Comment by indolering
7 hours ago
Okay, but after this I have to go back to work.
You got a point: 1k isn't great and of course mainstream cryptographers will advocate for higher. That doesn't change that it's still acceptable within the existing security model nor that better alternatives are available. The cryptographic strength of DNSSEC isn't a limiting factor that fatally dooms the whole project. We have to upgrade the crypto used in large-scale infrastructure all the time!
And yes, uptake of better crypto is poor but I find chicken-and-egg arguments disingenuous when coming from someone who zealously advocates to make it worse. Furthermore, your alternative is no signing of DNS records. Find me a cryptographer who thinks no PKI is a better alternative. I know DJB griped about DNSSEC when proposing DNSCurve, which protects the privacy of the payload but not the intergrity of the payload.
Is this a bot gone rogue? Parent asked for a person, and you are shadow-boxing with unasked questions.
The question was "can you find me some reputable cryptographers that support your position?" which is just ad hominem and should be ignored as such, except it does indicate that the person asking it doesn't have any better argument than ad hominem.
If you think tptacek has no better arguments then you're sorely mistaken.
And implying that someone is unqualified is not in fact ad hominem. The desire to interview a disagreeing expert doesn't look fake either.
1 reply →
Sorry, but I asked who's the most reputable cryptographer you can think of who publicly supports DNSSEC? I asked because we'd like to interview them on SCW.
More rhetorical dunking instead of engaging with the substantive technical issues. I'm done.
More random complaints instead of engaging with the substantive question.
You replied to a two sentence post asking for a name. What do you expect to happen when you do that? If you want to debate the merits, reply anywhere else.
That is a weird answer to a very simple question but I'll take that as "I can't think of any". Someone else can answer instead.