5 ms·
Not making it red would downplay the "SEC" part in DNSSEC. We already have some privacy metrics in addition to tracking cookies, and there will be more. All ar
by Stitch4223 5mo ago
Not making it red would downplay the "SEC" part in DNSSEC.
We already have some privacy metrics in addition to tracking cookies, and there will be more. All are important at the same time.
- elric 5mo ago"Important" according to whom? A tracking cookie is trivial to fix (or to automagically disable for the more tech savvy citizens). Email being hosted by an untrusted foreign corporation is way harder to fix and impossible to bypass as a citizen trying to contact their government.
- Stitch4223 5mo agoThe effort required to fix tracking cookies is sometimes astounding, while migrating to another email provider is trivial. This depends on how well the organization handles change and various complexities. Having great technical staff makes things easier, and throwing money at the problem can also help. Just to give an anecdote: I've had people crying on the phone because their "solutions provider" could not get TLS to work on their www domain despite spending 5.000 euros or so.
- mirashii 5mo agoI'd have hoped in 2026 that anyone publishing this type of report would understand that DNSSEC isn't helping anything, and is generally considered to be actively harmful to enable. I'd suggest doing a bit more research and dropping the DNSSEC stuff, or reversing it entirely.
- bombcar 5mo agoDNSSEC is more likely to self-DoS yourself than protect against an attack, unfortunately.
- gnyman 5mo agoas exemplified by the recent .de outage https://www.theregister.com/networks/2026/05/06/denic-sorry-for-dnssec-error-that-crashed-germanys-internet/5230683 https://www.theregister.com/networks/2026/05/06/denic-sorry-...
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- concinds 5mo agoIt is not desirable to have mass adoption of DNSSEC, or to try to incentivize that.