From 015d8bcf25fd5b68f35e4dd455e1750a6e6ad5c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rohan Kumar Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2022 21:31:12 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Switched to deSEC --- content/notes/big-tech-nameservers.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/content/notes/big-tech-nameservers.md b/content/notes/big-tech-nameservers.md index 739f9fd..c99e9c3 100644 --- a/content/notes/big-tech-nameservers.md +++ b/content/notes/big-tech-nameservers.md @@ -7,3 +7,5 @@ Many people are worried about Amazon Web Services and especially Cloudflare cent Hot take: it's fine to use a "Big Tech" provider **as a name server,** provided you can handle the 24-hour delay involved in a migration. Of all things, using a name server doesn't have nearly the same the drawbacks as other types of centralization. It's super easy to migrate, and DNSSEC keep name servers honest. There are more important things to worry about. I'll switch to Cloudflare *just for DNS,* because it's one of the only providers that supports DNSSEC and the new HTTPS records. The latter will be useful once a web server finally gains Encrypted Client Hello support; I'm watching Nginx, OpenLiteSpeed, H2O, redbean, and Caddy. + +Update: I switched my name servers from Cloudflare to deSEC.