[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / exm / femdom / general / hisrol / just / mental ][Options][ watchlist ]

/tech/ - Technology

You can now write text to your AI-generated image at https://aiproto.com It is currently free to use for Proto members.
Email
Comment *
File
Select/drop/paste files here
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Expand all images

File (hide): eaebfc8683eec11⋯.jpg (193.19 KB, 1010x673, 1010:673, 2 048.jpg) (h) (u)

[–]

 No.990043>>990058 >>990192 >>990260 [Watch Thread][Show All Posts]

>The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has formally adopted DNS-over-HTTPS as a standard, and reignited a debate over whether it's a danger to the web's infrastructure.

>The IETF gave the proposal its blessing late last week by elevating it to Request For Comment (RFC) level as RFC 8484.

>The idea was to guarantee the confidentiality and integrity of DNS lookups, as co-author Mozilla's Patrick McManus explained to The Register in December 2017, because governments and bad actors alike interfere or snoop on DNS requests.

>Encryption provides confidentiality, quite simply because instead of sending a plain-text DNS request over UDP, RFC 8484 sends it over HTTPS, secured by Transport Layer Security (TLS). Integrity protection comes from using the server's public key to guarantee that nobody's spoofing the DNS server.

>Those sound like good things, but Mauritian coder and contributor to IETF work Logan Velvindron pointed out to The Reg that not everybody's happy about the RFC.

>Paul Vixie, one of the architects of the DNS, reckoned it's nothing short of a disaster. On Friday, he tweeted: "RFC 8484 is a cluster duck for internet security. Sorry to rain on your parade. The inmates have taken over the asylum."

>Vixie has said that DoH is incompatible with the basic architecture of the DNS because it moves control plane (signalling) messages to the data plane (message forwarding), and that's a no-no.

>Network admins, he argued on Twitter, need to be able to see and analyse DNS activity, and DoH prevents that. "DoH is an over the top bypass of enterprise and other private networks. But DNS is part of the control plane, and network operators must be able to monitor and filter it. Use DoT, never DoH."

>DoT is DNS over TLS, RFC 7858, a separate standard from DoH that works towards the same integrity and privacy aims.

Thoughts?

Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/10/23/paul_vixie_slaps_doh_as_dns_privacy_feature_becomes_a_standard/

 No.990046

File (hide): a4f347e07169d50⋯.jpg (11.26 KB, 184x184, 1:1, mmm.jpg) (h) (u)

how is this going to affect retarded average joe like me? all dns will goes using https, then what?

t.systemd user


 No.990054>>990057

consider the average DNS packet vs the average HTTPS connection handshake and response.

We're talking a 1000x bloat on all website name lookups.


 No.990057>>990059 >>990181

>>990054

<not caching the result in your local resolver


 No.990058>>990068 >>990070 >>990073

>>990043 (OP)

If we're doing dns over http, does that mean that a compromised CA can issue whatever responses to dns queries they want? Sounds like its good for gov and bad for hackers.

Also,

> Mauritian coder Logan Velvindron

> getting the opinions of literal pajeets


 No.990059

>>990057

>caching a result makes looking it up the first time faster


 No.990068>>990070

>>990058

How would would it be good for CIA niggers?


 No.990070

>>990058

Yes.

>>990068

DNS rebind attacks to compromising material.


 No.990073

>>990058

All five eyes partners have root certificate access, meaning this would allow mass DNS harvesting which is perfectly "legal".


 No.990079

so the debate is whether we should have black box dns or filtering program

thats terrible set of choices


 No.990086>>990094 >>990187

Does anyone use DNSCrypt here? Can anyone suggest good servers?

Fucking OpenNIC is unreliable so I'm basically stuck with CloudFlare.


 No.990092

KIKES JUST CAN'T STOP WINNING


 No.990094

>>990086

ns7.nh.nl.dns.opennic.glue

This one has been working reliably for me for years.


 No.990121>>990131 >>990133

So why is this exactly an issue? From my understanding, the people in the article are complaining that they won't be able to monitor DNS requests themselves anymore. Well, that's the fucking point.


 No.990131

>>990121

DoH is like putting the address label for a package on the inside of the box. It affords some privacy but it also makes the postman's job difficult if not impossible in the event that the shipment process has a hiccup.

DoT would not have this problem, but it won't work unless all post offices support it.


 No.990133

>>990121

>From the pot to the frying pan

ThisIsFine.jpg


 No.990181>>990202

File (hide): bb368d9d5dd9940⋯.jpg (108.49 KB, 1000x699, 1000:699, dns_discussion.jpg) (h) (u)

>>990057

>cache the result in your local resolver

>botnet switches to DNS over HTTPS

>chromium/pozfox throw unbypassable HTTPS certificate warning boxes when you try to hit your local DNS server instead of the botnet DNS server, refusing to use it.

>forced to switch to botnet DNS instead of local DNS.

<HTTPS cert jews make bank

how is this supposed to work on internal networks?

how are routers going to cache dns queries?


 No.990184>>990391

Suicide is the only option now.


 No.990187>>990231

>>990086

OpenNIC is fine, you just need to do a little research and maybe have a few backup choices. Having a local resolver like dnsmasq helps. OpenNIC have a dynamic dns aggregator for emergencies.

Knowledge is its own reward, and the time spent is a small price to pay for having greater control over your computing.


 No.990192>>990197

>>990043 (OP)

>because governments and bad actors alike interfere or snoop on DNS requests

>bad actors

By this they mean anyone that might oppose Google.


 No.990197

>>990192

Safe to say Google won the war on the internet. We're fucking fucked. We shouldn't have doubted the blackpill faggot.


 No.990202>>990215

>>990181

You can probably set up a public/private key pair for encryption purposes.


 No.990215>>990217

>>990202

this defeats the purpose though, and the browsers will likely reject it. I have never successfully gotten chromium to accept a self-signed certificate, at least I can still bypass the warning page, but I'm sure at some point they will remove that option too and pozfox will follow.

right now literally everything caches dns queries, the router, your browser, your system (systemD or dnsmasq if you have that setup), this eliminates all that caching except for the browser. is this what they propose?

https is also a resource hog on a lot of routers. i don't think most cheap routers would be able to handle https/dns even if you could generate a self signed certificate and the browser accepted it.


 No.990217

>>990215

to see what i mean about https being a resource hog on routers try switching the admin page to https on dd-wrt/open-wrt/tomato, click around a few status pages and look at the load. now switch to http and look at the load difference. https just doing the admin page can load 50% of the cpu, imagine this with DNS and constant queries, the router will lock up.


 No.990231

>>990187

The issue I had is that the resolvers from here https://download.dnscrypt.info/dnscrypt-resolvers/v2/opennic.md tend to be unreachable more often than I'd like to.


 No.990260

>>990043 (OP)

It should be optional for the purposes of managing an internal network without installing software or changing settings on each individual computer. Great as a way to communicate outside of the intranet, but keep the inside open. Yes I know there are ways around having DNS over https in the network, but those require significant change and money.


 No.990271>>990432

>dns over https

>when dnscrypt exists

Seriously why the fuck


 No.990391

>>990184

What are you waiting for then?


 No.990432>>990599

File (hide): e0e11742ccec427⋯.jpg (30.54 KB, 628x314, 2:1, 952.jpg) (h) (u)

>>990271

When was the last update?


 No.990599>>990609

>>990432

>he measures the quality of a project by how often cruft is added


 No.990609

>>990599

<someone doesn't read the latest CVEs




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Screencap][Nerve Center][Cancer][Update] ( Scroll to new posts) ( Auto) 5
30 replies | 3 images | Page ???
[Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / exm / femdom / general / hisrol / just / mental ][ watchlist ]