Quad9
No written verdict yet. Here is what commenters said.
Why people recommend it
“Sorry Quad9. I love you. I am sad France does not understand you the way I always have.”
“If you want to support Quad9 in their dealing with this”
Show 3 more
“quad9 is recommended by Privacy Guides.”
“This is great, thanks for the correction!”
Caveats and dissent
“It's strange that Quad9 openly does malicious domain filtering”
“I notice 2026 is not included in the 'list of years in which we have not received a request for data'”
Show 2 more
“Please note this service is censored by the French and German authorities”
“Quad9 is censoring some domains in Europe”
Often compared with
Who recommends it in their own words
From the makers not counted in the ranking
“Quad9 (9.9.9.9) consumes this feed from U Twente”
“disclaimer: I work for Quad9.”
Threads where it came up
- Quad9 to exit France 9 mentions
- Cloudflare flags archive.today as "C&C/Botnet"; no longer resolves via 1.1.1.2 5 mentions
- Shutting down our public encrypted DNS 4 mentions
- An open DNS recursive service for free security and high privacy 3 mentions
- Choosing a Public DNS Resolver 3 mentions
- Quad9 Enables DNS over HTTP/3 and DNS over QUIC 3 mentions
Data: quad9.json. Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 39
“https://quad9.net/service/service-addresses-and-features/”
“Quad9 meanwhile have the remit to provide the best public resolver”
“Sorry Quad9. I love you. I am sad France does not understand you the way I always have.”
“It's strange that Quad9 openly does malicious domain filtering”
“Quad9 is not a telecommunications service provider as defined by Swiss law”
“If you want to support Quad9 in their dealing with this”
“I use quad9 and it works great!”
“Quad9 doesn't obey it”
Seems they're following Cisco similar move 2y ago of exiting the market > Canal+ has been busy getting web-blocking injunctions in France against sports piracy sites which stream sporting events for which it has the exclusive broadcast rights within the French market. It previously targeted DNS resolvers operated by Google, Cloudflare and Cisco. > All three unsuccessfully opposed the web-blocking orders. Google and C
“That was overturned”
“I notice 2026 is not included in the 'list of years in which we have not received a request for data'”
“quad9 is recommended by Privacy Guides.”
“Please note this service is censored by the French and German authorities”
“It uses Quad9 as the upstream provider”
“Quad9 is censoring some domains in Europe”
“Not if Quad9 is using DNSSEC, no.”
“Quad9 is now blocking this domain for some reason.”
“This is great, thanks for the correction!”
“I use 9.9.9.9 but it failed me a couple of times in the past two months.”
“Quad9 employs DNSSEC on all endpoints now.”
It's on a malware list: https://quad9.net/result/?url=rsgm.dev#domain-tester
“I use this instance directly with Quad9 as the upstream.”
“I've been using Quad9 at home for years as my only upstream DNS resolver and your comment does not track at all with my experience.”
“Quad9 has no plans to provide content filtering.”
“I used the Quad9 resolvers in the past”
“quad9 is on this critical infra”
“quad9 dnscrypt for the win”
“I’m not sure if it can be considered 100% safe from US government intervention”
“and it has been great ever since”
“Quad9 behaves exactly as I expect a DNS to work”
“Quad9.”
“using a different DNS (such as Quad9) solves that issue”
“using Quad9 as my main DNS provider”
“to see if Quad9 stands out”
“Quad9 apparently uses 2620:fe::fe”
“The one i can think of my head that doesn't block is quad9: 9.9.9.9 & 149.112.112.112”
“Unsecured: No Malware blocking, no DNSSEC validation (for experts only!)”
“I don't know what is unique about Quad9 that they couldn't do this”
“I wasn't able to send any query”