I have discovered that my ISP (verizon) is intercepting all DNS traffic on port 53.

Using iptables, I want to redirect all DNS lookup traffic to a specific IP and Port (5353). Any attempt for my computer to connect to another computer on port 53 should be redirected to

To verify the DNS server and port I'm trying to use, I have run this command.

~$ dig +short serverfault.com @ -p5353

This is the iptables rule I'm trying to use.

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to-destination

After adding that rule, all DNS lookups are not found. Website pings return unknown host. Webpages say 'Server Not Found'.

~$ mtr serverfault.com
Failed to resolve host: Name or service not known

I want my DNS to lookups to be pulled from How can I make the iptables rule work?


Demonstration of DNS (port 53) interception by my ISP. Trace output from dig to via port 5353, and then port 53.

~$ dig +trace stackexchange.com @ -p5353

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-3-Ubuntu <<>> +trace stackexchange.com @ -p5353
;; global options: +cmd
.           86395   IN  NS  ns7.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns4.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns3.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns5.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns2.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns10.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns1.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns6.opennic.glue.
.           86395   IN  NS  ns8.opennic.glue.
dig: couldn't get address for 'ns8.opennic.glue': no more

~$ dig +trace stackexchange.com @ -p53

; <<>> DiG 9.9.5-3-Ubuntu <<>> +trace stackexchange.com @ -p53
;; global options: +cmd
.           7440    IN  NS  f.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  d.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  j.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  i.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  g.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  k.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  a.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  h.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  e.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  m.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  c.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  b.root-servers.net.
.           7440    IN  NS  l.root-servers.net.
;; Received 239 bytes from in 2948 ms

stackexchange.com.  215 IN  A
;; Received 62 bytes from in 116 ms

My current iptables. iptables-save

~# iptables-save
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.21 on Tue Jul 15 23:06:52 2014
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [79950528:41742899703]
:INPUT ACCEPT [78748282:41360159554]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [85455483:57472640071]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [85480442:57475512901]
-A POSTROUTING -o lxcbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 68 -j CHECKSUM --checksum-fill
# Completed on Tue Jul 15 23:06:52 2014
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.21 on Tue Jul 15 23:06:52 2014
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [109:7855]
:DOCKER - [0:0]
-A PREROUTING -m addrtype --dst-type LOCAL -j DOCKER
-A OUTPUT ! -d -m addrtype --dst-type LOCAL -j DOCKER
# Completed on Tue Jul 15 23:06:52 2014
# Generated by iptables-save v1.4.21 on Tue Jul 15 23:06:52 2014
:INPUT ACCEPT [78748139:41360144354]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [85454926:57472600172]
:fail2ban-ssh - [0:0]
:fail2ban-vsftpd - [0:0]
-A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 21,20,990,989 -j fail2ban-vsftpd
-A INPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 22,6622 -j fail2ban-ssh
-A INPUT -i lxcbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -i lxcbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -i lxcbr0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT
-A INPUT -i lxcbr0 -p udp -m udp --dport 67 -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -o docker0 -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i docker0 ! -o docker0 -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i docker0 -o docker0 -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -o lxcbr0 -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i lxcbr0 -j ACCEPT
-A fail2ban-ssh -j RETURN
-A fail2ban-vsftpd -j RETURN
  • So you're trying to redirect all port 53 traffic to that IP ( and Port (5353)? – tachomi Jul 14 '14 at 14:22
  • please post your iptables rules here – Nidal Jul 14 '14 at 14:26
  • @tachomi Correct – Rucent88 Jul 14 '14 at 14:27
  • Or you could not use your ISP's DNS... Google's public DNS servers are and – Creek Jul 14 '14 at 15:17
  • @Creek I think you misunderstand. My isp is intercepting all traffic through port 53. Even if I wanted to use google dns servers, I cannot access them. – Rucent88 Jul 14 '14 at 15:36

Perform all of these instructions as root (sudo).

Edit this file.


Disable DnsMasq by commenting out the line dns=dnsmasq. Put a # in front of the line


Restart your networking.

service network-manager restart

Add these iptable rules.

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to
iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to
| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    This solution updates with the OS, and consumes zero resources, and is zero security risk, super easy setup with a boot script, and zero maintenance. The downside is it's not very flexible – Rucent88 Mar 6 '16 at 18:03

It looks as if what you are really after is to be in control of what happens with your DNS queries.

I'm not sure using iptables would be my preferred solution.

Have you thought about setting up a local DNS server which simply forwards your requests to the host and port you want? One example: using the bind9 forwarders option you can add a port to a forwarder.

Such a set-up is much easier to maintain and troubleshoot, and may be much more flexible. Consider the advantage of cacheing, or just consider the case in which your external DNS server is down. You can have multiple forwarders in your DNS configuration, but only one IP in iptables rules... .

There is a good overview of the setup of bind9 in a tutorial at digital ocean. Just add the port to the forwarders and you should be all set.

Bind9 doesn't consume much resources at all and is easily configured (or at least: easier than iptables :-) )

| improve this answer | |
  • Ooh, and needless to say, in that setup, do not forget to set your device(s) to use your local, forwarding DNS server. – Vincent De Baere Jul 19 '14 at 8:13
  • I did have a DNS server running, but it wasn't reliable (junk hardware). Keeping it security updated was a pain. It consumed more time, resources, electricity, and it finally kicked the bucket. If I had hundreds of computers behind a corporate network, then I agree that the DNS server would be a good idea. But I'm just one person with a laptop. A couple iptable rules should be the easiest and lowest resource. – Rucent88 Jul 19 '14 at 8:32
  • Just add one on your laptop, it consumes almost no resources and it will get updated with your main os (assuming you use distribution packages), and make it listen on localhost. Almost zero security risk. – Vincent De Baere Jul 19 '14 at 8:53
  • Indeed, IMHO, it's better way to maintain the scenario in 99% of the cases. The only 1% which doesn't apply, is when you're configuring a Captive Portal system, but that's another story. – ivanleoncz Feb 6 '18 at 18:07

Try this:

First you must enable the forwarding option in


Set to one the value of

net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1

Enable the changes

sysctl -p 

Save and run the following:

iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --sport 53 -j DNAT --to-destination
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE

If you could specify the in-interface (-i eth1) in PREROUTING or/and out-interfect (-o eth0) IN POSTROUTING could be useful.

NOTE: MASQUARADE line is necessary while this mask the destination IP with the main IP.

| improve this answer | |
  • I put in sysctl net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 and the iptables rules. DNS is working, but it's still being intercepted by my isp. So that indicates to me that DNS is still being sent through port 53. – Rucent88 Jul 14 '14 at 15:24
  • I changed your rule to udp, but I got the same results. – Rucent88 Jul 14 '14 at 15:26
  • Could you please put the output of iptables-save? What I might is that your masking only the specified MASQUERADE all --, so If you could disable that line and leave the -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE one, could be helpful – tachomi Jul 14 '14 at 17:03
  • I added the information you requested – Rucent88 Jul 14 '14 at 18:21
  • Ok, let's understand a little beat.... All the port 53 INCOMING traffic is the one you want to redirect to or the OUTGOING one? – tachomi Jul 15 '14 at 13:42

Try this:

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to;

iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to;

iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE

It means:
1) Any local user contacting out world to port tcp 53 send to at port 5353.
2) Same as 1 but for udp
3) Set the source information on the outgoing packet as coming from us.

| improve this answer | |
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to XX.XX.XX.XX:5353
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp  --dport 53 -j DNAT --to XX.XX.XX.XX:5353
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE
| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    The fact that this answer doesn’t mention “5353” makes me believe that it’s automatically wrong. – G-Man Says 'Reinstate Monica' Apr 8 '19 at 4:34
  • corrected......... – Zibri Apr 9 '19 at 8:06
  • OK, I’m taking a second look at your answer.  It seems to be very similar to tachomi’s answer except (1) you have changed sport to dport (this was, apparently, an error in tachomi’s answer that battman622 pointed out three years ago, (2) you added a line (command) for udp (this is a legitimate improvement to tachomi’s answer, but one that was already mentioned in a comment … (Cont’d) – G-Man Says 'Reinstate Monica' Apr 11 '19 at 2:57
  • (Cont’d) … and several other answers), and (3) you replaced --to-destination with --to.  The man page does not say that --to and --to-destination are equivalent; on the contrary, it says that --to is used with the NETMAP target (as opposed to the DNAT target) and that its argument does not include a port number.  (Although I notice that a couple of other answers use --to the way you did.)  Are you sure that --to works the way you use it (with a port number, with the DNAT target)? … (Cont’d) – G-Man Says 'Reinstate Monica' Apr 11 '19 at 2:57
  • (Cont’d) …  (If so, perhaps somebody should submit a change request to the maintainer(s) of the man pages.) Is --to better than  --to-destination in any way other than brevity? – G-Man Says 'Reinstate Monica' Apr 11 '19 at 2:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.