3 ms·
> intellectually dishonest phrasing Not everyone agrees with the linked argument. For example, I disagree that browsers can't take advantage of DNSSEC, since m
by tylermenezes 5y ago
> intellectually dishonest phrasing
Not everyone agrees with the linked argument. For example, I disagree that browsers can't take advantage of DNSSEC, since many are using DoH, and the rest of the article reads like someone complaining that we need to wait for the perfect protocol or nothing at all.
That's the thing about a debate... it's got arguments on both sides.
- tptacek 5y agoI mean, I agree with you and don't find the language disingenuous (I felt like it was more of a tell that the people working on this cursed project weren't super read into DNSSEC and DNS security in general, which isn't a knock; it's a boring thing to keep up with, especially when the best-practice answer is so simple --- just don't bother with DNSSEC). But I'd also say that DoH (1) largely obviates any need for DNSSEC (the last-mile DNS problem is the only on-the-wire DNS security problem that needs solving) and (2) doesn't enable DANE in browsers, which is what people are talking about when they talk about DNSSEC intersecting with browsers in any way other than randomly making sites fall off the Internet.
- dogecoinbase 5y agoIt's fine to disagree with the linked argument, but you actually have to do so. This is them presupposing that "securing Slack for [their] customers" requires DNSSEC -- it's not engaging with the argument at all.