Do other privacy-focused search engines use DoH or DoT?
Executive summary
Most mainstream privacy-focused search engines are described in the sources as emphasizing minimal tracking or independent indexing, but the provided reporting does not systematically list which engines use DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) or DNS-over-TLS (DoT) on their back end or for their resolver choices; available sources do not mention a definitive list of search engines that implement DoH/DoT (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Explanations of DoH and DoT, their trade-offs, and why a search engine might or might not operate encrypted DNS are documented in background pieces about DNS privacy [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Why the DNS protocol matters to privacy-focused search engines
A search engine’s commitment to privacy often focuses on what it stores and how it profiles users, but DNS is a separate layer: unencrypted DNS queries can reveal every hostname a user looks up to network observers, so many privacy advocates care whether clients or services use DoH or DoT to encrypt those lookups [4] [7]. Technical explainers make clear that DoH sends DNS over HTTPS while DoT uses TLS over a dedicated port, and both were developed to prevent eavesdropping and tampering of DNS traffic [4] [7].
2. What the sources say about specific “privacy” search engines
The reviews and roundups list many privacy-focused engines—DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, Mojeek, Swisscows, Leta/Mullvad’s Leta front-end—and praise their minimal tracking or independent indexes, but those pieces focus on tracking, storage, and business models rather than the DNS scheme they or their users employ [1] [2] [3] [8]. For example, DuckDuckGo is repeatedly noted for not tracking queries and Brave is highlighted as an independent index, yet these summaries do not state whether those services operate DoH or DoT resolvers for their users [1] [2].
3. Where reporting covers DNS privacy protocols directly
Dedicated DNS explainers and comparison articles discuss the pros and cons of DoH vs DoT: DoH blends DNS into regular HTTPS traffic and can bypass local network monitoring, while DoT uses its own port and can be easier for administrators to manage—both are established methods to encrypt DNS queries [4] [5] [6] [7]. These sources also note that deployment choices are shaped by browser adoption, network policy concerns, and regional legal attitudes [4] [5] [6].
4. Why public-facing search-engine privacy messaging doesn’t answer the DoH/DoT question
Search-engine reviews and “best of” lists prioritize user-visible policies (no logging, no profiling, independent index, donations or specialties) because those are market-facing features; DNS transport is an operational detail often omitted from consumer narratives. Consequently, the available roundups and privacy guides do not include a verified, engine-by-engine account of whether a search service runs or recommends DoH or DoT [1] [2] [3].
5. What you can infer — and what you cannot
You can infer that privacy-minded organizations are likely to care about encrypted DNS because the technical background shows it reduces exposure of lookups to on-path observers [4] [7]. But the sources provided do not confirm that any specific privacy search engine has adopted DoH or DoT as part of its public stack; asserting otherwise would go beyond these reports (not found in current reporting) [1] [2].
6. Practical steps readers can take right now
If encrypted DNS matters to you, the DNS-focused guides recommend choosing a resolver or client that supports DoH or DoT—many browsers and OS-level resolvers now offer DoH/DoT options—because this is where the encryption happens regardless of which search engine you use [4] [6]. Also check a search engine’s privacy or technical documentation for explicit mentions of encrypted resolvers before assuming the service implements DoH/DoT (available sources do not mention engine-specific resolver implementation details) [1] [2].
Limitations and sourcing note: This analysis draws on privacy-search roundups and separate technical explainers in the supplied clips; none of the supplied sources provides a definitive engine-by-engine list showing which search providers operate DoH or DoT, so the answer must remain: reporting supplied here does not mention that granular implementation detail [1] [2] [4] [7] [6] [5].