Dear merc1...@f-m.fm,
Is DNSSEC is not evil? To me it seems like the 1984 of domain name systems...
Please take a good look at the political implications of DNSSEC.
I personally do not understand why this Tor Project spec includes mention of
DNSSEC:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:33:34PM +, David Stainton wrote:
Dear merc1...@f-m.fm,
Is DNSSEC is not evil? To me it seems like the 1984 of domain name systems...
Please take a good look at the political implications of DNSSEC.
I personally do not understand why this Tor Project spec
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 10:19, Артур Истомин wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 04:33:34PM +, David Stainton wrote:
Dear merc1...@f-m.fm,
Is DNSSEC is not evil? To me it seems like the 1984 of domain name
systems...
Please take a good look at the political implications of DNSSEC.
merc1...@f-m.fm:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014, at 11:54, Mike Cardwell wrote:
The exit nodes do the DNS requests. The client doesn't see an IP address.
It connects to the Tor SOCKS interface and says, connect me to hostname
example.com on port N. It doesn't look up the IP address of
example.com
Does anyone know why TOR does not use DNSSEC? The only documentation I
found on the TORProject website for DNS does not actually explain how
DNS works on TOR. I infer it must be TCP, as TOR can not do UDP, and I
imagine that relay nodes must be the resolvers in order to resolve
.onion domains.
merc1...@f-m.fm:
Does anyone know why TOR does not use DNSSEC? The only documentation I
found on the TORProject website for DNS does not actually explain how
DNS works on TOR. I infer it must be TCP, as TOR can not do UDP, and I
imagine that relay nodes must be the resolvers in order to
