5 ms·

Could Firefox's DoH promote OpenNIC somehow?

mindslight 7y ago
Better yet, setup something like the following: - Answer queries for .org. By default, forward queries to the legacy (pillaged) registry. - Allow administrators of domain in .org to "opt in" to being managed by Mozilla by placing special DNS records or the like. - "Opting in" is no charge from Mozilla if the Mozilla-registry nameservers are setup to match the legacy registry - At any time, a domain owner can stop renewing at the legacy registry. If the domain has been opted in to the Mozilla registry, its owner can pay Mozilla instead to continue their registration with Mozilla (and other onboard organizations/resolvers) - If the user stops paying the Mozilla registry, it removes the opt-in and the ownership is up for grabs back at the legacy registry. The idea being that .org sites, especially the ones we've all come to rely on as infrastructure, could register with Mozilla to claim ownership of their names outside of just the pillaged registry. Then if the looters raise fees too high they can individually make the decision to cast off the legacy registry after pointing their communities at the new resolvers, with no disruption to services.
- xg15 7y ago
  > - Allow administrators of domain in .org to "opt in" to being managed by Mozilla by placing special DNS records or the like. Wouldn't this effectively be a hostile takeover of .org by Mozilla? This seems like it could set a dangerous precedent. E.g., what if Google decides later that some other registries are also untrustworthy and offers management on Chrome?
  - dpark 7y ago
    Yes. This is a terrible idea and would result in the bankruptcy of Mozilla from the inevitable lawsuits. The registry owner would sue them and they’d also doubtless face a class action from the registrants themselves.
    - sudosysgen 7y ago
      They would have absolutely no grounds to sue. At all. There are already lying DNS servers, they haven't seen any legal threat for this exact reason. Tons of organizations also redirect DNS for their network.
      - dpark 7y ago
        Maybe I’m wrong. I’d expect that orchestrating a deliberate MITM attack would violate some relevant laws.
        mindslight 7y ago
        Creating a new name database that people can choose to use is not a "MITM attack".
        dpark 7y ago
        It absolutely is. Alice registers with Mozilla for the same .org Bob registers with the official registrar and Mozilla sends traffic intended for Bob to Alice.
        mindslight 7y ago
        In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. But also note that per my description, Alice can't just register a domain that Bob has already registered at the legacy registry. Rather, the conflict in your example can only happen if Alice is registered at the legacy registry and Mozilla, lets her registration lapse at the legacy, and then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy.
        dpark 7y ago
        > In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. Is your proposal then that Mozilla doesn’t actually use this database unless individuals opt in? In that case it’s worthless. > then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy. This is an entirely legitimate scenario. I don’t know why you’re being dismissive of this as if it doesn’t matter. You’ve described a scheme where Mozilla intentionally hijacks a registrar. Of course the original registrar is still relevant.

Better yet, setup something like the following: - Answer queries for .org. By default, forward queries to the legacy (pillaged) registry. - Allow administrators of domain in .org to "opt in" to being managed by Mozilla by placing special DNS records or the like. - "Opting in" is no charge from Mozilla if the Mozilla-registry nameservers are setup to match the legacy registry - At any time, a domain owner can stop renewing at the legacy registry. If the domain has been opted in to the Mozilla registry, its owner can pay Mozilla instead to continue their registration with Mozilla (and other onboard organizations/resolvers) - If the user stops paying the Mozilla registry, it removes the opt-in and the ownership is up for grabs back at the legacy registry. The idea being that .org sites, especially the ones we've all come to rely on as infrastructure, could register with Mozilla to claim ownership of their names outside of just the pillaged registry. Then if the looters raise fees too high they can individually make the decision to cast off the legacy registry after pointing their communities at the new resolvers, with no disruption to services.

xg15 7y ago
> - Allow administrators of domain in .org to "opt in" to being managed by Mozilla by placing special DNS records or the like. Wouldn't this effectively be a hostile takeover of .org by Mozilla? This seems like it could set a dangerous precedent. E.g., what if Google decides later that some other registries are also untrustworthy and offers management on Chrome?
- dpark 7y ago
  Yes. This is a terrible idea and would result in the bankruptcy of Mozilla from the inevitable lawsuits. The registry owner would sue them and they’d also doubtless face a class action from the registrants themselves.
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    They would have absolutely no grounds to sue. At all. There are already lying DNS servers, they haven't seen any legal threat for this exact reason. Tons of organizations also redirect DNS for their network.
    - dpark 7y ago
      Maybe I’m wrong. I’d expect that orchestrating a deliberate MITM attack would violate some relevant laws.
      - mindslight 7y ago
        Creating a new name database that people can choose to use is not a "MITM attack".
        dpark 7y ago
        It absolutely is. Alice registers with Mozilla for the same .org Bob registers with the official registrar and Mozilla sends traffic intended for Bob to Alice.
        mindslight 7y ago
        In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. But also note that per my description, Alice can't just register a domain that Bob has already registered at the legacy registry. Rather, the conflict in your example can only happen if Alice is registered at the legacy registry and Mozilla, lets her registration lapse at the legacy, and then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy.
        dpark 7y ago
        > In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. Is your proposal then that Mozilla doesn’t actually use this database unless individuals opt in? In that case it’s worthless. > then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy. This is an entirely legitimate scenario. I don’t know why you’re being dismissive of this as if it doesn’t matter. You’ve described a scheme where Mozilla intentionally hijacks a registrar. Of course the original registrar is still relevant.