On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > Started as a new issue at > https://github.com/DNSOP/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/issues/21
<no hats> I don't think that I agree with "this raises no privacy issues" -- some folk seem to think that they can store "private" information in the DNS, and if queried for, this may / will expose it. Someone (I think it was Facebook or LinkedIn) creates (or used to create) a per-user DNS name for load-balancing purposes -- scraping passive DNS would allow someone to find many profiles, which could be viewed as a privacy issue. I'd much prefer "done correctly, this raises minimal privacy issues" or "done incorrectly this can raise privacy issues" (or just skip everything after the semi-colon and say nothing). I believe that passive DNS is incredibly useful for security stuff, I just think that saying that it raises no privacy issues could get sticky. Oh, I added the above to the issue. W > > --Paul Hoffman > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
