3 ms·
??? at best that means there's more need for practice, testing, better processes, and so on. it does not mean everything should be easy. (especially changes to
by pas 3y ago
???
at best that means there's more need for practice, testing, better processes, and so on. it does not mean everything should be easy. (especially changes to a critical name authority.)
there's an argument that maybe .nz needs to spend more on this, delegate this, or accept a decreased security assurance, but that's definitely not true in general.
- blibble 3y agoif you read the post-mortem they did everything by the book they made a small mistake, and .nz was down for 2 days as a result of course the 95% of people that have competent ISPs that don't verify DNSSEC records were completely unaffected there's a reason ALL major tech companies refuse to deploy it for their zones
- tptacek 3y agoMost, not all. Salesforce is a notable counterexample.
- pas 3y ago> they made a small mistake > and .nz was down for 2 days as a result so it was not a small mistake yes, the same thing happens when people start using technology that actually verifies what it reads/writes. ie. btrfs, ZFS, ECC, etc. and turns out disks fail, bits rots, etc. it was just unnoticed.