I also read the first article, and that was also my impression. Given that these argumernts are very week, I have a hard time imagining someone campaigning agai

I also read the first article, and that was also my impression. Given that these argumernts are very week, I have a hard time imagining someone campaigning against DNSSEC. >> And governments control the DNS. > This is true, but that's an argument for not securing DNS, it's an argument for replacing DNS entirely. Governments control DNS regardless of whether or not DNSSEC is deployed. I particularly agree on that point. DNS should be replaced by something better at some point, likely based on pet names. However, I strictly prefer a government-controlled system over a corporate-controlled one. DNSSEC improves over some of the shortcomings, but not all. > All secure crypto on the Internet assumes that the DNS lookup from names to IP addresses are insecure. This is true, however we are still far from https everywhere, as browsers default to http. There are a few weaker arguments that can be made against this one.