← Back to context

Comment by indolering

6 hours ago

Boy, how would cryptographically the ROOT of the internet make it more secure? Right here dude: https://easydns.com/blog/2015/08/06/for-dnssec/

8 comments

indolering

Reply
growse  5 hours ago

That entire post is that you should enable DNSSEC because it's "more secure", and there are no reasons not to.

"More secure" begs the question "against what?", which the blog post doesn't seem to want to go into. Maybe it's secure from hidden tigers.

My favourite DNSSEC "lolwut" is about how people argue that it's something "NIST recommends", whilst at the same time the most recent major DNSSEC outage was......... time.nist.gov! (https://ianix.com/pub/dnssec-outages.html)

tptacek  6 hours ago

You keep waving this blog post from 2015 at me. Not only have we discussed it before, but it was a top-level HN post with 79 comments, many of them from me.

Please don't stealth-edit your posts after I respond to them. If you need to edit, just leave a little note in your comment that you edited it.

  • indolering  5 hours ago

    Sorry, I thought my edit was fast enough.

    Yes it did hit HN and you just said, "I stand by what I wrote." and then complain about buggy implementations and downtime connected to DNSSEC. As if that isn't true for all technologies, let alone /insecure/ DNS. DNS is connected to a lot of downtime because it undergirds the whole internet. Making the distributed database that delegates domain authority cryptographically secure makes everything above it more secure too.

    I rebutted your arguments point-by-point. You don't update your blog post to reflect those arguments nor recent developments, like larger key sizes.