Slashdot Mirror
Security Consultants Warn About PROTECT-IP Act
epee1221 writes "Several security professionals released a paper raising objections to the DNS filtering(PDF) mandated by the proposed PROTECT-IP Act. The measure allows courts to require Internet service providers to redirect or block queries for a domain deemed to be infringing on IP laws. ISPs will not be able to improve DNS security using DNSSEC, a system for cryptographically signing DNS records to ensure their authenticity, as the sort of manipulation mandated by PROTECT-IP is the type of interference DNSSEC is meant to prevent. The paper notes that a DNS server which has been compromised by a cracker would be indistinguishable from one operating under a court order to alter its DNS responses. The measure also points to a possible fragmenting of the DNS system, effectively making domain names non-universal, and the DNS manipulation may lead to collateral damage (i.e. filtering an infringing domain may block access to non-infringing content). It is also pointed out that DNS filtering does not actually keep determined users from accessing content, as they can still access non-filtered DNS servers or directly enter the blocked site's IP address if it is known. A statement by the MPAA disputes these claims, arguing that typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server and that the Internet must not be allowed to 'decay into a lawless Wild West.' Paul Vixie, a coauthor of the paper, elaborates in his blog."
When was the Internet anything other than a "lawless wild west"?
15 years ago, 'typical users' didn't know how to use napster. 6 years ago, 'typical users' didn't know how to bittorrent.
This kind of argument shows how little they've learned.
The typical users will quickly learn how to set their DNS providers if this comes to pass.
I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.
Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.
The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.
Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.
In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov/
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay .
If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the S
That's the intent. To create a law that addresses one political issue while at the same time creating several new problems. THIS IS BY DESIGN. It's the political gift that keeps on giving back to legislatures. It's purely justification to expand the government at the expense of public tax dollars. How in the fuck this is news to anyone proves we still live in a sick, sad world. It should be ingrained into every child from birth that large government = evil!
Life is not for the lazy.
When was the Internet anything other than a "lawless wild west"?
The internet is the wild west, but it is far from lawless... it just so happens that there are very few laws.
One of those laws is the trustworthiness of DNS. The proposal at hand is actually one that makes the internet MORE lawless, not less, as DNS falls utterly as the (relatively) trustworthy backbone of the internet it has been until today.
Who would knowingly point to a DNS server that might mislead them after this is passed? I sure wouldn't.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A statement by the MPAA disputes these claims, arguing that typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server and that the Internet must not be allowed to 'decay into a lawless Wild West.
dns filtering came to turkey 5 years ago.
EVERYONE knows how to bypass it now. and i mean everyone who is using internet - the equivalent of the 'mom in idaho' knows how to bypass it. her son, relatives, someone from neighborhood comes and bypasses it for her. people learned what 'opendns' means here. the term 'proxy' have become an everyday term, even in among the tech illiterate crowd. people ask about 'good proxy' to each other. (people learned about it when the courts started to ban i.p.s).
so, random 'mom in turkey' is able to do that, but the organization that represents all movie producers in america shits about otherwise ?
really. what kind of people are you letting you run your country and corporations and corporations' lackey organizations ? idiots ? morons ? bastards ? i think the last one is more likely. (i am not able to bring myself to say ngo regarding mpaa after that kind of idiocy)
Read radical news here
typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server
is definitely a true statement.
What it is is bullshit. There would be directions floating around everywhere written at a second grade level on how to do it. If they couldn't figure it out from there they'd ask that tech suave friend or relative to do it. Linux would come pre-configured to hit OpenDNS.
Where in the problem lies is that half the instructions floating around would be pointing to compromised servers. Thus by eliminating the trust aspect that is key to DNS working and making DNSSEC essentially illegal they're going to create exactly what they claim to be trying to prevent, turning the internet into a lawless wild west. I find it absolutely amazing that congress is going to pass a law that will make implementing security measures on the internet illegal. Tells you how deep our government representatives are in the pockets of the RIAA/MPAA crowd.
Who is John Galt?
True statement? Really?
A statement by the MPAA disputes these claims, arguing that typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server and that the Internet must not be allowed to 'decay into a lawless Wild West.'
Hmmmmmmm. Let me rephrase that differently.....
An inter-office memo from Microsoft was recently released with a statement by an executive arguing that the typical user lacks the expertise to choose a different browser and that apathy and ignorance will allow the Internet to continue to be dominated by Internet Explorer and that the Internet will not devolve into a Wild West of open source competitors taking away market share and that governments and states will not get involved via lawsuits and legislation to affect Microsoft negatively .
You screw around with DNS too hard and you will find that people will fight back. Of course their warnings about fragmentation will most likely be true very quickly. How much of an excuse does China need to form its own root servers and DNS? It would certainly only help them to create and control DNS resolution and to ban all DNS queries to outside networks period. The EU will probably form its own, and interestingly, will probably pick up well over half the US market.
Seriously? Would you choose a DNS "network" that bypasses due process and exposes you to impossible business risks for you and your customers, or a DNS "network" operated without such risks?
When installing IE9 now I can see options on changing default search engines. You can choose default programs now too. Did you think you would see that 5 years ago?
I am willing to bet that if it gets bad enough, even router manufacturers will start giving choices and that open source browsers themselves will start making it easy to configure a computer to use alternate DNS servers, even if it is just for the browser itself.
So far, they have not affected enough people yet, not all that many in actuality, but how much are we arguing about it right now? All they have done is stare at the hornets nest, just wait till they actually throw a rock.
Typical users lack the expertise, because up until now, they didn't need it. I assure you, they will gain this expertise rather shockingly fast. The only way to motivate "typical [l]users" to learn something new is to block something they want. Years ago typical users didn't know how to download HTTP warez, because they didn't understand ZIP files. Years ago typical users didn't know how to access Napster/Kazaa/whatever. Years ago typical users didn't know what a Bit Torrent client was, or why they needed one. Users learn what they need to in order to get what they want.