4 ms·
Your [18] is a 404. Would like to hear more on your allegation regarding DANE.
by presumably 7y ago
Your [18] is a 404.
Would like to hear more on your allegation regarding DANE.
- rasengan 7y agoSorry about that. It cut on the cut/paste. Here is the full link: https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2016/10/27/14-dns-nerds-dont-control-the-internet/ https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2016/10/27/14-dns-nerds-dont-con... Edit: If any other links fail here is the original https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22684048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22684048
- presumably 7y agoThat article is incredibly misleading in what it leaves out: by using same logic, our existing CA system is equally a “backdoor”. We have certificate transparency to help address that, and were DANE to be in actual use similar systems would quickly appear, for example using the RIPE Atlas. DANE is not a backdoor. To exercise it as one would require replacing operator-controlled keys with government (or other) keys. This would be no less visible than doing the same with an existing certificate authority.