On 6/4/12 3:28 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Well, I note that at least the .secure promoters haven't decided it's
> a good idea:
the _known_ .secure-and-all-confusingly-similar-labels promoters.
the reveal is weeks away, followed by the joys of contention set
formation.
there may be more than on
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 02:49:37PM -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> one of the rationalizations for imposing a dnssec mandatory to
> implement requirement (by icann staff driven by dnssec evangelists) is
Well, I note that at least the .secure promoters haven't decided it's
a good idea:
;
On 6/4/12 12:30 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> The greatest advantage of .SECURE is that it will help ensure that all the
> high-value targets are easy to find.
one of the rationalizations for imposing a dnssec mandatory to
implement requirement (by icann staff driven by dnssec evangelists) is
that a
> This may result in mixed signals if a site on a SLD under .SECURE
> is actually compromised, which is more harmful than having no UI
> declaration.
The greatest advantage of .SECURE is that it will help ensure that all the
high-value targets are easy to find.
---
() ascii ribbon campaign
Note that you've misquoted; that was a reply to my post, possibly 2 levels deep.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 5/31/12, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> HTTP redirects funneling connections towards the appropriate TLS-encrypted
> site), use DN
No. Let's go the opposite direction and make DNS a decentralized trust model. :)
> Digress.
On 5/31/12, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> HTTP redirects funneling connections towards the appropriate TLS-encrypted
> site), use DNSSEC, and deploy DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) for spam
The "Except for HTTP redirects" part is a gigantonormous hole. A
MITM attacker on a LAN can intercept traffic t
On 5/31/12 10:52 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the
>> >woodwork when they start trying to enforce their provisions. "What? I
>> >have already printed my letterhead! What do you mean my busted DKIM
>> >service is a problem?"
> History suggest
> I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will
> hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous
> scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to
> other TLD's.
Right. But your "high cost" is relative to dime-a-dozen v
On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:11:22 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> routinely conduct security scans of registered sites.
This can only play out one of 2 ways:
1) They launch an nmap scan on the 13th of every month from a known fixed
address
which everybody just drops traffic, and it's pointless.
2) The w
>What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the
>woodwork when they start trying to enforce their provisions. "What? I
>have already printed my letterhead! What do you mean my busted DKIM
>service is a problem?"
History suggests that the problem will be the opposite. They will
On 05/31/2012 06:16 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
not necessarily. It can be done with a laptop that does "dig" and sends email
to the place.
What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the woodwork when they
start trying to enforce their provisions. "What? I have already printed my
On May 31, 2012, at 5:43 PM, Grant Ridder wrote:
> I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will
> hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous
> scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to
> other TLD's.
not neces
On 05/31/2012 05:43 PM, Grant Ridder wrote:
I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will
hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous
scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to
other TLD's.
Countries would neve
ote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Jay Ashworth"
> >
> >> Subject: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
> >
> > I see that LWN has already spotted this; smb will
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jay Ashworth"
>
>> Subject: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
>
> I see that LWN has already spotted this; smb will no doubt be pleased to
> know that the
- Original Message -
> From: "Jay Ashworth"
> Subject: Wacky Weekend: The '.secure' gTLD
I see that LWN has already spotted this; smb will no doubt be pleased to
know that the very first reply suggests that RFC 3514 solves the problem
much more easily.
"The proposal comes from Alex Stamos of research firm iSec Partners, and
would appoint Artemis Internet as the gatekeeper of .secure. Artemis would
require registered domains to encrypt all web and email traffic (except for
HTTP redirects funneling connections towards the appropriate TLS-encrypt
18 matches
Mail list logo
