Slashdot Mirror
DNS Heavyweights Raise Concern Over DNS Filtering
penciling_in writes "A group of DNS heavyweights have released a paper detailing serious concerns over the proposed DNS filtering requirements included as part of the bill recently introduced in the US Senate named Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP Act). The group which includes Paul Vixie, Dan Kaminsky, Steve Crocker, David Dagon and Danny McPherson, have detailed several serious technical and security concerns in the event that the mandated DNS filtering is enacted into law. Dan Kaminsky says: 'There are efforts afoot to manipulate the DNS on a remarkably large scale. The American PROTECT IP act contains several reasonable and well targeted remedies to copyright infringement. One of these remedies, however, is to leverage the millions of recursive DNS servers that act as accelerators for Internet traffic, and convert them into censors for domain names in an effort to block content.'"
Didn't anyone warn them that just blocking a domain name doesn't work?
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
And what's to stop people from using a DNS server that's outside the US? Or even just punching in the IP address directly?
I guess it's time to get a read done of this nonsense and the see if I can't straighten my own elected officials out about how the tech works... *sigh*
I think you greatly overestimate the technological literacy of the average American. Most people aren't going to have a clue how to change their DNS servers, but even for those who do understand how to get around such restrictions, this is still disturbing. This is just a way for government to get its foot in the door. Soon, they'll be mandating to ISPs which DNS servers their clients are allowed to use, and what IP ranges are 'legal' to access on the internet. Maybe I should just take off the tinfoil hat and relax, but I can't see how government getting involved in legislating the internet in ANY way is a good thing.
It's time to move away from centralized DNS, we can't leave the internet in the hands of the government. We need a compatible distributed DNS system.
Error 403: Forbidden
Please be aware that copyright infringement is illegal. A copyright enforcement specialist will be contacting you shortly to schedule your mandatory attendance to one of our copyright education seminars.
>Great... it's the HOSTS file spamming nutcase again.
I would say we should block him, but if he's using a HOSTS file, DNS Censorship won't work.
We need a different solution. Content-based censorship, maybe? That would work. More intrusive though.
*sigh* why does protecting liberties always mean protecting nutcases?
You ARE a spamming nutbag, although you're right about hosts files. However, your link to go get a good hosts file is 503. Don't you check the links in your spam?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
a HOSTS-tard.
I'm curious how often the HOSTS-tard updates the hundreds of millions of entries in his gigabytes-large HOSTS file
They don't matter. They haven't paid the requisite Campaign Contribution necessary for their opinions to be considered.
And where can I apply?
This root key would have to be generated and signed in some kind of ceremony, maybe with people wearing viking hats and carrying swords and torches, and the resulting public validation key would have to be published on the web and managed according to RFC 5011 so that it can roll forward throughout all time. Videos from this ceremony would go up on YouTube.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110318_on_mandated_content_blocking_in_the_domain_name_system/
Well, y'all can stop worrying now. It appears the Protect IP bill won't even be making it to the senate floor, thanks to Senator Ron Wyden (Ore). Check out the story over on Ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/sen-ron-wyden-to-place-a-hold-on-the-protect-ip-act.ars
Sending spam is legal, ethical, and basically a good thing
Cool thing is, you can refer to everything on the internet with your own naming convention.
/etc/hosts
for foo in `seq 0 255`; do
for bar in `seq 0 255`; do
for bin in `seq 0 255`; do
for baz in `seq 0 255`; do
echo "$foo.$bar.$bin.$baz www${RANDOM}"; >>
done
done
done
done
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
P.R.O.T.E.C.T How much time and money is wasted on just coming up with an acronym like that?
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
"You ARE a spamming nutbag" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage
Oh, really? Do you have your:
I'll play for a second, because I have time; none of your professional accreditations impress me. I've known many people who have had similar and some of them impressed me and some didn't.
You have retreated into psuedo-anonymity, but still sign your comments to feed your ego. You can see that the community does not want to see what you have to say but persist anyway; your theatrical text culminating in "That's right I am RIGHT... always am!" underscores your self-importance. If the community is uninterested enough in what you have to say to score you down consistently such that you must post as an AC to express your message, then perhaps you are simply sharing sociopathy with the rest of us? In my experience, the lunatics are on both sides of the straitjackets. What is the current phase of your moon?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Does this mean that if I have a HOSTS file, I have to filter through it, too?
What if that HOSTS file is for an enterprise?
What if that HOSTS file is published on the Internet for others to use?
What about Ad-Blocking software that uses a system like HOSTS? If it is capable of blocking DNS, will it then be required to block censored hosts as well?
What about VPN? Which side of the connection is reponsible?
What about Cache? Will there be a mandate that all DNS cache's everywhere only last for X amount of hours?
Beyond the level of the ISP, this presents an unworkable situation if any of these start applying to individuals, publishers (can free speech protect the publication of a HOSTS file, if so, why does it not protect a DNS server?), small organizations. The problem isn't just that this is wrong, but it's completely unworkable. It requires a very intrusive and extensive hack of the entire system currently in place, affecting everything from the router to the PC to the cellphone... unless, of course, the government runs its own firewall/dns that everyone shares, just like China.
I8-D
Yeah, good luck. We went from Net Neutrality to this! With Net Neutrality they were saying, "Oh, leave it alone, it works fine. Don't force companies to not favor one site over another with premium QOS bandwidth." Now they're saying, "Stick it deep, as deep as possible, into the core of the Internet itself and control it all one record at a time!"
Where are the Libertarians railing against Net Neutrality when you need them to rail against this? If any of you are one, I hope you bring this comparison up LOUD and CLEAR to anti-net neutrality people who are now siding with DNS censoring that they are hypocrites. Either you mean it when you say you are hands off, or you don't.
I8-D
Congratulations. The US Senate has just guaranteed that the DNS will fracture. Nice going guys and gals. :(
Don't stop where the ink does.
Between your writing style, unwillingness to log in and be moderated, and your insistence on ignoring what was actually said for what you want to read, you have made yourself the Slashdot equivalent of a street person on the corner jumping up and down, foaming at the mouth, and screaming that The End is Nigh with one hand down your pants and the other flailing incoherently at arm's length at all times.
If you don't see that your persistence in the face of this situation makes you a nut, you're utterly hopeless.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
“In December of last year I placed a hold on similar legislation, commonly called COICA, because I felt the costs of the legislation far outweighed the benefits. After careful analysis of the Protect IP Act, or PIPA, I am compelled to draw the same conclusion. I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective. At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA’s prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.
"The Internet represents the shipping lane of the 21st century. It is increasingly in America’s economic interest to ensure that the Internet is a viable means for American innovation, commerce, and the advancement of our ideals that empower people all around the world. By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, PIPA represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives. Until the many issues that I and others have raised with this legislation are addressed, I will object to a unanimous consent request to proceed to the legislation."
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
APK, you're awesome
Nah, you're just an idiot trying to look like you know something. Sadly, glomming together bits and pieces of things you've heard here and there into walls of text - the SAME walls of text you repeat verbatim every chance you get... does not make you look smart. It makes you look like a total moronic idiot. Just figured you should know that before you repeat this nonsense the next time DNS, security, malware or whatever else comes up and you get the idea to repost the same wall-o-text post as the last few times.
But at least you were smart enough to not log in so as not to damage your karma.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
How do you go about moving the root DNS servers for .com, .net, .org? As they are TLDs for the US, and for whatever reason, everyone uses them anyways, you will still have this issue. If you want to live by the rules for Russia, than use a .ru domain, and you won't have to be effected by the laws in the US.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Another facet that wasn't mentioned in the paper is that as America attempts to legislate the internet so that the mega rich can become ultra rich, we simply remove ourselves from meaningful discussion about the problem and social view of file sharing.
As a security buff i learned from experience that while the "rules" if examined presented my ideal view of the world, or let others know whats actually important to me, my logs function as a mirror, telling me how things actually looked.
On behalf of the mega rich, the mega powerful are attempting to create a rule that says this transaction shouldn't happen, but the logs tell us that the general population in no way shape or form shares this view of the world.
If it was viewed as say child porn, in which the vast majority of the user community sees the issue in much the same manner as the rulemakers you get a set of logs that indicate that this view is shared and a small set of transgressions presented in the logs..
this is not so in the case of file sharing, hence, a waste of time and effort, the file sharing medium will change, the methods will change, but the desire will not
sig loading.......
My goodness. We aren't trying to attack your comments on HOSTS files. We really don't care that much and most of us agree with your points. What we are trying to do is get you to shut up and go away because you, personally, are annoying.
And, that's valid grounds for down moderation, now isn't it?
YES. Yes, it is. The purpose of the moderation system, flawed though it is in many ways, is to produce comments that people want to read.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
See, I have no problem with your technical analysis, but with your presentation. I don't think you should be chased off of slashdot. I do think you should be regarded based on your behavior.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I would listen to Kaminsky, the man saved the internet from DNS vulnerability just a few years ago when he discovered the flaw in DNS and came up with a patch and solution to the issue. So I guarantee he knows more about DNS and security then Congress and the greedy and annoying RIAA.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
We simply need a new URI scheme. Let us link to a name that is not in the "central root" of the DNS.
dig:nameserver.example.com;http://mywebsite.lol
Use the normal DNS root to bootstrap names of nameservers.
Yup, idiot with good copy/paste skills "telling" us nothing we don't already know. :-)
And here ya go! One more post to reply to with another wall-o-copy-paste-text! It's a shame you're so stupid you can't even post your own ideas. So, hope you enjoy this opportunity to yet again reply with a buncha magazine and website listings with little summaries attached to about stuff you dont understand.
You forget ADK, some of us know who you are. You like pretending to have functioning brain matter, but we know you really don't. It's a shame that since you got pushed off your favorite forum, you decided to come here to try to look smart. It's not working. Grow up already - or at least find someplace else to try.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!