This kind of thing is the reason I stopped using DNS ControlD, and DNS blocking in general. The ‘best’ is when they randomly block Apple or google services and suddenly nothing works on the device or network.
NextDNS/ControlD vs Quad9, AV Web Protection
-
Thread starter
SohanRay
- Start date
- 117 Replies
- 34,089 Views
Share practical recommendations that address the author's needs.
I want to switch from NextDNS to ControlD, as NextDNS seems to me to be a frankly abandoned project that has not been updated for over a year, which to me is a factor of decreasing trust. The proxying feature is also an important plus for me, as I essentially don't need a full-blown VPN for my normal tasks.
And this is where I have a question. Could someone please tell me what proxying locations ControlD has. Are they the same as Windscribe? I am particularly interested in Israel, Turkey, Russia.
And this is where I have a question. Could someone please tell me what proxying locations ControlD has. Are they the same as Windscribe? I am particularly interested in Israel, Turkey, Russia.
I want to switch from NextDNS to ControlD, as NextDNS seems to me to be a frankly abandoned project that has not been updated for over a year, which to me is a factor of decreasing trust. The proxying feature is also an important plus for me, as I essentially don't need a full-blown VPN for my normal tasks.
And this is where I have a question. Could someone please tell me what proxying locations ControlD has. Are they the same as Windscribe? I am particularly interested in Israel, Turkey, Russia.
Here's their proxy list. It's pretty extensive.
It is a well know fact that sometimes DNS services will give you results like that, blocking legitimate sites, false positive and so on, due to the way they work. Also, when you activate the different filters, ControlD warns you about that. Remember that you can unblock websites by whitelisting them. Nevertheless a DNS service and in that case, ControlD, is an excellent addition to your security setup.
I understand that. Here is the problem. Usability issues that cripple functionality lead to users bypassing the DNS. Either changing DNS, switching to mobile from wifi, using a hotspot. This then defeats any security benefit if users get in the habit of bypassing any block. If I am not available to whitelist something, it just leads to bypass. Also, it was near impossible to whitelist the Apple issue as dozens of urls used in the background were causing the issues. So, I see DNS as a tool that’s mostly beneficial to higher knowledge individuals. It doesn’t work for those who don’t understand what’s happening. I wouldn’t have the patience to deal with it if I did t know what was happening either.
So, let me see if I have this right. Instead of whitelisting something you'd rather stop using DNS filtering because it can *maybe* block something legitimate? Isn't that like refusing to shower because you might drown? Also, that's your own fault for using Apple anything. They suck.
Not exactly what I said, but take from it what you want.
@blackice DNS services are not that complicated to use.Of course, if you are an advance user you may dwell into advanced settings. But most DNS services are user friendly.
Again, better use a DNS service in combination with a good antivirus for most users, rather than using some advanced default/deny programs, combining different adblockers and all sorts of anti-tracking softwares. You get good protection against all kinds of online threats, without having headaches with your security setup.
Again, better use a DNS service in combination with a good antivirus for most users, rather than using some advanced default/deny programs, combining different adblockers and all sorts of anti-tracking softwares. You get good protection against all kinds of online threats, without having headaches with your security setup.
On the subject of malware protection, Control D (as far as I know) is the only service that implements IP blocklists into a DNS service, meaning it will block domains that resolve to malicious IP networks, and doesn't just leverage "domain rules" like all the others. This is part of the Balanced filter: Malware
Also, Control D also implements an in-house made machine learning model that can block domains without them appearing on any blocklist. The description of the v1 model is here: Improving Our Malware Filter With Machine Learning
(Contrary to NextDNS where there is no info on how it works except "It uses AI, trust me bro").
Currently in production the v2 model is used (much better than the v1), and we're wrapping up v3 which has been audited by a 3rd party and will have a new write up sometime in January when it's released. It's very effective.
Also, Control D also implements an in-house made machine learning model that can block domains without them appearing on any blocklist. The description of the v1 model is here: Improving Our Malware Filter With Machine Learning
(Contrary to NextDNS where there is no info on how it works except "It uses AI, trust me bro").
Currently in production the v2 model is used (much better than the v1), and we're wrapping up v3 which has been audited by a 3rd party and will have a new write up sometime in January when it's released. It's very effective.
I don't have any experience with ControlD but transparency is always a good thing. Yet, I don't really care how NextDNS does it, as long as it works. And it does work.
NextDNS blocks a lot less based on AI compared to ControlD (and not only based on AI but in general). However, the Control D AI, even in its mildest form, produces very many FPs and makes browsing a hell. Specially when not-so-popular, non-US/UK websites are used.
It looks like when collecting the training set, they forgot other parts of the world exist.
They’ve just used a collection of popular websites.
The number of false positives needs to be urgently mitigated before the AI filter can become usable. I currently have it well off!
You are referring to the old v1 model from many months ago. The v2 one has 3 aggressiveness settings, if you set it to "Relaxed" you won't have any false positives. We've had zero complaints from those running it in this mode.
Do you have any plans to add scam protection as well? For example, integration with Scamadviser, blocking low-rated websites on WOT and Trustpilot, etc.? I think this would be a very interesting feature. Fake online stores and companies are also one of the important threats.
Hi, yes that's on the roadmap part of a much bigger project where we will slowly stop relying on 3rd party services and lists and classify every domain ourselves using a system we're building.
This is a rather large scope of work, and will take some time.
Correct. There is no specific multimedia parts of a site. Obviously, you can block a site through a custom user rule. There are currently 302 ControlD "video" distribution rules, that can be togged to block or allow. What are you looking for? Maybe I can help.
Thanks for providing me with the information. I find filters to be more effective than blocking individual websites for parental control.
Ok. So, by "video" you mean "pornography"? There is a controlD toggle for that. Also, you can add a OISD filter I think the "video" they offer is for social media and streaming.
I was talking about streaming networks and websites that offer movies, web series, and other media content. I'm currently using Cloudflare Gateway free plan, and it's effective with its categories/filters.
Recently browsing
Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes
You may also like...
-
-
-
-
-
Serious Discussion Deep Research: Bitdefender Protection Technologies