6 ms·

The internet is actually controlled by 14 people who hold 7 secret keys

35 points by alvil 10y ago

hughw 10y ago
Now may we please have Namecoin .bit domains? Thanks.
- corobo 10y ago
  You can have whatever you want when it comes to DNS. I mean it doesn't mean the rest of the world will support it or join in but fill yer boots lad.
- Sanddancer 10y ago
  No one is stopping you from making alternate root servers. AlterNIC [1] offered them for years. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC
  - hughw 10y ago
    I'm surprised at the violently negative voting reaction to this common-sensical wish. What am I missing? Sure, nobody is stopping me from making alternate root servers. But I'm not competent to run alternate root servers. Don't we all need a decentralized DNS? I suppose some people interpreted my remarks to be trolling, but I wouldn't know enough to do a good troll on this topic. I'm just a dumb user, who suspects peer DNS would eliminate the value in DDOS against centralized DNS.
jwn 10y ago
"The group conducts the ritual, then each person files out of the room one by one, and then they all head to a restaurant and party." Well, I now know where I would attack if I had any interest in a takeover of DNS.
code_chimp 10y ago
Introducing 'the internet': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg
gruez 10y ago
Misleading title. More accurate title would be "the domain name system is actually controlled..."
- d33 10y ago
  Well, whoever gets to control what IPs get attached to domains, controls pretty much all of the internet...
  - dsp1234 10y ago
    It's a little grayer than that. If there was a breach of the root servers, then it would be trivial for most DNS administrators to change to a new set of DNS root hints once new root servers were put online. Since most consumers use the DNS servers of their ISP, there would likely be less impact than might be thought.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The domain name system functions fine regardless of who has the DNSSEC root keys or what they do with them. The private keys could be posted to Pastebin today and --- I mean this literally --- nothing important on the Internet would break. "Ceremony" is a good word for what this stuff is.
  - AndyMcConachie 10y ago
    This statement is not provably true. With a DNSSEC signed root anyone can host their own copy of the root zone, and we can all cryptographically verify that it is the same root. If someone were to sign a different root with the same key we would no longer be sure which was the right one. An attacker could redirect traffic away from TLD nameservers to their own nameservers. I think you understand this. What I don't understand is why you think this scenario would not be a problem.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      TLS works on the assumption that DNS is insecure. So, since everything that matters happens over TLS, it's not a problem if DNSSEC is compromised. It wouldn't matter if DNSSEC wasn't invented to begin with. It might be better that way, actually, given its problems.
ryangittins 10y ago
This kind article comes out every year or two and it's always incredibly misleading. They always try to make it sound spooky and dystopic. What would it even mean for 14 people to "control" the internet in any newsworthy way?
guan 10y ago
This is only for DNSSEC signing for the root zone, right? If you don’t use DNSSEC, those 14 people don’t affect you in any way.
- AndyMcConachie 10y ago
  8.8.8.8 DNSSEC validates. So that's a lot of people right there. I think Comcast also validates. There are others but I think you get the point. You might be relying on DNSSEC validation without knowing it.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Where by "relying on" you mean "impacted by outages and little else", since we systemically do not validate DNSSEC and any attack that DNSSEC "prevents" can simply be aimed at a different part of the communications infrastructure. Also, obviously, people who "rely on" 8.8.8.8 doing DNSSEC lookups are in fact relying on a single bit in an unencrypted DNS response packet that vouches for the validation that the server did. Nothing 8.8.8.8 can do will protect the link between the user's stub resolver and Google's DNS server.
    - AndyMcConachie 10y ago
      > Where by "relying on" you mean "impacted by outages and little else", since we systemically do not validate DNSSEC and any attack that DNSSEC "prevents" can simply be aimed at a different part of the communications infrastructure. You could make that statement about nearly any security mechanism. It still doesn't explain why you think unsigned DNS responses are better than signed ones. > Also, obviously, people who "rely on" 8.8.8.8 doing DNSSEC lookups are in fact relying on a single bit in an unencrypted DNS response packet that vouches for the validation that the server did. Nothing 8.8.8.8 can do will protect the link between the user's stub resolver and Google's DNS server. Yes, which is why the kind folks at the IETF are working on DNSoTLS. But that's orthogonal to DNSSEC.
      - tptacek 10y ago
prvst 10y ago
"the Elders of the Internet"
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ehsanu1 10y ago
Someone has got to write Lord of the Keys.
- qbrass 10y ago
  http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/helloween/keeperofthesevenkeys.html http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/helloween/keeperofthesevenkey...
onetom 10y ago
I got this article a day before from a friend and he brought up the question which I have no answer for: > what if all 14 are assassinated? > 14 is not that many, especially when they meet occasionally Then I was just reading the https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper which has a "contract amendments" section saying: "... if over 50% of oracles notice that one of them fell, they can transfer the contract funds to another multisig address, with the dead oracle replaced by another one, allowing for safe and long-term contract management." which sounds like they don't have plan for 100% death rate either. I guess in case of such an horrible event, we would finally setup a different process which wouldn't require the collocation of several people...

35 points by alvil 10y ago

hughw 10y ago

Now may we please have Namecoin .bit domains? Thanks.

corobo 10y ago
You can have whatever you want when it comes to DNS. I mean it doesn't mean the rest of the world will support it or join in but fill yer boots lad.
Sanddancer 10y ago
No one is stopping you from making alternate root servers. AlterNIC [1] offered them for years. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNIC
- hughw 10y ago
  I'm surprised at the violently negative voting reaction to this common-sensical wish. What am I missing? Sure, nobody is stopping me from making alternate root servers. But I'm not competent to run alternate root servers. Don't we all need a decentralized DNS? I suppose some people interpreted my remarks to be trolling, but I wouldn't know enough to do a good troll on this topic. I'm just a dumb user, who suspects peer DNS would eliminate the value in DDOS against centralized DNS.

jwn 10y ago

"The group conducts the ritual, then each person files out of the room one by one, and then they all head to a restaurant and party." Well, I now know where I would attack if I had any interest in a takeover of DNS.

code_chimp 10y ago

Introducing 'the internet': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg

gruez 10y ago

Misleading title. More accurate title would be "the domain name system is actually controlled..."

d33 10y ago
Well, whoever gets to control what IPs get attached to domains, controls pretty much all of the internet...
- dsp1234 10y ago
  It's a little grayer than that. If there was a breach of the root servers, then it would be trivial for most DNS administrators to change to a new set of DNS root hints once new root servers were put online. Since most consumers use the DNS servers of their ISP, there would likely be less impact than might be thought.
tptacek 10y ago
The domain name system functions fine regardless of who has the DNSSEC root keys or what they do with them. The private keys could be posted to Pastebin today and --- I mean this literally --- nothing important on the Internet would break. "Ceremony" is a good word for what this stuff is.
- AndyMcConachie 10y ago
  This statement is not provably true. With a DNSSEC signed root anyone can host their own copy of the root zone, and we can all cryptographically verify that it is the same root. If someone were to sign a different root with the same key we would no longer be sure which was the right one. An attacker could redirect traffic away from TLD nameservers to their own nameservers. I think you understand this. What I don't understand is why you think this scenario would not be a problem.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    TLS works on the assumption that DNS is insecure. So, since everything that matters happens over TLS, it's not a problem if DNSSEC is compromised. It wouldn't matter if DNSSEC wasn't invented to begin with. It might be better that way, actually, given its problems.

ryangittins 10y ago

This kind article comes out every year or two and it's always incredibly misleading. They always try to make it sound spooky and dystopic. What would it even mean for 14 people to "control" the internet in any newsworthy way?

guan 10y ago

This is only for DNSSEC signing for the root zone, right? If you don’t use DNSSEC, those 14 people don’t affect you in any way.

AndyMcConachie 10y ago
8.8.8.8 DNSSEC validates. So that's a lot of people right there. I think Comcast also validates. There are others but I think you get the point. You might be relying on DNSSEC validation without knowing it.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Where by "relying on" you mean "impacted by outages and little else", since we systemically do not validate DNSSEC and any attack that DNSSEC "prevents" can simply be aimed at a different part of the communications infrastructure. Also, obviously, people who "rely on" 8.8.8.8 doing DNSSEC lookups are in fact relying on a single bit in an unencrypted DNS response packet that vouches for the validation that the server did. Nothing 8.8.8.8 can do will protect the link between the user's stub resolver and Google's DNS server.
  - AndyMcConachie 10y ago
    > Where by "relying on" you mean "impacted by outages and little else", since we systemically do not validate DNSSEC and any attack that DNSSEC "prevents" can simply be aimed at a different part of the communications infrastructure. You could make that statement about nearly any security mechanism. It still doesn't explain why you think unsigned DNS responses are better than signed ones. > Also, obviously, people who "rely on" 8.8.8.8 doing DNSSEC lookups are in fact relying on a single bit in an unencrypted DNS response packet that vouches for the validation that the server did. Nothing 8.8.8.8 can do will protect the link between the user's stub resolver and Google's DNS server. Yes, which is why the kind folks at the IETF are working on DNSoTLS. But that's orthogonal to DNSSEC.
    - tptacek 10y ago

prvst 10y ago

"the Elders of the Internet"

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ehsanu1 10y ago

Someone has got to write Lord of the Keys.

qbrass 10y ago
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/helloween/keeperofthesevenkeys.html http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/helloween/keeperofthesevenkey...

onetom 10y ago

I got this article a day before from a friend and he brought up the question which I have no answer for: > what if all 14 are assassinated? > 14 is not that many, especially when they meet occasionally Then I was just reading the https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper https://github.com/orisi/wiki/wiki/Orisi-White-Paper which has a "contract amendments" section saying: "... if over 50% of oracles notice that one of them fell, they can transfer the contract funds to another multisig address, with the dead oracle replaced by another one, allowing for safe and long-term contract management." which sounds like they don't have plan for 100% death rate either. I guess in case of such an horrible event, we would finally setup a different process which wouldn't require the collocation of several people...