4 ms·

I'm having a hard time following anything. Andrew claims they brought a lawyer in after their access to the DNS was revoked and their request for that to be un

by mkishi 5y ago

I'm having a hard time following anything. Andrew claims they brought a lawyer in after their access to the DNS was revoked and their request for that to be undone was denied. They supposedly have had access for 5 years without issues, and according to Tomaw it's something they'd "probably never do anything with." Why should Andrew accept that, even if the only thing Freenode Ltd. owned was the domain and name? If they didn't do anything nefarious for 5 years, what changed that made the domain takeover now necessary? Especially since the person taking over the domain apparently admits Andrew wouldn't do anything to it... or was that exchange fabricated?

Macha 5y ago
I don't think tomaw was aware that freenode ltd owned anything apart from the freenode live conference, until the legal discussions happened. So from his point of view it would have been a case of "Why should the people we ran a conference with in 2017/2018 have access to our domain?"
- mkishi 5y ago
  That implies christel was the only staff with access to DNS until now and was hiding that fact, since the domain's been registered to Freenode Limited since at least 2018 and they'd have noticed the change had they been accessing it. I've been reading more into it and it seems that wasn't the case [1], but that just leaves me with more questions. [1]: https://gist.github.com/realrasengan/f569c5e4727d21eb939fff99cb9dc84c https://gist.github.com/realrasengan/f569c5e4727d21eb939fff9...
  - Macha 5y ago
    Understanding that: (a) Freenode ltd had access to the domain (b) Freenode ltd should have access to the domain (c) Freenode ltd is the rightful owner of the domain are three very different matters. How often do you whois your employer's domain? Otherwise, if you've just been appointed leader of an operational staff and believe your organisation owns everything involved, it doesn't seem unreasonable to start introducing basic infosec practices around limiting access (or if it was caused by mandating security measures like 2fa, as mentioned elsewhere in thread)
    - mkishi 5y ago
      Not often, but maybe when its parent company goes through a merger and the head of staff makes a public announcement saying "the freenode project will continue being part of and having access to support from the Imperial Family Companies (formerly London Trust Media Holdings (LTMH))." [1] Since I believe freenode to be completely community-owned apart from some holding company that's supposed to host a conference, at that point I might check our WHOIS records and maybe our own policies [2] and question who I'm actually volunteering for. [1]: https://freenode.net/news/freenode-pia-changes https://freenode.net/news/freenode-pia-changes [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180606130945/https://freenode.net/policies https://web.archive.org/web/20180606130945/https://freenode....

by mkishi 5y ago

Macha 5y ago

I don't think tomaw was aware that freenode ltd owned anything apart from the freenode live conference, until the legal discussions happened. So from his point of view it would have been a case of "Why should the people we ran a conference with in 2017/2018 have access to our domain?"

mkishi 5y ago
That implies christel was the only staff with access to DNS until now and was hiding that fact, since the domain's been registered to Freenode Limited since at least 2018 and they'd have noticed the change had they been accessing it. I've been reading more into it and it seems that wasn't the case [1], but that just leaves me with more questions. [1]: https://gist.github.com/realrasengan/f569c5e4727d21eb939fff99cb9dc84c https://gist.github.com/realrasengan/f569c5e4727d21eb939fff9...
- Macha 5y ago
  Understanding that: (a) Freenode ltd had access to the domain (b) Freenode ltd should have access to the domain (c) Freenode ltd is the rightful owner of the domain are three very different matters. How often do you whois your employer's domain? Otherwise, if you've just been appointed leader of an operational staff and believe your organisation owns everything involved, it doesn't seem unreasonable to start introducing basic infosec practices around limiting access (or if it was caused by mandating security measures like 2fa, as mentioned elsewhere in thread)
  - mkishi 5y ago
    Not often, but maybe when its parent company goes through a merger and the head of staff makes a public announcement saying "the freenode project will continue being part of and having access to support from the Imperial Family Companies (formerly London Trust Media Holdings (LTMH))." [1] Since I believe freenode to be completely community-owned apart from some holding company that's supposed to host a conference, at that point I might check our WHOIS records and maybe our own policies [2] and question who I'm actually volunteering for. [1]: https://freenode.net/news/freenode-pia-changes https://freenode.net/news/freenode-pia-changes [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20180606130945/https://freenode.net/policies https://web.archive.org/web/20180606130945/https://freenode....