3 ms·
You don't need to assume anything, since I (author of For DNSSEC) contacted you asking for your input directly. You refused to engage or correct any of the poi
by indolering 5y ago
You don't need to assume anything, since I (author of For DNSSEC) contacted you asking for your input directly. You refused to engage or correct any of the points I debunked in your original post. It's sad that you continue to advocate against securing DNS through podcasts, etc.
- tptacek 5y agoThis post has been on HN several times; for instance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10019029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10019029 It's sad that advocating for Internet security requires advocating against a major DNS security protocol, but that's the way the cookie bounces.
- indolering 5y agoExcept that it doesn't, you just won't engage on the major flaws in your arguments that I raise in the article.
- tptacek 5y agoIf you'd raised any objection to that 2015 article that hadn't been asked and answered in the time between it and your own article, I'd spend more time with it. As it stands, there's nothing I see you saying that I couldn't answer with a link I pulled out of the search bar at the bottom of this page. If you want me to engage with some argument of yours, you're going to have to be specific about which one it is. I'm not going to spend a bunch of time point-by-pointing it. The only reason any of us are commenting on this story is that DNSSEC spectacularly blew up for Slack, and their writeup of what went down linked my article, which yours is an attempted rebuttal to.