS Queries[1] says about itself (emphasis mine):

This document defines an EDNS0 [RFC6891] option to convey network information that is relevant to the DNS message. It will carry sufficient network information about the originator for the Authoritative Nameserver to tailor responses. It will also provide for the Authoritative Nameserver to indicate the scope of network addresses for which the tailored answer is intended. This EDNS0 option is intended for those Recursive Resolvers and Authoritative Nameservers that would benefit from the extension and not for general purpose deployment. This is completely optional and can safely be ignored by servers that choose not to implement or enable it.

As far as I know, the standard practice, before this optional EDNS extension was to do GeoDNS based on the resolver's IP. This works just fine, including in the case of Cloudflare, since they've got 150+ POPs with each resolving on their own. That's higher density than most CDNs.

[0]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2671

[1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7871

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Finland

https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-error-1001/182...

> Nameservers responsible for archive.is (ben.archive.is, anna.archive.is) are returning answers tailored to the IP address of the requestor.

And indicate that anyone who knows how to contact archive.is can ask them to resolve the issue:

> If you have a contact on the domain owner, you can ask them to fix this.

EDIT: This is knowingly blocked by archive.is. Reasoning and discussion elsewhere in post comments. No need to contact archive.is about it, they’re clearly aware.

As soon as I realized they were causing this issue I just switched away. Other DNS providers don't have this issue.

archive.is has configured their nameservers to return invalid (127.0.0.0/8, from the looks of it) responses to Cloudflare requests because they’re protesting Cloudflare’s lack of EDNS, not because EDNS is somehow required to handle the requests.

For context: EDNS sends the origin IP address of the DNS client through the resolver. Cloudflare has it disabled because of the privacy implications of sending it along.

If a dev updates their code so it won’t run unless an kernel flag is enabled, the kernel hasn’t broken userspace, and kernel devs are unlikely to add a “fake-enabled-flag” to trick the userspace program, even if it’s popular.

Likewise, I don’t expect my DNS resolver to add in custom behavior if upstream DNS servers make breaking changes like this. In fact, I very much prefer the opposite: my DNS service should be as dumb as possible. I don’t want it making choices about how to modify DNS queries I do, or their results.

If an upstream site broke their DNSSEC config, would you lobby for Cloudflare to modify the results so resolution succeeded for their users?

    dig @carl.archive.is archive.is A +noedns

    curl http://134.119.220.26 -H 'Host: archive.is' -v

I'm not a dig expert, but I believe this means it works without EDNS. I think that means archive.is is specifically blocking Cloudflare's servers, not blocking all non-EDNS requests.

Archive.is operators are throwing a temper tantrum. It isn't in Cloud Flare or anyone else's best interest to appease them.

What makes the response incorrect? I was under the impression that DNS implementations were under no "practical" obligation to return consistent queries to differing requester IP addresses (hence stuff like split-horizon DNS and EDNS: https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/ecs )

[1] https://developers.cloudflare.com/1.1.1.1/nitty-gritty-detai...

[2] https://twitter.com/archiveis/status/1018691421182791680

134.119.220.26 archive.is

And because most site visits start with a Google search anyway.

And finally, because I am comfortable with their privacy statement : https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy

it's not that slower.

  nslookup archive.is 1.1.1.1
  Server:  1.1.1.1
  Address: 1.1.1.1#53

  Non-authoritative answer:
  Name: archive.is
  Address: 134.119.220.26

    dig @1.1.1.1 archive.is
    
    ; <<>> DiG 9.14.1 <<>> @1.1.1.1 archive.is
    ; (1 server found)
    ;; global options: +cmd
    ;; Got answer:
    ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 46862
    ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0,     ADDITIONAL: 1

    ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
    ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1452
    ;; QUESTION SECTION:
    ;archive.is.                    IN      A

    ;; ANSWER SECTION:
    archive.is.             2998    IN      A       127.0.0.4

    ;; Query time: 52 msec
    ;; SERVER: 1.1.1.1#53(1.1.1.1)
    ;; WHEN: Sat May 04 21:03:36 CEST 2019
    ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 55

    dig @8.8.8.8 archive.is

    ; <<>> DiG 9.14.1 <<>> @8.8.8.8 archive.is
    ; (1 server found)
    ;; global options: +cmd
    ;; Got answer:
    ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 5893
    ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0,     ADDITIONAL: 1

    ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
    ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512
    ;; QUESTION SECTION:
    ;archive.is.                    IN      A

    ;; ANSWER SECTION:
    archive.is.             299     IN      A       94.16.117.236

    ;; Query time: 79 msec
    ;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
    ;; WHEN: Sat May 04 21:04:28 CEST 2019
    ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 55

https://www.dnsleaktest.com/what-is-transparent-dns-proxy.ht...

A few days ago it was a customers compromised router doing it.

I couldn't figure out if this was plain incompetency, an attempt to enforce DNS-based website blocking, or some programmer willfully implementing the latter with the former so that it would be reasonably easy to circumvent.

Also Italian residential providers really, really like to mess with NXDOMAIN instead returning a helpful error page with affiliate links instead. You might think you can imagine how much shit this breaks; you probably don't.

And if they sound acceptable run https://ooni.torproject.org/install/

It'll show you more about likely interception of your traffic.

    Server:  1.1.1.1
    Address: 1.1.1.1#53

    Non-authoritative answer:
    Name: archive.is
    Address: 127.0.0.4

>EDNS Client Subnet

>1.1.1.1 is a privacy centric resolver so it does not send any client IP information and does not send the EDNS Client Subnet Header to authoritative servers.

What does this mean?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today