4 ms·
DNS is a centralization risk, yes. Somehow we've decided this is fine. DNSSEC isn't the only issue - your TLD's nameservers could also be offline, or censored i
by pocksuppet 5mo ago
DNS is a centralization risk, yes. Somehow we've decided this is fine. DNSSEC isn't the only issue - your TLD's nameservers could also be offline, or censored in your country.
- skywhopper 5mo agoDNS is barely centralized. Is there an alternative global name lookup system that is less centralized without even worse downsides?
- pocksuppet 5mo agoBGP, but the names in question are limited to 128 bits, of which at most 48 will be looked up, and you don't get to choose which 48 bits are assigned to you.
- fc417fc802 5mo agoGNS is the obvious response here, in addition to the various blockchain based solutions. Nothing that enjoys widespread support or mindshare unfortunately. Even the current centralized ICANN flavor could be substantially more resilient if it instead handed out key fingerprints and semi-permanent addresses when queried. That way it would only ever need to be used as a fallback when the previously queried information failed to resolve.
- account42 5mo agoGP said it was a risk (and it is), not that there are better alternatives. Not all risks can be eliminated easily but you should still be aware of them.
- miki123211 5mo agoThe blockchain. The only thing a blockchain is good for is achieving decentralized consensus on what value a key points to, which is what DNS is. An alternative way of looking at this is that acquiring domains must be somewhat expensive by definition; either you enforce it at the system level, or you make it free, but then somebody will inevitably grab all the interesting ones and re-sell them to others. A blockchain is the only way to make decentralized financial infrastructure viable.
- cyberax 5mo agoNot really? .com and .net are still up If Let's Encrypt goes down, half of the Internet will become inaccessible in a week.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- akerl_ 5mo agoPresumably if LetsEncrypt goes down and stays down for a week, the sites that go down are the ones that see that their CA went down and at no point in the week take the option to get certs from a different CA?
- fragmede 5mo agoAre there alternative CAs that are anywhere as easy to deal with as Lets encrypt?
- kenniskrag 5mo agoacme.sh supports multiple CAs there is even a RFC for CAs that describe the api.
- bluejekyll 5mo agoI guarantee that there are a ton of sites out there not monitoring their certs.
- gpvos 5mo ago"A ton" being a misspelling of "the vast, vast majority".
- throw0101c 5mo agoIncluding Microsoft, Starlink, Github, Cisco: * https://www.keyfactor.com/blog/2023s-biggest-certificate-outages-what-we-can-learn-from-them/ https://www.keyfactor.com/blog/2023s-biggest-certificate-out...
- greatgib 5mo agoNormally it should not have been, with cache and all, but that was the past... Think about what would happen the day that letsencrypt is borken for whatever reason technical or like having a retarded US leader and being located in the wrong country. Taken into account the push of letsencrypt with major web browsers to restrict certificate validities for short periods like only a few days...
- muvlon 5mo agoLet's Encrypt has to be down for days before people begin to feel the pain. DNS is very different, it breaks stuff immediately everywhere.
- tharkun__ 5mo agoNo it doesn't. DNS breaks as soon as TTLs run out. It's your choice to set them so low that stuff breaks immediately.
- __float 5mo agoWhat do you recommend then? DNS doesn't usually change that often, but if you mess it up when it does, you're in for some pain if TTLs are high!
- htgb 5mo agoNot the one you're replying to, but I'd keep TTL high normally and lower it one TTL ahead of a planned change.
- stouset 5mo agoThis is the way.
- kenniskrag 5mo agoI would define high as "double time needed to fix a dns issue" and account for weekends