3 ms·
Yes, I understand the attack. My point is that somewhere, there have to be DNS servers that respond to public requests ... otherwise the internet will not work.
by summerdown2 14y ago
Yes, I understand the attack. My point is that somewhere, there have to be DNS servers that respond to public requests ... otherwise the internet will not work.
Hence, some DNS servers have to be open. By saying it's openness that's the problem, we're blaming the victims, rather than the issue, which is that DNS is flawed. Simply moving to TCP would be better, surely?
- AdrenalinMd 14y agoUDP doesn't require a handshake hence is easy to spoof unlike TCP where a full-duplex connection must be established for a successful connection.
- summerdown2 14y agoYes, that's my point. If we move to TCP we fix the issue. At the moment I can't see how closing open servers is a real fix.
- pixl97 14y agoMoving from UDP back to TCP on large packets is a mixed bag. TCP is slow, very slow. At one time DNS packets were limited to 512 bytes and had to use TCP for more data, but over time the number of UDP packets over 512 bytes increased greatly. Going back to the smaller packet size would impact a large number of users with longer load times, especially on wireless devices. Closing open DNS servers isn't a real fix. The people who need to fix it are the lest likely to have a clue there is a problem in the first place.