On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:
Have we ascertained if there is a typical configuration adjustment
that can be made to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of impact?
I think your best tactic is: Provide specified DNS resolver cache servers.
Don't use
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Ulf Zimmermann u...@alameda.net wrote:
We have a number of customers in the DC area on Verizon Fios who can talk
to us using http, but not https. Linkedin also tweeted there are issues via
Verzion Fios.
Verizon support so far denies everything.
Anyone else
Why would a CPE have an open DNS resolver from the WAN side?
Gary Baribault
On 03/14/2014 12:45 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Well, at least all this CPE checks in for security updates every night so
this should be fixable. Oh wait, no, nevermind, they don't. :-(
This is getting to be the
Why would a CPE have an open DNS resolver from the WAN side?
Honest to god, are you new to computers or something?
People have been writing just good enough code since the beginning.
A resolver package binds to *:53 by default. Some poor firmware guys
with no security experience, deadlines,
* John R. Levine:
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an
inter-governmental organization,
It was able to obtain a delegation for ITU.INT, so it's
inter-governmental enough in DNS terms.
Good question, but the reality is that a lot of them are this way. They just
forward everything from any source. Maybe it was designed that way to support
DDoS as a use case.
Imagine a simple iptables rule like -p udp --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 4.2.2.4
I think some forwarders work this way - the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
That's a good question, but I know that during the ongoing survey
within the Open Resolver Project [http://openresolverproject.org/],
Jared found thousands of CPE devices which responded as resolvers.
Further work needs to go into fingerprinting
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an
inter-governmental organization,
It was able to obtain a delegation for ITU.INT, so it's
inter-governmental enough in DNS terms.
Yes, it was delegated a month before TPC.INT was. Could you clarify
the point you're making?
R's,
John
(As if the US has control anyway)
It's all over the popular press, strange I haven't seen it here.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control
On 3/15/2014 7:39 AM, Bob Evans wrote:
It's nice of the DoC to relinquish control, but I really don't see it
changing much other than quieting down some hype from countries that were
saying they were pissed at the US for controlling the Internet. And I
couldn't really see those countries doing
Bob Evans wrote:
(As if the US has control anyway)
It's all over the popular press, strange I haven't seen it here.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200889-us-to-relinquish-internet-control
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:17 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Let's hope you're right, but I note that the ITU isn't an
inter-governmental organization,
It was able to obtain a delegation for ITU.INT, so it's
inter-governmental enough in DNS terms.
Yes, it was delegated a month
The ITU is an agency of the United Nations.Which is an organization
created by treaty, of which various nations' governments are members.
Actually, the ITU is more than twice as old as the UN, and merged with the
UN in 1947. As noted in a previous message, the ITU has both government
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 08:08:47PM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
The ITU is an agency of the United Nations.Which is an organization
created by treaty, of which various nations' governments are members.
Actually, the ITU is more than twice as old as the UN, and merged with the
UN in
What's the worst they can do at this point? Make .bobtodd and
.bubbagump TLDs? This is different from some of the crap we've got now
in what way??
Well, ICANN has come pretty close to delegating .HOME and .CORP to domain
speculators, despite the vast amount of informal use which would get
What's the worst they can do at this point? Make .bobtodd and
.bubbagump TLDs? This is different from some of the crap we've got now
in what way??
I’m not too worried about what they could do to TLDs… It would be hard to make
a bigger mess than ICANN already has.
On the other hand, I am
Owen DeLong wrote:
What's the worst they can do at this point? Make .bobtodd and
.bubbagump TLDs? This is different from some of the crap we've got now
in what way??
I’m not too worried about what they could do to TLDs… It would be hard to make
a bigger mess than ICANN already has.
On the
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On the other hand, I am very concerned about what they would do to the
numbers side of things..
Just keep their grubby paws off the IETF and the internet standards
process. I doubt there's much reason for concern. IPv4
18 matches
Mail list logo
