Re: medicare.gov / cms.gov DNSSEC Validation Failures

2010-12-30 Thread Mark Andrews
In message 1293658659.2817.17.ca...@watermelon.coderich.net, Richard Laager w On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 12:32 -0500, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 06:39:21PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote: I'm looking for a DNS contact for medicare.gov (and cms.gov). They are failing

Looking for a Cisco network/server admin

2010-12-30 Thread Brielle Bruns
Hello all, I was wondering if someone could direct me offlist to a Cisco network/admin that could fix a mail server on their network that is out of sync time wise. Not a big deal, but I figured I'd ask. :) -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/

Re: .gov DNSSEC operational message

2010-12-30 Thread Tony Finch
On 29 Dec 2010, at 16:56, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: presuposes the attack was server directed. the DNS-sniper will take out your locally configured root KSK /or replace it w/ their own. If they can do that then you have MUCH bigger problems than authenticity of DNS replies.

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 51 in coming up at the end of January....submit your talks now!

2010-12-30 Thread David Meyer
Folks, NANOG 51 is coming up a the end of January. If you like to submit a talk or tutorial, please create an account on https://pc.nanog.org (if you don't have one) and submit your materials. Thanks, and everyone have a safe and happy new year. Dave (for the NANOG PC)

Re: Looking for a Cisco network/server admin

2010-12-30 Thread Brielle Bruns
On 12/30/10 12:47 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote: Hello all, I was wondering if someone could direct me offlist to a Cisco network/admin that could fix a mail server on their network that is out of sync time wise. Not a big deal, but I figured I'd ask. :) I believe I may have been a bit unclear

Re: .gov DNSSEC operational message

2010-12-30 Thread Jay Ashworth
Bill Manning saith: who intimated that the OOB channel would be http? since that is based on the DNS, i'd like to think it was suspect as well. :) No it's not, Bill, not *necessarily*; you know better than that. :-) Cheers, -- jra