No, because the law cares about intent, not technical details. Having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that’s what I, the owner, wanted is fine; having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that’s what some non-owner entity wanted against my will as the owner is not.
RFC 2132 says DHCP option 6 provides “a list of Domain Name System name servers available to the client”. That’s a MAY use, not a MUST use. You are welcome to block DNS requests to outside servers if you prefer.
RFCs are subordinate to laws. If I, the device and network owner, want my device to use the DNS I set and the device does differently, I want the rogue corp prosecuted and IDGAF what some goddamn RFC says!
That ought to be illegal.
(No, seriously: disobeying DNS the owner set by DHCP ought to count as “exceeding authorized access” under the CFAA.)
Counter point on that, that might affect the legality of DNS over HTTPS
No, because the law cares about intent, not technical details. Having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that’s what I, the owner, wanted is fine; having my property do DNS over HTTPS because that’s what some non-owner entity wanted against my will as the owner is not.
Rather: they are free to do protocol negotiation with the DNS server I supply. If it speaks DoH, go for it.
RFC 2132 says DHCP option 6 provides “a list of Domain Name System name servers available to the client”. That’s a MAY use, not a MUST use. You are welcome to block DNS requests to outside servers if you prefer.
RFCs are subordinate to laws. If I, the device and network owner, want my device to use the DNS I set and the device does differently, I want the rogue corp prosecuted and IDGAF what some goddamn RFC says!
I don’t think you’d be able to find a court receptive to that argument.
Every court that disagrees is tyrannical and needs to be fucking abolished.