Discussion on:

Shadow DNS is in the works: Do we need a second Internet?

as alluded to in your post, how would users connect to this shadow internet? Would there be providers willing to set up and maintain a second set of servers?
Sounds good in theory, but the devil is in the details, especially the financial part. Who knows though, maybe some rich philanthropist will feel sorry for the rest of us.
Sometimes I miss BBSes, Gopher (that one was quite handy for research), Archie, Veronica...yes, I miss the days of listening to my old 300 baud modem handshaking with the CIS Mail system, hehe! When I finally got my hands on a 2400 baud USR Courier, whew, I was in tall cotton! Maybe just a revival of "Gopher net" for a second "internet"?

I think the idea is to setup a separate DNS system while still using the existing wires. The example I'm thinking of is a Darknet where a few machines are connected together. They may use VPN and internal DNS but they still transfer the encrypted data over the standard wires.

Achilles Heel.

Completely separate circuitry could facilitate unchecked harmful activities. Like having buildings and roads in a country that are completely separate to it.

the way the US has tried to stop wikileaks and how others sites are censored is by removing them from DNS, so you copy the existing DNS and add the missing bits. As users you just set the new dns as your alternate and when a name is not resolved on the original the alternate gives you the ip address and it all works.

That's not how the alternate DNS server config works, at least not in Windows. It only uses an alternate DNS server if your primary one is offline, not if you get a negative response. I am pretty sure it's the same for other OS flavors as well.

Distributed DNS would mean that everyone has a copy, rather than relying on one central server. If everyone were their own DNS server they could backup their DNS settings and restore as needed. Then they could easily just get DNS updates from ICANN or whomever, and when they dont like what ICANN has provided, they can roll-back that entry, and lock that entry from updating.

This is just an example of the level of control you could potentially have with distributed DNS. This could actually easily be done with a simple desktop application and your host file or linux/mac equivilant.

It seems it'd simply be a local Hosts file with a utility to manage it.

That is what I was saying in my post titled "Missing the Point".

I would think an application that, by default saves versions of every URL/IP combination, and allows you to roll back, set permenant (lock), and manually over-ride any URL's IP pointer.
It could save this information in its own database (encrypted) and update the host file with the master set which comes out of it.

Might be some issues with new windows 7 hard controls on saving to host file. But I am sure we can find a work around to that.

It should come as no surprise that Microsoft would have provided a hurdle to that approach.

It is actually a good thing that microsoft has done something to protect this all to valuable system file. It makes it much hard for a virus or spyware to poison the file. The only way to save the the file that I know of is to run notepad as administrator, open hosts in that pad, and then save it from there.

Microsoft has taken a pretty piss-poor approach to protecting it, though. The legitimate user should not be stripped of power to "protect" him or her.

sudo vi /etc/hosts

runas /u:administrator notepad.exe \windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

In both cases one needs elevated privileged to edit the hosts. Does BSD leave it open for any system user?

What does that have to do with preventing people from using custom hosts files in an effective, convenient manner?

edit: I'm having trouble finding reference to something, and I do not have a Win7 system available to check it. Does it, or does it not, prevent one from (as the administrative user account) setting up scripts that can be used to programmatically alter the hosts file according to preset conditions? I'm starting to doubt my thinking.

It wasn't for or against how Microsoft implements the Hosts file but simply that limiting edit permission to an admin account seems common across among it and other OS. Of course, in both cases the next question becomes; ok, so how does the OS implement privileged separation.

--------

Next time I boot my notebook over the win7 I'll check out what it's doing.

the vagueness of the statement can be construed as over-statement.

That is, I don't think there is any particular hurdle for an admin user to edit \hosts.

edit:
After re-reading and a little search, it sounds like a bug of this nature exists, but I can't see why only the Notepad method would work.

ugh - edit:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923947
(Anyone ever forget their keys twice?)

or rather, all the other M$ text editors are strange, since they can't be used for editing any scripting usefully.
I guess it's near impossible to stop them from adding all sorts of hidden marks and mess up the formating.

But you have to jump through hoops to make sure it saves your scripts as raw text.

I can't recall the last time I ever used either Notepad or Wordpad. They're awful.

MS just says "Notepad" because it is the ubiquitous Windows text editor. MS also is only referring to editing the HOSTS file - not running scripts. Now, I didn't really buy into this limitation, but apparently there is a bug feature that, even with appropriate rights, a user may not be able to modify the HOSTS file without running Notepad or something as Administrator, even when logged in as the Administrator. I assume any script could be run under the appropriate account, but the article mayindicate that this may not work.

Reading the OP and MS, I'm not exactly sure what exactly the specific facts are here. Is it just that an Admin may still need to Notepad → RunAs Admin to edit HOSTS, or do other means of interacting with HOSTS (scripting, CLI) run afoul of this same feature?

I've never had to open Notepad as admin to edit the Hosts file, but that's only in versions through XP.

I managed to ignore Vista and work has kept me too busy to play with 7 very much.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/923947

Have not seen this myself, so I'm not sure what all is entailed with this bug.

Open the Hosts file or the Lmhosts file, make the necessary changes, and then click Save on the Edit menu. If using Windows 7, you will need to click Save on the File menu.

WTF? Notepad has been around for decades! Did they change the menu layout just for Vista?

to edit all kinds of similar files in Vista/XP.

It is a good way to change the bootini file in XP too!

After thinking about this and discussing with colleagues over lunch and reading other posts on this, I have come to the conclusion that it is a rather futile excercise as things could just as easily be taken down from the backbone on IPs. If a server is in an IP range of ARIN, the US could just use that to shut it down. But it doesnt stop foreign mirrors.

Definitely not perfect anyways.

...most of the comments, I had basically one central though - "whose dime?".

This entire clamor over freedom in something you are dependent on and have no control over is frivolous.

If you desire an Internet of your liking, then by all means raise capital, acquire assets, subscribe customers, and maintain your services.

On the other hand, if you are renting a resource from an ISP, then you are subject to their rules and regulations. If you disagree with their governance, then find another provider or negotiate a new contract.

I grow weary of whiners attempting to tell the providers what and how. If you have such a glorious revelation and cannot perceive how it should operate any other way, then build your dream. Otherwise, shut up.

well said.

Execept it would be impossible for anyone to raise enough capital to build an entire infrastructure. oh, and no matter what, that infrastructure is built on a countries land or airspace (to reach people on land at least), so you would have to follow their laws.

If you read a little more closely, you might notice that most of the discussion is about technical solutions that amount to essentially building an alternate infrastructure, whether virtual, material, or broadcast.

. . . so either help, or shut up and let people do exactly what you said they should do.

Is that you, Absolutely?

I actually kinda miss seeing Absolutely around these parts. Anyway, "shut up" was just using dwdino's words against him/her. I would have thought that was obvious.

It was just that the whole tenure of your post so very much reminded me of the other.

And, yeah, I miss him too.

or get outta the way!

Some uses you are up to. This is one of them, albeit flighty and peripheral.

Come war, where are you?

> There are Some uses you are up to.

Are you only just now figuring this out? I do have some underlying purposes that drive my choices of topic (though not my technical assessments, per se) -- ulterior motives, one might say. I would think that anyone paying attention would have figured that out a long time ago, even if my less-spoken purposes are not what some might assume.

Or be ye a fair-weather friend, arr?

That's how I read it.

I understood the question. I chose to avoid answering.

Anyone who answers that question under such circumstances, regardless of the answer given, is either a liar or a fool (or something much more sinister, but that's another matter entirely).

-I at least- get a feeling that I'm reading pulp pamphlets. Lots of form, and lots of terror - but little with which to deal. Pre-chewed.

It creates the feeling that the messenger is only delivering the message, not caring about its content, nor about the continuity that it came out of.

Also it feels like the messenger is not speaking to us/me individually, nor even as a collective, but merely delivering a line out of a script.

I'm not saying that that's you. But this is what the Dean's challenge reminded me of. And why would he ask if he meant to tell you in stead?

Anyway, I know your MO, you usually weaponize in the discussions. That's what we crave, tell us how to best straighten out our schythes, figuratively speaking.

Oh, well.

edit: I must admit I grow impatient with distraction from purpose by . . . frippery. It's a bit of a failing. Sometimes a court jester is valuable, but all too often he's just a great way to eliminate what little effectiveness those not in a position of power can muster.

You put some of the substance in the follow-up discussion.

Some put most of the substance in the main blog, and less in the follow-up.

Some put little substance in either.

I realize that it's a very hard balance to find. Saying enough up front, but not making it too dense or technical - especially if one knows enough to make it really dense and really technical.

But, don't take this too seriously. I was musing, is all.

I haven't taken anything amiss, I think. I'm just discussing particulars here.

Otherwise I would have believed you don't quite get it, after all.

But just what are the circumstances you fear?

"But just what are the circumstances you fear?"

You're kidding, right?

I think you should refer to apotheon's previous answer about fools and liars for your answer to this question.

You get more and more interesting.

Did you ever wonder what cyberwar 'they' were preparing for?

We have met the enemy...

With buildings full of brains devoted to psychohistory (if you don't get that reference...) what might you come up with?

Does he live in the back country of Montana with a five-mile driveway covered by a dozen video cameras?

I think I recognize his basic structure.

"Prime" has no existence of its own. "Prime" needs to be anchored.

Likewise, when I wrote, "There are" -- unless you speak as God -- that, too, needs to be anchored.

What I did when I wrote, "There are", was to suck in the vulnerable, if they could be sucked in.

You were sucked in.

That was *not* challenge. Sucking me in. It's just cruel to take advantage of my naivte'.

And it might be fattening.

The primary object of my message, you would be right. Happens, though, that you were secondary...

Happens, also, I think, that I will go without and starve with respect to the primary.

... catch what catch can.

Less sport maybe, but variety is one of them spices of life.

EDIT: I'm out of it, it's "catch what catch did", obviously...

There's a difference between:

1. paranoia

2. being merely careful, and having a mind well-suited to thinking about security matters

Montana is awfully nice, though. Wide open spaces and clean air can be wonderful when you want to relax and get grounded, and ya gotta love what John Denver called "the wild Montana skies".

Alas, my memories of the place are so old and sketchy that they're more like a half-forgotten dream than a real experience I can call to mind. I should go back there some time and spend a few days sleeping under the stars.

I should make sure I do it during summer, though. If I go in winter, I'll try to aim for a cross-country skiing trip.