×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Hackers Compromise ICANN, Access Zone File Data System

marka63 Re:DNSSEC (110 comments)

For the root zone there is very little that is actually signed as most of the root zone is delegating NS records (not signed just their presence in the NSEC record is signed) and glue address records (not signed). If you can alter the root zone contents you can introduce new DS records matching DNSKEY records you control. These would then get signed and if you can direct your targets to this alternate version of the TLD it will be accepted as valid. This will only work until the zone signing key is rolled at which stage the DNSSEC validation chain will no longer work and you will need to go back and get the DS re-signed. Actually changing the root zone contents like this will almost certainly be caught as it is a highly examined zone. In particular people checking DS/DNSKEY pairs looking for errors so they can be fixed quickly. Now if you can get someone to sign a isolated DS RRset that is not in the root zone but is for a TLD then this could go undetected for longer but that is a much harder problem than just changing the root zone contents. That still only has a limited lifetime as the RRSIGs need to be refreshed.

The signing ceremony is where the DNSKEY RRset is re-signed to introduce / remove zone signing keys. The private part of the zone signing key has to be available on a day to day basis for the normal day to day changes in the root zone. That said the private part is still held in a HSM and the worst that can happen is that someone can get some data signed which can be used until the zone signing key is rolled.

2 days ago
top

BGP Hijacking Continues, Despite the Ability To Prevent It

marka63 Re:Required -- Except When It Isn't (57 comments)

And how do you know what to filter?

RPKI is about providing a trustworthy database that can be used to decide what to filter and what to permit.

about a week ago
top

Australian Post Office Opens Mail Forwarding Warehouse In the USA

marka63 Re:I'm not clear (142 comments)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

about a month and a half ago
top

FTC Sues AT&T For Throttling 'Unlimited' Data Plan Customers Up To 90%

marka63 Re:I'm fine with a fine (179 comments)

$monthly * (throttled time / time in month) * 10.

The 10 times multiplier is a penalty. This is applied to all months for which the customer held a unlimited plan.

If AT&T don't have the data for when the plan was throttled the assumption should be that the plan was being throttled all the time.

It should also be a cheque not a credit.

about 2 months ago
top

Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected

marka63 Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (398 comments)

The smart thing is to make all the cameras speed and red light camera. Prominently display where such camera are installed. Traffic will get used to this.

Where I live most of the red light cameras have been converted to safety cameras (red light + speed) and you will go through lots of intersections with them. This brings the speed down between cameras as well as reducing the number of accidents at intersections. Traffic actually travels within the speed limit instead of the +10 I often see on US roads.

about 2 months ago
top

If You're Connected, Apple Collects Your Data

marka63 Re:If you want results from the web (313 comments)

And if sites actually added the SRV records specified in RFC 6186 Apple could avoid having to maintain a database of email to submission/pop3/imap/pop3s/imaps servers.

It's not like it is hard to add these records.

about 2 months ago
top

Apple Fixes Shellshock In OS X

marka63 Re:Why isn't this auto-update? (174 comments)

And at 3.3M they may as well just push it out rather than delaying it. A couple of checks will be more costly than just letting everyone download it straight away.

about 3 months ago
top

BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates

marka63 Re:Because fuck you BBC (363 comments)

Actually we are getting Dr Who simultaneously with the UK if you are willing to get up at that time of the morning to watch. Or you can just record and time shift.
Sunday 7:30pm is a replay of the morning's broadcast.

about 3 months ago
top

Mozilla To Support Public Key Pinning In Firefox 32

marka63 Re: Not far enough (90 comments)

Not DANE the people, DANE (DNS based Authentication of Named Entities) http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc... Mozilla are in a position to both publish TLSA record and authenticate the CERT.

about 4 months ago
top

ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

marka63 Re:Why do people use internal TLDs? (101 comments)

Firstly ICANN had a black list of TLD labels that is wasn't going to allow anyone to apply for because they know they were likely to be in use.

If they looked at every "bad" TLD name that hit the root servers they could never add any new TLDs.

Having awarded contracts for TLD's they are try to minimise the impact on those labels that didn't make the black list or that they were unaware of.

Actually they do own and run one of the root servers. The company I work for owns and runs another of them. I submitted arguments, as a private individual, to not expand the root zone when this was being mooted. That all being said they are the legitimate party to decide what gets added to the root zone.

about 4 months ago
top

ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

marka63 Re:1993 All over again (RFC-1935) (101 comments)

This isn't RFC 1535 all over again unless you are using partially qualified names where the end of the partially qualified name just happens to match one of the new TLDs. Partially qualified names have always been dangerous.

I just wish I had been able to convince Paul to break all existing use of partially qualified names back then by not appending search elements to any name with multiple labels. As much as foo.lab is convenient to type, foo.lab.example.net was safe as was foo + lab.example.net as a search list element.

about 4 months ago
top

ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

marka63 Re:Why do people use internal TLDs? (101 comments)

They don't own you. However they are the authority for which names are added to the root zone. New TLD labels have always been possible and have been added from time to time.

The RBDMS vendors that squatted on a TLD were not rational actors. They knew or should have known that new TLDs could be added to the DNS at anytime. That new TLDS would be added to the DNS was published as part of the switch from a flat namespace to a hierarchical namespace. They failed to do due diligence. If they wanted a reserved name they could have requested one or heaven forbid registered one.

This is like vendors that squatted on 1.0.0.0 address space.

about 4 months ago
top

ICANN Offers Fix For Domain Name Collisions

marka63 Re:Why do people use internal TLDs? (101 comments)

Firstly ICANN didn't just assert ownership of the root. They inherited it along with the rest of the IANA.

And the administrators gambled that no one else would ever register that tld. Sorry they just lost that bet.

The DNS is designed to allow everyone to have their own namespace. To do this you need to register the name so that it can be uniquely yours. If you can't register it, don't use it. Period.

As for those protocols they could have requested a reserved name. They just failed to do so. There have always been processes to get reserved names.

about 4 months ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

marka63 Re:And how does IPv6 solve this issue? (248 comments)

Multiple address, source address routing and multi path TCP will address lots of the reasons people want PI addresses today. IPv6 has enough addresses to make that mix of technologies a viable solution space. IPv4 is too resource constrained to make that a viable solution.

about 4 months ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

marka63 Re:Ipv6 to ipv4 interoperability is only way (248 comments)

Until there is sufficient IPv6 penetration that continuing to run IPv4 becomes pointless. If you turn on IPv6 on home networks over half the incoming traffic will be IPv6 traffic. Globally IPv6 is 4-6% IP traffic depending upon where you measure it. IP has replaced many networking protocols in the past. IPv6 will replace IPv4. The writing is already on the wall.

Many networks today are IPv6 only internally with protocol translation to talk to the legacy IPv4 Internet.

Other are dual stack translated to IPv6 only then translated back to dual stack on the Internet.

With IPv4 you are only going to get less and less functionality now that many ISP's are getting to the stage of having to deploy CGNAT. As a home user having a publicly reachable address will become a thing of the past.

about 4 months ago
top

The IPv4 Internet Hiccups

marka63 Re:Is it time to switch to all IPv6 yet? (248 comments)

How much more gradual do you want? I've been running dual stack for over a decade with a tunnel back to HE. At this stage most of your equipment runs fine with IPv6.

about 4 months ago
top

Put Your Code in the SWAMP: DHS Sponsors Online Open Source Code Testing

marka63 Re:Looks good to me (67 comments)

Actually you get something that has passed several different analyses.

Silencing "gcc -Wall" is a good thing. Modern gcc versions catch lots of errors. Add to that clang static analysis and others you get pretty reasonable error detection which is what they are aiming for.

about 5 months ago
top

Put Your Code in the SWAMP: DHS Sponsors Online Open Source Code Testing

marka63 Re:Looks good to me (67 comments)

It saves the government money to consolidate the checking to one place. Otherwise every department would need to do the checking themselves.

By doing this continuously you end up with releases which are free of known errors.

about 5 months ago
top

Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE

marka63 Re:1 or 1 million (274 comments)

Because it is a change of contract and if they did it to those still in the minimum contract period they would let them break the contract without them having to pay ETP.

about 5 months ago
top

Verizon Now Throttling Top 'Unlimited' Subscribers On 4G LTE

marka63 Re:1 or 1 million (274 comments)

So Verizon made a bet that customers wouldn't use the unlimited data that they sold them and they lost. Tough!

It looks like Verizon should start offering plans that reflect the actual cost to supply. Those that use the most pay the most.

Have data caps. Throttle users once they reach those caps. This puts back pressure on the users in terms of cost.

Provide incentive to time shift data transfers to the quieter periods. e.g. Only count 1/2 the data between 02:00 and 06:00 for
example and let the customers know.

about 5 months ago

Submissions

marka63 hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

marka63 has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?