5 ms·

Please no. CI systems like GitHub actions and CircleCI use to have unlimited CI minutes until people started abusing them for things they weren't intended for

Please no. CI systems like GitHub actions and CircleCI use to have unlimited CI minutes until people started abusing them for things they weren't intended for (i.e. crypto mining). I would hate if I had to pay for DNS services (or be forced into using an ISP one which does things like blacklist certain domains) just because people on the internet wanted to be 'cool' and show off how smort they are. This is why we can't have nice things.

bawolff 5y ago
I don't see why this application would be abusive. Chrome does much worse things trying to detect if you are behind a captive portal. Edit: oh i see, they arent using generic dns but cloudflare's specific DoH gateway. Guess that could maybe be problematic if everyone did that, although if any company would tolerate that it would be cloudflare.
adflux 5y ago
Your domain names are free?
- tedk-42 5y ago
  Someone needs to host the DNS servers which deliver DNS results. Serverless deployment models under the cover still uses servers.
  - adflux 5y ago
    What I am saying is that you are already paying for DNS services
    - tedk-42 5y ago
      What I said was I didn't want to have to pay to do DNS lookups. E.g. if a client side DNS call was rate limited because DNS services like CloudFlare (1.1.1.1) or Google (8.8.8.8) got tired of caching data that was never suppose to be there. There are people who have joked you can use route53 as a database (Corey Quinn originally?). But taking a joke too far is irresponsible. Imagine having to pay a subscription to resolve DNS queries... We have a good thing with it and this idea is like a knife in it (like my free CI minutes and cryptominers example)
      - zzyzxd 5y ago
        I mean, technically speaking, a DNS is a database. I am not saying I like this idea, but are there any regulations on what you can or cannot put in TXT records? > Imagine having to pay a subscription to resolve DNS queries... Great, I won't pay for resolving googleadservices.com then :) Joking aside, I personally don't mind paying for DNS (I am already doing that using NextDNS and it has been the best DNS service I have ever used). And as been pointed out by others, DNS providers can always put a limit or hit you with a ban hammer if they want.
      - bawolff 5y ago
        Then presumably people would stop using these services and use others/make their own. Its not like google has a monopoly on running a public dns resolver.
elliottinvent 5y ago
Thanks for your feedback. Obviously I think it’s cool but I doubt that’ll be a good enough reason for most people. NUM is a protocol for storage and retrieval of data, that’s all. Hopefully the demonstration shows it’s pretty good at that. If people choose to store huge amounts of data using it, I think that would be cool too. I don’t think there’s any risk of it being used for crypto mining. NUM doesn’t open up any new attacks vectors that aren’t already present in DNS and it’s an incredibly resilient and robust system as we know.
- tedk-42 5y ago
  > If people choose to store huge amounts of data using it, I think that would be cool too. This is what should be avoided. It adds unnecessary load to DNS servers around the globe.
  - elliottinvent 5y ago
    If it's useful data that's being stored and retrieved, I'd argue it's better for the internet as a whole. It shifts load from webservers (where people are downloading 5mb of page data just to find a phone number) to DNS, which is far more efficient. If NUM is success it will certainly increase load but I don't think it would be an unnecessary load, since it would be serving a worthwhile purpose.
    - tedk-42 5y ago
      It's not better for the internet as a whole. Host your own data behind a CDN and S3. There are also lots of free services (github pages netlify) which allow you to store static content. Use these over a DNS server to store your data.
      - elliottinvent 5y ago
        I appreciate your feedback and am interested by your point of view on this. > It's not better for the internet as a whole. We've built this because we believe if all the people manually trawling websites looking for particular pieces of data were instead fetching this data automatically through ultra-efficient DNS queries, it would be better for the internet as a whole. > Host your own data behind a CDN and S3. We could certainly do this, we've made this a DNS-based protocol so domain owners can adopt it independently in their own DNS.
zzyzxd 5y ago
I like the limit on GitHub actions. It won't be sustainable in long term otherwise. You just can't count on people's self discipline for this kind of stuff, and there will always be malicious usage as long as the system allows. If putting large random TXT records can harm the global DNS infrastructure, DNS providers should put a stricter limit on it. And OP's project will help us get there.

bawolff 5y ago

I don't see why this application would be abusive. Chrome does much worse things trying to detect if you are behind a captive portal. Edit: oh i see, they arent using generic dns but cloudflare's specific DoH gateway. Guess that could maybe be problematic if everyone did that, although if any company would tolerate that it would be cloudflare.

adflux 5y ago

Your domain names are free?

tedk-42 5y ago
Someone needs to host the DNS servers which deliver DNS results. Serverless deployment models under the cover still uses servers.
- adflux 5y ago
  What I am saying is that you are already paying for DNS services
  - tedk-42 5y ago
    What I said was I didn't want to have to pay to do DNS lookups. E.g. if a client side DNS call was rate limited because DNS services like CloudFlare (1.1.1.1) or Google (8.8.8.8) got tired of caching data that was never suppose to be there. There are people who have joked you can use route53 as a database (Corey Quinn originally?). But taking a joke too far is irresponsible. Imagine having to pay a subscription to resolve DNS queries... We have a good thing with it and this idea is like a knife in it (like my free CI minutes and cryptominers example)
    - zzyzxd 5y ago
      I mean, technically speaking, a DNS is a database. I am not saying I like this idea, but are there any regulations on what you can or cannot put in TXT records? > Imagine having to pay a subscription to resolve DNS queries... Great, I won't pay for resolving googleadservices.com then :) Joking aside, I personally don't mind paying for DNS (I am already doing that using NextDNS and it has been the best DNS service I have ever used). And as been pointed out by others, DNS providers can always put a limit or hit you with a ban hammer if they want.
    - bawolff 5y ago
      Then presumably people would stop using these services and use others/make their own. Its not like google has a monopoly on running a public dns resolver.

elliottinvent 5y ago

Thanks for your feedback. Obviously I think it’s cool but I doubt that’ll be a good enough reason for most people. NUM is a protocol for storage and retrieval of data, that’s all. Hopefully the demonstration shows it’s pretty good at that. If people choose to store huge amounts of data using it, I think that would be cool too. I don’t think there’s any risk of it being used for crypto mining. NUM doesn’t open up any new attacks vectors that aren’t already present in DNS and it’s an incredibly resilient and robust system as we know.

tedk-42 5y ago
> If people choose to store huge amounts of data using it, I think that would be cool too. This is what should be avoided. It adds unnecessary load to DNS servers around the globe.
- elliottinvent 5y ago
  If it's useful data that's being stored and retrieved, I'd argue it's better for the internet as a whole. It shifts load from webservers (where people are downloading 5mb of page data just to find a phone number) to DNS, which is far more efficient. If NUM is success it will certainly increase load but I don't think it would be an unnecessary load, since it would be serving a worthwhile purpose.
  - tedk-42 5y ago
    It's not better for the internet as a whole. Host your own data behind a CDN and S3. There are also lots of free services (github pages netlify) which allow you to store static content. Use these over a DNS server to store your data.
    - elliottinvent 5y ago
      I appreciate your feedback and am interested by your point of view on this. > It's not better for the internet as a whole. We've built this because we believe if all the people manually trawling websites looking for particular pieces of data were instead fetching this data automatically through ultra-efficient DNS queries, it would be better for the internet as a whole. > Host your own data behind a CDN and S3. We could certainly do this, we've made this a DNS-based protocol so domain owners can adopt it independently in their own DNS.

zzyzxd 5y ago

I like the limit on GitHub actions. It won't be sustainable in long term otherwise. You just can't count on people's self discipline for this kind of stuff, and there will always be malicious usage as long as the system allows. If putting large random TXT records can harm the global DNS infrastructure, DNS providers should put a stricter limit on it. And OP's project will help us get there.