[HN Gopher] How to circumvent Sci-Hub ISP block
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How to circumvent Sci-Hub ISP block
        
       Author : tmkadamcz
       Score  : 230 points
       Date   : 2021-06-09 19:12 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (fragile-credences.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (fragile-credences.github.io)
        
       | beermonster wrote:
       | Just setup a VPN on some cheap cloud provider.
       | 
       | There are lots of sites UK ISPs block even though the sites
       | themselves are not illegal or host illegal content. For e.g.
       | torrent indexing services (the content itself _may_ be illegal
       | but purely providing a search across that content is basically
       | doing what Google do).
       | 
       | The UK internet is heavily filtered/censored and so doing this is
       | useful anyway.
       | 
       | Business ISP connections don't seem to be restricted. And neither
       | do most cloud providers I've tried.
       | 
       | Might be better than using temporary proxies.
        
         | Reason077 wrote:
         | My UK ISP (one of the major UK mobile networks) does not block
         | sci-hub. They do block torrent sites such as Pirate Bay, etc.
        
         | Quarrel wrote:
         | I travelled last week, and was horrified by how much is blocked
         | by the mainstream ISPs in the UK.
         | 
         | Afaik, my (London) ISP does not block anything. No idea why, as
         | all the others quote high court orders.
        
           | Reason077 wrote:
           | Many UK ISPs have "adult content" filters, which tend to be
           | wide-reaching and block a lot more than just porn sites. But
           | these are optional and can be turned off very easily.
           | 
           | There's a smaller set of non-optional blocks (pirate/torrent
           | sites) which you need a VPN to get around.
        
             | sabjut wrote:
             | This seems to be just another small step towards a future
             | where only pre-approved websites are accessible via the
             | method most people will use. It will not be called banning,
             | this is just a measure to "ensure that the content we are
             | serving to our users is held against our high quality
             | standards" or the classic "it's to protect the children" or
             | to "condemn terrorism".
             | 
             | Porn is not really Illegal, just unwanted, which is
             | apparently reason enough to block it. Does this mean any
             | content which is "unwanted" can be blocked just like that?
        
             | regularfry wrote:
             | I have a theory that the ISPs over-block with their adult
             | content filters, so you've got plausible deniability and
             | don't have to ring up and say "I want porn please." Because
             | the alternative is that they lose a customer to an ISP who
             | doesn't embarrass them.
        
         | koheripbal wrote:
         | Are there good recommendations for privacy centric cloud
         | providers?
        
       | dredmorbius wrote:
       | A few years back, frustrated with increasaed DNS blocking of Sci-
       | Hub, I wrote a quick DNSMasq hack (haq?) to return Sci-Hub IPs
       | for any "sci-hub.<domain>" possible. The shins-n-grits factor of
       | surfing "scihub.elsevier.com" were palpable.
       | 
       | https://old.reddit.com/r/Scholar/comments/7m3uin/meta_if_you...
       | 
       | As others have mentioned, Sci-Hub also maintains a Tor presence,
       | and you can access the Onion link using the Tor browser (provided
       | you can install that on your desktop or device).
       | 
       | https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion
        
       | tpmx wrote:
       | What is forcing these UK ISPs to block these IP ranges?
        
         | dijit wrote:
         | The UK Government passed a few legislations to this effect and
         | have been doing so since 2015~
         | 
         | Also: all data is required to be logged, and those logs are
         | searchable by civil servants without a warrant.
        
         | beermonster wrote:
         | The government have passed quite a few bills this year aimed at
         | locking down on this kind of thing whilst people were pre-
         | occupied with COVID.
        
         | Quarrel wrote:
         | I don't know. Virgin Media quote High Court orders saying they
         | have to block several I tried, but my home ISP does not block
         | any of them. These seems weird to me, that the court orders
         | would cover a few specific ISPs, but I haven't looked in to it
         | further.
        
           | tpmx wrote:
           | Are those High Court orders secret? Is there any journalism
           | happening?
        
       | gruez wrote:
       | You're probably better off using a paid VPN provider than a paid
       | proxy provider. A VPN can be used in more places, and some VPNs
       | provide http proxy access (the kind used in the tutorial) in
       | additional to openvpn/wireguard. If they have a browser
       | extension, chances are they support http proxy.
        
       | xvector wrote:
       | This is the reason Tor exists.
        
       | leephillips wrote:
       | If you can't get to sci-hub and you need a (free) copy of a
       | paper, there are several other ways to get it: https://lee-
       | phillips.org/articleAccess/
        
       | StavrosK wrote:
       | Too bad the Handshake domain donation to SciHub didn't pan out.
        
       | igbk wrote:
       | How do the alternative domains fare in the UK? With https://sci-
       | hub.st/ I can circumvent the ISP block in Sweden successfully.
        
         | GordonS wrote:
         | Works for me on Plusnet in the UK, thanks!
        
         | hkt wrote:
         | Works fine here, on EE network in the UK.
        
         | Gormisdomai wrote:
         | I'm UK based and can't hit it on home wifi
        
         | tmkadamcz wrote:
         | https://sci-hub.st does not work in the UK [edit: on Sky].
        
           | londons_explore wrote:
           | Works on BT broadband
        
             | weavie wrote:
             | Virgin says no.
             | 
             | Interestingly I get this:
             | 
             | Secure Connection Failed
             | 
             | An error occurred during a connection to sci-hub.st. SSL
             | received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible
             | length.
             | 
             | Error code: SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG
        
               | AndrewDucker wrote:
               | Yeah, that's how Virgin implement their blocking
        
               | AshamedCaptain wrote:
               | I know by memory that is what I get when an HTTP server
               | responsd to an HTTPS/SSL request :)
        
       | dijit wrote:
       | Seems like this is a really good service to add some legitimacy
       | to Tor browsing.
       | 
       | Having SciHub as a hidden service would bring a lot of people to
       | Tor.
       | 
       | EDIT: apparently I'm a bit stupid; it exists:
       | https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion
       | 
       | But it would be cool to promote the hell out of the onion address
       | and tor browser, rather than trying to bypass ISP restrictions.
        
         | GordonS wrote:
         | I use SciHub a lot, and just this week have been having
         | problems accessing it on the internet (in the UK) - I don't use
         | Tor, but I also never even thought of it. Totally agree it
         | would be a good idea to promote the Onion address!
        
         | livueta wrote:
         | Possibly also a path to greater decentralization. Relying on
         | jurisdictional stuff isn't going to cut it forever (see the
         | current pause on new uploads), but it's also hard to ask people
         | to host data that'll get them sued without offering
         | mitigations. Private torrent trackers do that through, well,
         | being private, but I'm sure as hell not serving
         | springer_catalogue_2020.tar.xz to the whole internet from an
         | address linked to me in any way. Maybe an index of
         | independently operated hidden services, each serving a
         | (redundant) shard of the collection?
        
       | hkt wrote:
       | I'm glad this document exists but I tend to favour using
       | TorBrowser, both on Android and (in my case) Manjaro.
        
       | brumar wrote:
       | Tor works well for me so far
        
       | joelthelion wrote:
       | There's a telegram bot that sends you the papers you ask for.
       | It's by far the most convenient way to use scihub.
        
         | paufernandez wrote:
         | Agreed, that's the one I use, so fast!
        
         | kickout wrote:
         | Do you have a link or example for, uh, science? Lol
        
           | vbezhenar wrote:
           | Google sci hub telegram bot returns me @scihubbot as the
           | first results. You might want to try it out.
        
             | burundi_coffee wrote:
             | Actually, it's @scihubot. You can send it links to the
             | paper from the journal webpage or the doi link, for
             | example: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.432563
        
       | [deleted]
        
         | londons_explore wrote:
         | IPFS would be a perfect fit for this...
         | 
         | It sadly isn't censorship resistant, but it should do for a few
         | years, and as soon as censorship on IPFS starts to become an
         | issue, hopefully the IPFS developers will evolve the design.
        
       | tingletech wrote:
       | once upon a time I wrote a script that took a MARC file from the
       | library catalog as input, and output a PAC file for the group
       | that ran the campus proxy server.
        
       | sneak wrote:
       | Another option is to simply configure your workstation to use
       | DoH. Then your ISP can't fuck with your address resolution.
       | 
       | I recommend using NextDNS, and then setting up a provisioning
       | profile at https://apple.nextdns.io to set it as your revolver on
       | your macs and ios devices. The ad-blocking features are a nice
       | bonus, too.
       | 
       | NextDNS also has a cool free software CLI local DoH proxy
       | resolver which works a charm.
        
       | emsal wrote:
       | I once attempted to make something like ProxySwitchy for DNS[1],
       | but I didn't work on it long enough to get off the ground. This
       | article made me think about it again. Is there actually a use
       | case for that kind of thing?
       | 
       | [1]: https://github.com/emsal0/resolvplox
        
       | AlexandrB wrote:
       | The way SciHub is being treated by governments is pretty
       | infuriating. There's a tiny minority of people who have an
       | interest in keeping SciHub off the internet, and they're
       | generally neither the researchers who write the papers, nor those
       | who want to read them. Despite this, the power of the state has
       | been used repeatedly to keep SciHub inaccessible and limit their
       | ability to get funding.
        
         | tomrod wrote:
         | Yes, due to allocation of property rights.
         | 
         | Cease to supply this system with the fruits of your research
         | labors.
        
           | pbhjpbhj wrote:
           | In my personal opinion the international community could do
           | something like modify the Berne Convention/TRIPS
           | (international copyright agreements signed by almost every
           | country/WTO members respectively) to exclude copyright of
           | academic papers.
           | 
           | The property rights in question are not natural rights, nor
           | material rights. Sufficient political will seems like it
           | could do it.
           | 
           | Finding politicians in power who will support human progress
           | before profits might be hard! [/understatement]
        
           | zwaps wrote:
           | Give me tenure and I'm on board.
        
           | Mediterraneo10 wrote:
           | > Cease to supply this system with the fruits of your
           | research labors.
           | 
           | Historically academics have felt forced to support this
           | system, because for-profit journals are the high-prestige
           | ones they must publish in in order to get tenure. This has
           | changed for certain fields, but it isn't as simple as just
           | suggesting that one publish elsewhere.
        
             | divbzero wrote:
             | It's up to not only academics who publish articles, but
             | also organizations that issue grants and tenure. Public
             | policies to adjust their definitions of "prestige" or
             | "quality" would help.
        
             | underwires wrote:
             | which fields has this changed for?
        
             | Tokelin wrote:
             | What are some of the fields where this is changing?
        
       | tmkadamcz wrote:
       | By the way, Sci-Hub has stopped adding new articles to the
       | database for a few months now (background:
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/mk46x4/scihub_v_els...).
       | 
       | It would be great to develop a truly decentralised solution.
       | Having a database of individual torrent links for each paper
       | might be a start.
        
         | Azrael3000 wrote:
         | Thanks for the background link. I did not know about that and
         | it's a good incentive to donate them some money for the legal
         | battle.
         | 
         | TL;DR of the link: No more uploads to support a court case in
         | India which SciHub might win and thus establish a legal basis
         | for operation in the biggest democracy.
        
           | andyxor wrote:
           | when donating bitcoin make sure to get the address from the
           | official scihub mirrors, which are currently sci-hub.do, sci-
           | hub.st or sci-hub.se.
           | 
           | there are some unaffiliated "mirrors" that only redirect to
           | scihub but list their own bitcoin address for donations, so
           | beware.
           | 
           | /r/scihub on reddit keeps track of this
           | https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/wiki/index
        
           | lowkey wrote:
           | Sci-hub is such a great example of a clear and compelling
           | use-case for Bitcoin. Bitcoin is censorship-resistant money
           | that doesn't rely on countries, laws, central bankers or
           | politicians. The US dollar cannot be used for purposes not
           | aligned with the US government. Sometimes ideas that the US
           | Government doesn't agree with can be useful (e.g. Wikileaks,
           | Sci-hub.)
           | 
           | When I hear complaints that Bitcoin has no use except for
           | speculation, I think of Sci-hub, Wikileaks and other
           | organizations that may be bad for the interests of the US
           | government but may be good for mankind.
        
             | hyperbovine wrote:
             | It's a censorship resistant technology that also indelibly
             | records, publicly, every transaction you ever participated
             | in. Talk about a double-edged sword...
        
         | HideousKojima wrote:
         | Torrents are great and all but it's dependent on people seeding
         | them, sci-hub/libgen is great because you don't have to worry
         | about a download suddenly breaking because no one is seeding
        
           | kortilla wrote:
           | But they could just always be a seeder. Doesn't that have the
           | upsides of the existing solution plus resiliency?
        
             | whimsicalism wrote:
             | Isn't scihub/libgen already backed by torrents? I'm
             | confused.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | jandrese wrote:
         | Millions of individual torrents is not a great solution.
         | Keeping them all seeded is basically impossible unless they run
         | a seed for each one, at which point they might as well just
         | host the files. Plus you'll never get the economy of scale that
         | makes BitTorrent really shine.
         | 
         | When you have a whole lot of tiny files that people will
         | generally only want one or two of there isn't much better than
         | a plain old website.
         | 
         | A torrent that hosts all of the papers could be useful for
         | people who want to make sure the data can't be lost by a single
         | police raid.
        
           | tmkadamcz wrote:
           | There are already torrents of the archives. But supposing
           | scihub was taken down it's pretty non trivial to get from the
           | archive back to a working site with search functionality. For
           | one thing, none of Sci-Hub's code is available.
        
           | contravariant wrote:
           | There was that project some guy posted a while back that used
           | a combination of sqlite and partial downloads to enable
           | searches on a database before it was downloaded all the way.
           | If you can fit PDFs somewhere into that you'd be golden.
           | 
           | Or just use IPFS I suppose.
        
             | o8r3oFTZPE wrote:
             | "There was that project some guy posted a while back that
             | used a combination of sqlite and partial downloads to
             | enable searches on a database before it was downloaded all
             | the way."
             | 
             | https://github.com/bittorrent/sqltorrent
        
               | jagged-chisel wrote:
               | this is the one:
               | https://phiresky.github.io/blog/2021/hosting-sqlite-
               | database...
               | 
               | HN submission:
               | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27016630
        
             | hkt wrote:
             | Isn't that essentially mapreduce? Either way, interesting
             | and I'd love to see the link.
        
               | vorticalbox wrote:
               | I believe this is the project mentioned
               | 
               | https://github.com/lmatteis/torrent-net
        
               | tmkadamcz wrote:
               | This looks like it could be a good approach.
        
               | contravariant wrote:
               | That one looks familiar. Though apparently the same thing
               | has been tried in several different ways going by the
               | replies I got.
        
             | divbzero wrote:
             | IPFS would face a similar challenge as the "keep torrents
             | seeded" problem mentioned by GP. Wouldn't there be risk to
             | peers who host the PDFs?
        
               | Natsu wrote:
               | I sort of feel like there should be some way to use some
               | kind of construct to get people to seed things so that
               | others seed things for them, but I haven't seen that
               | invented yet.
        
               | miloignis wrote:
               | Been a while since I've looked at them, but IPFS with
               | FileCoin and Ethereum Swarm had that kind of goal.
               | 
               | It might be beneficial to create something like what you
               | describe without any cryptocurrency association though,
               | and I've been mulling over possibilities for distributed
               | systems that are inherently currency-less to avoid all of
               | the scams that cryptocurrency attracts.
        
               | zolland wrote:
               | I think seed ratios and seed time (mostly used by private
               | trackers) attempt to solve this problem.
        
               | zolland wrote:
               | What kind of risk?
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | What documents (books, scientific articles) benefit from
           | specifically is a number of highly consistent, highly
           | accurate identifiers: DOI (scientific articles), ISBN
           | (published books), and others (OCLC identifier, Library of
           | Congress Catalogue Number, etc.)
           | 
           | With the addition of hashsums (even MD5 ad SHA1, though
           | longer and more robust hashsums are preferred), a pretty
           | reliable archive of content can be made. It's a curious case
           | where increased legibility seems to be breaking rather than
           | creating a gatekeeper monopoly.
           | 
           | I've been interested in the notion of more reliable content-
           | based identifiers or fingerprints themselves, though I've
           | found little reliable reference on this. Ngram tuples of 4-5
           | words are often sufficient to identify a work, particularly
           | if a selection of several are made. Aggreeing on _which_
           | tuples to use, how many, and how to account for potential
           | noise  / variations (special characters, whitespace variance,
           | OCR inaccuracy) is also a stumbling point.
        
           | posterboy wrote:
           | a plain old website or a publishing house with distribution
           | services and syndication attached, but for a sane price.
           | 
           | "a whole lot of tiny files" severely underestimates the scale
           | at work. Libgen's coverage is relatively shallow, and pdf
           | books tend to be huge, at least for older material. Scihub
           | piggy backs on the publishers, so that's your reference.
           | 
           |  _syndication_ , _syndicate_ , quite apt don't you think?
           | Libraries that coluded with the publishers and accepted the
           | pricing must have been a huge part of the problem, at least
           | historically. Now you know there's only one way out of a
           | mafia.
        
             | jandrese wrote:
             | In Internet scale it's not a lot of data. Most people who
             | think they have big data don't.
             | 
             | Estimates I've seen put the total Scihub cache at 85
             | million articles totaling 77TB. That's a single 2U server
             | with room to spare. The hardest part is indexing and
             | search, but it's a pretty small search space by Internet
             | standards.
        
               | HWR_14 wrote:
               | It still amazes me that 77TB is considered "small". Isn't
               | that still in the $500-$1,000 range of non-redundant
               | storage? Or if hosted on AWS, isn't that almost $1,900 a
               | month if no one accesses it?
               | 
               | I know it's not Big Data(tm) big data, but it is a lot of
               | data for something that can generate no revenue.
        
               | pbhjpbhj wrote:
               | I'm prepared to accept " _does_ generate no revenue " but
               | " _can_ generate no revenue " ...?
               | 
               | Perhaps some sort of MTurk or captcha-like tasks per
               | access? Patr[e]ons? Donation drives? Micro-payments?
               | Something else??
        
               | HWR_14 wrote:
               | Oh, it _could_ generate revenue if it was legal. But it
               | is not, so it seems difficult.
        
               | smichel17 wrote:
               | > Isn't that still in the $500-$1,000 range of non-
               | redundant storage?
               | 
               | Sure. Let's add redundancy and bump by an order of
               | magnitude to give some headroom -- $5-10k is a totally
               | reasonable amount to fundraise for this sort of
               | application. If it were legal, I'm sure any number of
               | universities would happily shoulder that cost. It's
               | miniscule compared to what they're paying Elsevier each
               | year.
        
               | HWR_14 wrote:
               | Sorry. My point was it was a lot of money precisely
               | because it cannot legally exist. If it could collect
               | donations via a commercial payment processor, it could
               | raise that much money from end users easily. Or grants
               | from institutions. But in this case it seems like it has
               | to be self-funded.
        
               | dredmorbius wrote:
               | For an institution, it's a rounding error.
               | 
               | AWS is not the cheapest bulk-storage hosting possible.
        
               | dredmorbius wrote:
               | The entire Library of Congress books collection is on the
               | order of 40 million items.
               | 
               | At 5 MB per book, this works out to about 200 TB of disk
               | storage.
               | 
               | At about $12/TB, hosting the entire LoC collection would
               | cost roughly $2,400 presently, with prices halving about
               | every three years.
        
               | andyxor wrote:
               | The entire archive actually fits in a small desktop NAS
               | (e.g. QNAP or Synology) with a few 14-18TB drives, you
               | don't even need a server rack.
               | 
               | There is existing index in sql format distributed by
               | libgen: https://www.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/nh5dbu/a
               | _brief_intr..., it is around 30GB uncompressed.
               | 
               | Those 851 torrents uncompressed would probably take half
               | a petabyte of storage, but I guess for serving pdfs you
               | could extract individual files on demand from zip archive
               | and (optionally) cache. So the scihub "mirror" could run
               | on a workstation or even laptop with 32-64GB memory
               | connected to 100TB NAS over 1GBE, serving pdfs over VPN
               | and using unlimited traffic plan. The whole setup
               | including workstation, NAS and drives would cost $5-7K.
               | 
               | it's not a very difficult project and can be done DIY
               | style, if you exclude the proxy part (which downloads
               | papers using donated credentials). Of course it would
               | still be as risky as running Scihub itself which has $15M
               | lawsuit pending against it.
        
             | whimsicalism wrote:
             | Libgen's coverage is definitely more shallow than scihub,
             | but it is still pretty good.
        
             | einpoklum wrote:
             | If the sane price is an optional "Donate to keep this site
             | going" link, then ok. But only free access, without
             | authentication or payment, to scientific papers, is sane.
             | IMHO.
        
               | munk-a wrote:
               | Might this be a case where the best resolution would be
               | to have the government (which is at least partially
               | funding nearly all of these papers) step in and add a
               | ledger of papers as a proof of investment?
               | 
               | The cost of maintaining a free and open DB of scientific
               | advances and publications would be so incredibly
               | insignificant compared to both the value and the
               | continued investment in those advancements.
        
               | einpoklum wrote:
               | Well, some research venues (and publication venues) are
               | not government-funded, and even if they are indirectly
               | government funded, it's more of a sophistry than
               | something which would make publishers hand over copies of
               | the papers.
               | 
               | Also, a per-government ledger would not be super-
               | practicable. But if, say, the US, the EU and China would
               | agree on something like this, and implement it, and have
               | a common ledger, then it would not be some a big leap to
               | make it properly international. Maybe even UN-based.
               | 
               | That's a pretty big "if" though.
        
         | andyxor wrote:
         | IPFS seems like a perfect fit for this and some of the scihub
         | torrents are already in IPFS, but it's not an anonymous
         | network.
         | 
         | IPFS via the DHT tells the network of your whole network
         | topology, including internal address you may have, and VPN
         | endpoints too. It's all public by design as they don't want to
         | associate IPFS with piracy per one of their developers.
         | 
         | this thread has some discussions on the alternatives
         | https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/nc27fv/rescue_...
        
           | vvll wrote:
           | Can files be taken down off ipfs? There was a fairy widely
           | circulated link that had all the IEC and ANSI standards on
           | there that has since been taken down.
        
           | whimsicalism wrote:
           | Isn't scihub already on IPFS?
        
             | andyxor wrote:
             | some torrent files are archived there, but i don't think
             | scihub is serving the pdfs from IPFS, they likely use
             | private storage network.
             | 
             | I believe libgen.fun which is a new (official) libgen
             | mirror is running fully on ipfs, and it serves some
             | scientific papers, but I wasn't able to search by DOI or
             | title there, looks like it redirects to scihub, also there
             | is no index of the papers on IPFS.
             | 
             | Edit: this doc talks about scihub+ipfs (it was created by
             | the leader of Scihub rescue effort on Reddit, /u/shrine):
             | https://freeread.org/ipfs/
        
           | kodablah wrote:
           | You could use libp2p's DHT over Tor (I did a poc of this long
           | ago, and the situation's only improved). Combined with other
           | libp2p/IPFS components, you can essentially have a private
           | IPFS over onion services (not to be confused with accessing
           | the existing IPFS network via Tor exit nodes).
        
       | Gormisdomai wrote:
       | This is a useful note on using PACs to set up proxies for just
       | one site:
       | 
       | > Incidentally, you do not need to be running a web server to use
       | the .pac file. You can access it via a file:// type URL. For
       | example (note the 3 slashes):
       | file:///Users/username/Library/proxy.pac
       | 
       | http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=2004010109555326...
        
         | Deathmax wrote:
         | Note that if you are using Chromium, it will refuse to load a
         | PAC file from the file:// scheme. Here's the bug tracker issue
         | for the change:
         | https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=839566.
        
         | londons_explore wrote:
         | And you should... The proxy.pac file is in some cases reloaded
         | for every single http request.
        
       | Jcowell wrote:
       | Can anyone in Europe with IOS 15 see if Private Relay is able to
       | bypass this? We have a similar situation over here in the States
       | with Verizon and some piracy sites and It's able to bypass.
        
       | deadalus wrote:
       | GreenTunnel is another alternative to evade ISP blocking without
       | using a VPN:
       | 
       | https://github.com/SadeghHayeri/GreenTunnel
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | lapinot wrote:
       | Obviously another solution on linux is to install a local
       | recursive DNS resolver and be done with it... I'm quite happy
       | with knot-resolver (kresd).
        
         | beermonster wrote:
         | This only works if your ISP is using/abusing/hijacking DNS to
         | censor your connections.
         | 
         | If they're doing that you'd be better off using D-o-T or D-o-H,
         | to protect your DNS from interference.
        
           | lapinot wrote:
           | ISP rarely do anything else than DNS censoring (censoring by
           | ip blackholing is for really grave stuff). Also i don't
           | understand why you'd be "better off" using encrypted
           | connection to a 3rd party DNS which can still lie to you.
           | Just run a local resolver, it's so lightweight there's no
           | real reason not to. (and honestly, the hypothetical delay
           | isn't noticeable)
        
             | NilsIRL wrote:
             | Sorry, am I missing something because I'm pretty sure the
             | whole point of the article is that ISPs do block more than
             | just DNS
        
             | kortilla wrote:
             | A 3rd party is better because it can be hosted in some
             | other country not subject to local fascism du jour you have
             | to deal with from your ISP.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-09 23:00 UTC)