Re: [Update] Portmaster Free 2.1.19

On Thu, 21 May 2026 00:34:00 +0000, "p-0 0-h the cat (coder)
<[email protected]>" wrote:

>On 20/05/2026 22:14, Shadow wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 May 2026 12:45:00 +0000, "p-0 0-h the cat (coder)
>> <[email protected]>" wrote:
>> 
>>> On 20/05/2026 10:02, Shadow wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Enforce DNS-over-TLS
>>>>>>> Even with invasive connections gone, you might not want to share your
>>>>>>> dns requests out in the open. With the Portmaster, you can easily re-
>>>>>>> route all your dns queries to a DNS-over-TLS provider of your choice.
>>>>
>>>> 	That's actually a BAD thing, and can be used to track
>>>> everywhere you go. Mostt "free" DNS-over-TLS providers are dataminers
>>>> and sell your browsing history.
>>>
>>> Nope, no it's not. Put your thinking cap on. The key issue is making a
>>> good choice of DNS server. Protecting your queries to that server is a
>>> good thing. Choose your DNS server wisely and deciding whether you trust
>>> Portmaster are the lessons for today. Any questions, ask Shit the cat.
>>> Keep your credit card handy.
>> 
>> 	You know I'm right. Most people trust "privacy enhanced"
>> Glugle, Amacon, Cloudflare, M$, Oracle etc to "secure their internet
>> history".
>
>What has a protocol to do with choice of DNS provider. DNS-over-TLS is good.
>
>You often promote GRC's DNS Benchmark. Speed of response is not the 
>priority. So why.
>
>Cloudfare's business model is selling security and CDN. They don't sell 
>or share data, they don't log full IPs, IPs are anonymized and truncated 
>before logging, and to prove it they are audited by third parties. They 
>are subject to GDPR in Europe. What possible reason would they have to 
>lie. Trust is core to their business.
>
>Please outline how you choose a DNS provider. I see no process from you 
>that makes sense. Blind trust in what some bloke says is not a rational 
>way of making a fairly serious choice about Internet security. This 
>Gugle Amacon bollocks doesn't cut it for me. It helps no one to 
>understand or discuss how to select a hard rational security option.
>
>
>
>>>>> KPF from 2003? that's the one I'm still using! (no 64bit bloat here!)
>>>>
>>>> 	Same here. Still waiting for the inevitable hack. PS No
>>>> vulnerabilities detected "yet". But it's only been 23 years ...
>>>
>>> Basic packet filter firewalls are pretty lame and have been for donkey's
>>> years. KPF is not remotely in the class of even Windows Defender
>>> Firewall with Advanced Security, that's how lame it is. Nice interface
>>> though from recollection. Nostalgia isn't security although you may find
>>> it comforting.
>> 
>> 	23 years protecting me from the "really bad guys".
>
>Seriously, I don't think so. It guesses what process is sending data 
>outbound for a start from recollection, 20 years ago this was discussed, 
>it really doesn't know, at least MS can do that with services. 
>Absolutely know. If I really looked hard I'm sure I would still find it 
>pretty.
>
>> 	PS It won't install on an OS designed as a trojan.
>


	OK, I get it. You trust the billionaire tech giants. I don't.
I can't even make a purchase online in Brazil without one of the
dataminers asking me for a recent selfie and a detailed personal
profile. And I never do credit.I make a cash transfer. 
	Tor? It's blocked by cloudflare, glugle, amacon etc. They
identify me as a bot and ask for personal details. It's just a useless
thing I installed on my Linux. Does not work on practically ANY site
that uses "bad guy" services(scripts and cdns).
	[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021