* Jack Bates (jba...@brightok.net) wrote:
Given These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the
stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure, which enables access
to almost 500,000 other websites. I'd say they had DOS issues with
their nameservers. They can't be expected to let
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:52:29AM -0500,
Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
Anyone have records of what wikileaks (RR, i assume) A record was?
91.121.133.41
46.59.1.2
Translated into an URL, the first one does not work (virtual hosting,
may be) but the
wikileaks.no and wikleaks.se seem to accept requests on port 80 but appear to
be having troubles generating responses, perhaps just overloaded.
On Dec 3, 2010, at 12:45 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:52:29AM -0500,
Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote
a message of 24
...
... The termination of services was effected pursuant to, and in accordance
with, the EveryDNS.net Acceptable Use Policy.
the claim is that being ddos'd is an aup violation. go figure.
International DNS)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 12/2/2010 11:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns
will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply
On Friday 03 December 2010 13:22:19 Frank Bulk wrote:
I guess the USG's cyberwar program does work (very dryly said).
They missed ;)
http://wikileaks.ch
http://twitter.com/wikileaks
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
I guess the USG's cyberwar program does work (very dryly said).
Perhaps the PRC's works too.
-J
On 03/12/10 00:52 -0500, Ken Chase wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 02:26:35PM +0900, Randy Bush said:
so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns
will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even
handedly to all sufferers of ddos.
if not, as a
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:27:57AM -0600,
Dan White dwh...@olp.net wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
Their A records on Sunday were:
(No longer working.)
Several people are keeping track of working IP addresses and avertise
them in the DNS (wikileaks.something.example). Other have
I guess the USG's cyberwar program does work (very dryly said).
It was reported in the last couple of days that Wikileaks could have been taken
off the net but the govt decided not to do it.
As for a member of Congress pressuring Amazon, what else would one expect? If
a site has content
For the record, I would never remove a customer because a congressman
or senator asked for it, however, I would deny service to persons with
outstanding felony warrant(s).
Jeff
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
I guess the USG's cyberwar program does
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
As for a member of Congress pressuring Amazon, what else would one expect?
If a site has content that the USG might see as damaging, and if a US
company is facilitating the distribution of that content, sure, I would
Other possible solution would be a DNSarchive, in
the same way there is a WebArchive. Any volunteer?
The RIPE REX tool provides something like this, at least for the reverse tree.
http://rex.ripe.net/
The patriot act did away with due process.
On 12/3/2010 3:10 PM, Randy Fischer wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, George Bonsergbon...@seven.com wrote:
As for a member of Congress pressuring Amazon, what else would one expect? If a site has content that the
USG might see as damaging,
To expect someone not to pressure someone to remove potentially
damaging material is probably naïve.
i believe that the material was not stored on amazon, only torrent
pointers.
and to cave to that pressure absent of actual legal requirement cost
amazon my business.
randy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Curtis!
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Curtis Maurand wrote:
The patriot act did away with due process.
Yep. More on that today:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/realtime/
RGDS
GARY
-
On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:57:40 pm Mark Andrews wrote:
And there would have been total confusion if there had been multiple
uunet's and a few other well known nodes. UUCP had anchor points.
Just different ones to the DNS.
Yeah, and with virtually everyone's bangpaths starting with
On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:57:40 pm Mark Andrews wrote:
And there would have been total confusion if there had been multiple
uunet's and a few other well known nodes. UUCP had anchor points.
Just different ones to the DNS.
Yeah, and with virtually everyone's bangpaths starting with
boy, you folk sure remember a different uucp network than i do.
Backbone Map from 1984
/-\
| |
|
/-\
| |
|mcvaxphilabs |
| // | |
tektronix-decvaxlinus |
and anyone who thinks that the fidonet was not hierarchic is not taking
their meds.
yes, the bad bad node ops :)
bye,
Ingo
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:19:33 am Randy Bush wrote:
boy, you folk sure remember a different uucp network than i do.
Well, I got in the uucp thing rather late, hooking up in 1991 or so. By then
to get e-mail through uucico it was common practice to bangpath off uunet, or
some other
btw, i spent quite a bit of my time with the berkman center researchers
working on accountability and transparency on just the issue of how users
can be represented and i think it a hard problem.
I bet it is not a trivial enterprise to put together and give shape to
an organization like ICANN.
All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: does
Wikileaks run on 208V? :)
http://www.everydns.com/
right hand side.
(sorry to shift the discussion off of uucp... long live
sizone.uucp...)
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA
Heavy Computing -
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: does
Wikileaks run on 208V? :)
If they keep going that way, soon they will be running on nuclear
power from the hidden centrifuges in some cave.
Cheers
Jorge
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:16:23PM -0600, Jorge Amodio said:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: does
Wikileaks run on 208V? :)
If they keep going that way, soon they will be running on nuclear
power
Jorge,
On Dec 2, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I bet it is not a trivial enterprise to put together and give shape to
an organization like ICANN. My biggest concern is that somewhere in
the painful process of building this organization something got
completely derailed from its
On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:05 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: does
Wikileaks run on 208V? :)
http://www.everydns.com/
right hand side.
(sorry to shift the discussion off of uucp... long live
sizone.uucp...)
Seems to be down here
[TME-MBP-2010:~] tme% dig wikileaks.org
; DiG 9.6.0-APPLE-P2 wikileaks.org
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: REFUSED, id: 37692
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available
;;
Everydns says on their page:
EveryDNS.net provided domain name system (DNS) services to the
wikileaks.org domain name until 10PM EST, December 2, 2010, when such
services were terminated. As with other users of the EveryDNS.net
network, this service was provided for free. The termination of
Sort of weird theory, but it sounds really strange that knowing the
kind of reactions that one could expect due the content being
published in the site that they have such a naive dns setup for that
given domain.
Unless what you are looking for is actually getting booted so you can
cry loud
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 02:26:35PM +0900, Randy Bush said:
so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns
will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even
handedly to all sufferers of ddos.
if not, as a registrar, i guess i can no longer accept
On 12/2/2010 11:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns
will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy even
handedly to all sufferers of ddos.
Given These attacks have, and future attacks would, threaten the
stability of
On 3/12/10 3:05 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
All our topics of discussion are merging... (soon: does
Wikileaks run on 208V? :)
http://www.everydns.com/
right hand side.
(sorry to shift the discussion off of uucp... long live
sizone.uucp...)
There is a list of mirror sites here:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 12/2/2010 11:26 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
so, if the site to which a dns entry points suffers a ddos, everydns
will no longer serve the domain. i hope they apply this policy
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone
supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our deployments.
randy
On 12/01/2010 10:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone
supported, we may want to attempt to
Randy Bush wrote:
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone
supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone
supported, we may want to
On Dec 1, 2010, at 8:18 42PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a
second trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the
root now, or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated,
let alone supported, we may want to attempt to ensure it in our
deployments.
Wouldn't
On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
or the acta vigilantes. as dissent becomes less tolerated, let alone
supported, we may want to
Wasn't this exactly why people suggested ICANN should just move to
Switzerland and become an independent international organization ? Would
this still be possibility ?
You can move ICANN to Mars but unless you move the root, IANA is and
will still be under USG control as it is today. Also
internationalizing ICANN may be the best solution.
for sure! if it is truly removed from the states and not put in genf.
gedanken experiment: who would i trust more to not interfere with
**other people's** data, the usg, icann, the itu, or the pirate bay
party? my conclusion makes me very
but playing with the current dns is a short term solution.
in the long run, centralization/rootification of control is equivalent
to monopoly. and we have seen time and again that this leads to
despotism, often cloaked in false protectionism and false we represent
the community..
we
On Dec 2, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
we have a significant failure by the security community in that they keep
giving us hierarchic models, pgp being a notable exception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNRP
---
And I have too many bad memories of Alternic
to feel comfortable about Peter Sunde's P2P ideas.
IMHO, there is a basic and fundamental flaw on many of the alternate
schemes. The current DNS ecosystem has been feeding the pockets of
many for many years and became what a ~$7B? industry ? many
Also, who you will really trust to run it ?
The UUCP network chugged along quite nicely for many years without any
central authority. (Pathalias and the maps weren't an authority, just
a hint.)
--lyndon
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000787.html
I see no drafts, no white or any color papers, no research, no
background, good intentions and a napkin list of specs/requirements,
no substance.
-J
*wonders where his fidonet archives are. dusty.
Any system needs to be designed to be open to anyone at any level of the
economic chart and a minimum of technical knowledge to implement. This does
not necessarily need to encompass the identification requirements for
commerce, that may well
Steve,
On Dec 1, 2010, at 3:35 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Wouldn't this simply change the focus of who can attack from the USG (which,
as far as I am aware, has not attacked the root) to some other government
(or worse, the UN)? Given a handle, folks are going to want to grab it when
they
the more i think about this, the more i am inclined to consider a second
trusted root not (easily) attackable by the usg, who owns the root now,
This particular domain grab had nothing to do with the root or ICANN.
If you look at the name servers and WHOIS of the domains that were
seized, you can
For several decades the USG has made it crystal clear that they do
not mess with ccTLDs, not even ones for countries they don't like
such as .CU and .IR.
possibly clear to you. the factual experience is that this statement is
patently false to those dealing with those particular cctlds.
Randy,
Can you cite specific examples of USG interfering with ccTLDs?
Jeff
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
For several decades the USG has made it crystal clear that they do
not mess with ccTLDs, not even ones for countries they don't like
such as .CU and
Can you cite specific examples of USG interfering with ccTLDs?
For several decades the USG has made it crystal clear that they do
not mess with ccTLDs, not even ones for countries they don't like
such as .CU and .IR.
possibly clear to you. the factual experience is that this statement is
as for the alt root servers idea, in case you didnt see this:
http://twitter.com/brokep/status/8779363872935936
(Nods to Richard Sexton :)
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA
Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front
Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law
find yourself a ccTLD.
Jeff
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
as for the alt root servers idea, in case you didnt see this:
http://twitter.com/brokep/status/8779363872935936
(Nods to Richard
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:52:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said:
Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law
find yourself a ccTLD.
Perhaps for his reasons at the time yes, but I'm applying it to the topic of
the suspended-for-now-bill that allows blocking of any domain in
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:52:50AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said:
Super unnecessary. If you want to be outside the grasp of U.S. law
find yourself a ccTLD.
Perhaps for his reasons at the time yes, but I'm applying it to the topic of
the suspended-for-now-bill that allows blocking of any domain in
* Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote:
This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver
based blacklist of child porn sites.
Swedish ISPs are required to enforce a DNS blacklist for childporn, perhaps
also other European countries. The list is maintained by
Joakim Aronius joa...@aronius.com writes:
* Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote:
This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver
based blacklist of child porn sites.
Swedish ISPs are required to enforce a DNS blacklist for childporn,
perhaps also other
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Joakim Aronius joa...@aronius.com writes:
* Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) wrote:
This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver
based blacklist of child porn sites.
Swedish ISPs are required to enforce a DNS
On Nov 19, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee
with a unanimous (!) vote :
COICA appears to be dead for this year.
Ron Wyden (D Oregon) has put a hold on
On 2010-11-22, at 00:00, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is
once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet
safe /sarcasm
You don't think
(i) a service
On 11/22/2010 10:25 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
You don't think
(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17,
United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take
reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that
You don't think
(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of =
title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system =
server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from =
resolving to that domain name=92s Internet protocol
On 2010-11-22, at 10:43, Joe Greco wrote:
It's funny, isn't it, didn't we just finish convincing the government
of the need for DNSSEC, making the DNS system more resistant to some
forms of tampering?
I guess if the manner of the interception was to send back SERVFAIL to DNS
clients whose
On Nov 22, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-11-22, at 00:00, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is
once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the
On 2010-11-22, at 10:35, Curtis Maurand wrote:
And where would the list that we need to block be gotten from?
bittorrent? :-)
On Nov 22, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
I guess if the manner of the interception was to send back SERVFAIL to DNS
clients whose queries were (in some sense) objectionable, the result would be
that the clients were not able to resolve the (in some sense) bad names.
Quantifying the
The more I think about this COICA deal the more I can't even fathom how it
could be implemented.
If an upstream server won't resolve, what's to stop a network admin from using
an offshored DNS server, or even the root servers?
Unless we're talking about keeping DNS traffic confined to the
On 11/22/2010 07:47 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
The more I think about this COICA deal the more I can't even fathom
how it could be implemented.
If an upstream server won't resolve, what's to stop a network admin
from using an offshored DNS server, or even the root servers?
The way I read it its
On 11/19/2010 03:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act
(COICA) passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a
unanimous (!) vote :
This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver
based blacklist of child porn sites.
There are also of course the various great firewalls of various
countries. In case you'd prefer that to having to blacklist them at
your end ..
Doing this for trademark infringement is going
Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is
once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet
safe /sarcasm
Jeff
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jeffrey S. Young yo...@jsyoung.net wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said:
Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is
once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet
safe /sarcasm
When I ran
My two cents is that something like this won't pass until at least
2016 if not 2020.
Jeff
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said:
Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee
with a unanimous (!) vote :
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unanimous-support.ars
78 matches
Mail list logo
