Max,
On May 23, 2022, at 9:12 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
> 11.05.22 15:31, Masataka Ohta пише:
>> There are various ways, such as crawling the web, to enumerate
>> domain names.
>
> Come on, web is dying! People are moving to mobile applications!
> So more and more domains do not need any web site
11.05.22 15:31, Masataka Ohta пише:
As I wrote:
But some spam actors
deliberately compared zone file editions to single out additions, and
then harass the owners of newly registered domains, both by e-mail and
phone.
If that is a serious concern, stop whois.
There are various ways, such as
On 12/05/2022 11:16, Masataka Ohta wrote:
John McCormac wrote:
There are various ways, such as crawling the web, to enumerate
domain names.
That is not an efficient method.
Not a problem for large companies or botnet. So, only
small legal players suffer from hiding zone information.
John McCormac wrote:
There are various ways, such as crawling the web, to enumerate
domain names.
That is not an efficient method.
Not a problem for large companies or botnet. So, only
small legal players suffer from hiding zone information.
For example, large companies such as google
On 5/6/22 5:58 PM, Amir Herzberg wrote:
Hi NANOGers,
Questions:
- Do you find zone enumeration a real concern?
I have found that some people who are concerned about such things will have LetsEncrypt certs for
many of the same hosts they were worried about - which of course makes the DNS
On 11/05/2022 13:31, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As I wrote:
But some spam actors
deliberately compared zone file editions to single out additions, and
then harass the owners of newly registered domains, both by e-mail and
phone.
If that is a serious concern, stop whois.
There are various ways,
As I wrote:
But some spam actors
deliberately compared zone file editions to single out additions, and
then harass the owners of newly registered domains, both by e-mail and
phone.
If that is a serious concern, stop whois.
There are various ways, such as crawling the web, to enumerate
Rubens Kuhl wrote:
But some spam actors
deliberately compared zone file editions to single out additions, and
then harass the owners of newly registered domains, both by e-mail and
phone.
If that is a serious concern, stop whois.
A wrench can be a tool or a weapon, depending on how one uses
It appears that Rubens Kuhl said:
>> It's perfectly reasonable to claim a database right in the WHOIS data,
>> but the offense is scraping WHOIS, not enumerating the DNS zone. ...
>The zone file could be seen as an accessory to the database rip-off.
>For instance, it would be hard to see such a
> It's perfectly reasonable to claim a database right in the WHOIS data,
> but the offense is scraping WHOIS, not enumerating the DNS zone.
>
> I could enumerate the DNS zone twice a day every day and so long as I stayed
> away from WHOIS, nobody would notice or care.
The zone file could be seen
It appears that Ray Bellis said:
>
>> Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS
>> zone?
>
>> It seems like a rather stupid thing to do. If someone asserted such a
>> right, I would make sure not to infringe it by ensuring no entries
>> from that database
Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS
zone?
German law has something to goes somewhat near it, although closer to
a mandate rather than a right:
https://www.denic.de/en/faqs/faqs-for-domain-holders/#code-154
Similar regulation also
> Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS
> zone?
German law has something to goes somewhat near it, although closer to
a mandate rather than a right:
https://www.denic.de/en/faqs/faqs-for-domain-holders/#code-154
Rubens
On 09/05/2022 00:10, Ray Bellis wrote:
Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS
zone?
It seems like a rather stupid thing to do. If someone asserted such a
right, I would make sure not to infringe it by ensuring no entries
from that database entered my
> Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS
> zone?
> It seems like a rather stupid thing to do. If someone asserted such a
> right, I would make sure not to infringe it by ensuring no entries
> from that database entered my DNS caches or other software.
It
It appears that Ray Bellis said:
>> On March 27, 1991, in a case that transformed the nascent online database
>> publishing industry, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no
>copyright protection for purely factual products such as a telephone directory
>white pages.
>
>I wasn’t
On 5/8/22 19:48, Warren Kumari wrote:
If zone enumeration was not a real concern, NSEC3 would not exist.
Ackchyually, that's only partly true — a significant amount of the
driver (some would say hte large majority) behind NSEC3 was that it
supports "opt-out". This was important in very
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 9:18 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 08:58:51PM -0400, Amir Herzberg wrote:
>
> Hi NANOGers,
>
> I have a small question re DNSSEC `proof of non-existence' records: NSEC,
> NSEC3 and the (dead?) NSEC5 proposal.
>
> NSEC3 was motivated as a
> method
> On 7 May 2022, at 17:37, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> I don’t think copyright can enter into it, by dint of the fact that
> registry data, being purely factual and publicly available, cannot be
> copyrighted.
>
> On March 27, 1991, in a case that transformed the nascent online database
>
For some reason NANOG is quoting my original reply in base64 encoding. I did
not specify that on my end, so I’m not sure what is going on here.
-mel
> On May 7, 2022, at 12:08 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> --_000_D1647C55C4B34117851B3D01FD4CAC89beckmanorg_
> Content-Type: text/plain;
Actually, that source quotes the Feist decision. The rest of the discussion
makes it pretty clear that domain registries are not copyrightable.
“Thus, a database of unprotectable works (such as basic facts) is protected
only as a compilation. Since the underlying data is not protected, U.S.
* m...@beckman.org (Mel Beckman) [Sat 07 May 2022, 18:38 CEST]:
I don’t think copyright can enter into it, by dint of the fact that
registry data, being purely factual and publicly available, cannot
be copyrighted.
I'm not a lawyer nor pretend to be one on the internet but
I don’t think copyright can enter into it, by dint of the fact that registry
data, being purely factual and publicly available, cannot be copyrighted.
On March 27, 1991, in a case that transformed the nascent online database
publishing industry, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there
On 07/05/2022 02:18, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
If zone enumeration was not a real concern, NSEC3 would not
exist. However, public DNS is a public tree and so we should have
limited expectations for hiding names in it.
A significant motivation was to help defend database copyright in the
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 08:58:51PM -0400, Amir Herzberg wrote:
> Hi NANOGers,
>
> I have a small question re DNSSEC `proof of non-existence' records: NSEC,
> NSEC3 and the (dead?) NSEC5 proposal.
>
> NSEC3 was motivated as a
> method to prevent Zone enumeration, then Berenstein showed its
25 matches
Mail list logo
