Please do not put words in my mouth. They're important but they're not a
DNS problem.
I think reasonable people might disagree?
Not really. It's a layering issue.
In my view and the DNS has a critical flaw: it does not provide query privacy.
It can't be a critical flaw -- if it were
On 9/1/15, John R Levine wrote:
>>> Please do not put words in my mouth. They're important but they're not
>>> a
>>> DNS problem.
>>
>> I think reasonable people might disagree?
>
> Not really. It's a layering issue.
It is a design flaw from an era when fax machines roamed the
On 9/1/15, John R Levine wrote:
> Speaking of which ...
>
>> It is a critical flaw that fails open. The DNS continues to work but
>> users are put into harm's way. ...
>
>>> Also please keep in mind that we're having this discussion because of
>>> design tradeoffs in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/01/2015 07:39 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
>
> Tor doesn't leak .onions
>
> If the name is reserved and the process is followed, we'll hopefully
> be able to stop most of the leakage in the DNS.
>
One clear example that was documented
I'm aware of the context, I'm a co-author of the RFC in question. The
solution you present is not practical for integration across most
programs without huge modifications to nearly every program.
That's what I said. "It's more work than we were willing to do" is a
reasonable criterion, but
On Sep 1, 2015, at 6:06 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> That's what I said. "It's more work than we were willing to do" is a
> reasonable criterion, but it's not the same as "it's impossible".
I think it’s "fixing this would involve pervasively fixing a wide range of
software we
Speaking of which ...
It is a critical flaw that fails open. The DNS continues to work but
users are put into harm's way. ...
Also please keep in mind that we're having this discussion because of
design tradeoffs in the implementation of Tor. If they'd made onion a
URI scheme rather than a