Discussion on:
View:
Show:
... of this topic. That pretty much confirms my own thoughts on the subject. And thanks for the mention!
"Concise" is where I was aiming.
How could I not mention you? That conversation is half the reason I wrote this article!
How could I not mention you? That conversation is half the reason I wrote this article!
I didn't know you were writing for TFM (probably because I have only been to that site maybe twice, ever). Is this a regular gig for you?
Yup, been writing there from the beginning. 
I write there whenever I feel like it. No one involved in it gets any money for it, so it is really just a place for me to write stuff that doesn't fit in here at TR. I experimented a bit with stepping outside P&D on TR a bit, but with only one P&D writer for 2009, that would have left P&D short on content.
I mostly post sys admin related tips/tricks there, the stuff that drives me nuts and I can't easily find an answer to them on search engines, but once in a blue moon I'll have an "analysis" type piece too.
J.Ja
I write there whenever I feel like it. No one involved in it gets any money for it, so it is really just a place for me to write stuff that doesn't fit in here at TR. I experimented a bit with stepping outside P&D on TR a bit, but with only one P&D writer for 2009, that would have left P&D short on content.I mostly post sys admin related tips/tricks there, the stuff that drives me nuts and I can't easily find an answer to them on search engines, but once in a blue moon I'll have an "analysis" type piece too.
J.Ja
I was going to drop this in with the Wave discussion but it fits here also. The google management possition of only those with something to hide worrying about data safety.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/
What a fallacious argument. I shouldn't have to expose all of my data and browsing habits just because I have nothing to fear. If I want to do things privately and anonymously, I should be able to do so regardless of what I'm doing.
I've been thinking about whether I can come up with enough informative stuff to say about that to make an article of it.
Maybe 6.6.6.6 should be reserved for Karl Rove?
"If you think you cannot trust Google with your DNS request history, you really should think twice about trusting at least most ISPs"
The trust isn't from what the DNS provider knows about you, the trust is in the DNS provider not getting owned and pointing all my banks requests to a server in Russia you moron.
For an IT Consultant your article points out you are pretty ignorant.
Time to learn something about what happens when machines get owned instead of trying to get MS Certs.
All that schooling was a waste.....
The trust isn't from what the DNS provider knows about you, the trust is in the DNS provider not getting owned and pointing all my banks requests to a server in Russia you moron.
For an IT Consultant your article points out you are pretty ignorant.
Time to learn something about what happens when machines get owned instead of trying to get MS Certs.
All that schooling was a waste.....
DNS rebinding sucks and limits trust in the protocol. Unless your doing DNS related research or programming, you can't do much more than understand the risk. It does no good to overhype the situation when it's already being publicly discussed. The trust in DNS alone has also been discussed in other articles.
The part your missing is trust in the company providing the service regardless of the protocols it happens to use. Does it really matter than one can redirect your DNS responses when the organization collecting your string of DNS queries along with any other information available is willing to misuse that identifiable data?
Consider an information spunge consolidating information from many other intimate sources; email, office documents, calendar, search queries, global positions, DNS, social associates (friends and .orgs).. You don't think it's worth taking at least a minute to consider the potential implications and compare them to other DNS sources?
I'll give you one thing, you know how to start a conversation. I hope you'll continue the conversation if the article author responds.
The part your missing is trust in the company providing the service regardless of the protocols it happens to use. Does it really matter than one can redirect your DNS responses when the organization collecting your string of DNS queries along with any other information available is willing to misuse that identifiable data?
Consider an information spunge consolidating information from many other intimate sources; email, office documents, calendar, search queries, global positions, DNS, social associates (friends and .orgs).. You don't think it's worth taking at least a minute to consider the potential implications and compare them to other DNS sources?
I'll give you one thing, you know how to start a conversation. I hope you'll continue the conversation if the article author responds.
I brushed up against the problems of DNS server security itself, but that wasn't the topic of the article. The fact this person doesn't realize there's more to security than the strictly technical challenges of running a DNS server is not something I'm going to be able to address, and the fact that person thinks my life revolves around MS certifications is laughably off-target.
What is there for me to say in response to this? I know that DNS spoofing is a security issue, but this article is about Google Public DNS, not DNS server configuration.
What is there for me to say in response to this? I know that DNS spoofing is a security issue, but this article is about Google Public DNS, not DNS server configuration.
I guess there isn't much productive that would come out of such a discussion given that the person is either lacking information or willfully ignoring.
That is pretty harsh. What we are talking about is the largest AD company in the world. They collect information from all legally available sources to build a profile of you. If you use google search and google DNS at the same time, they get to analyze 100% of your HTTP destinations. That was point as I understand it.
Sure, google could get hacked but so could you. I don't think Comcast is any more hardened against DNS poisoning than google but I won't claim to know anything about what security measures they employ. Are you familiar with their security hardware? Is it lower quality?
Sure, google could get hacked but so could you. I don't think Comcast is any more hardened against DNS poisoning than google but I won't claim to know anything about what security measures they employ. Are you familiar with their security hardware? Is it lower quality?
Google DNS, OpenDNS, an ISP's DNS servers, etc. -- I don't need any of them.
For years I've had DNS servers running on my private networks, that would go straight to Root Hints if they didn't already know the answer or have it cached.
Why do it any other way?
For years I've had DNS servers running on my private networks, that would go straight to Root Hints if they didn't already know the answer or have it cached.
Why do it any other way?
... is my guess. Google's never been good at the enterprise play. They try to be, but not very hard.
J.Ja
J.Ja
In short, this is a velvet revolution. I like google, personally. I use many of their products. I dislike monopoly or any company being this diversified. They can't do everything right and will eventually try to grab outside their reach.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
