3 ms·
Actual title for me: "Spoofing DNS Records by Abusing DHCP DNS Dynamic Updates". A "by" in the title is necessary IMO.
by pbhjpbhj 3y ago
Actual title for me: "Spoofing DNS Records by Abusing DHCP DNS Dynamic Updates".
A "by" in the title is necessary IMO.
- Terretta 3y agoNarrowing to Microsoft AD DHCP seemed MUCH more important.
- dang 3y agoIf you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but please do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Terretta 3y agoI was thinking specifically of this rule. Their original title was misleading, implying broader scope, all dynamic DHCP. Narrowing to saying Microsoft DHCP seemed less misleading and less click-bait. I could picture a pile of conversation saying "oh, this is just X" so tried to narrow it to just X. From your comment, I take it I saw it wrong. Just saying that rule was my specific reason for the edit, to make less click-bait and less misleading.
- dang 3y agoIf you were thinking of the rule and trying to abide by it, that's more than enough! This domain (titles etc.) is complex enough that it's totally normal for people to interpret the rule differently.
- nullindividual 3y agoI wouldn't be surprised if ISC DHCP (now defunct) would suffer the same issue when configured for Dynamic DNS updates with Active Directory. Functionally, it works identically to MSFT DHCP when performing DDNS updates in an AD-integrated zone.