IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] deploying security

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 06 March 2014 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650321A01CF for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:55:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mQHvw7d2ItSu for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:55:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157A81A00AE for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 07:55:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s26FtlEB078368; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:55:47 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201403061555.s26FtlEB078368@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 06 Mar 2014 14:39:51 GMT. <20140306143951.GB5102@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 16:55:47 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/51yRXdSnseJp3aLtXusth6hcb2k
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org, Hosnieh Rafiee <ietf@rozanak.com>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] deploying security
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:55:53 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  If we follow this line of reasoning, why do we deploy more security,
>  then?

=> because we want (and as you noticed they don't want).

>  With this argument, we would never have deployed HTTPS
>  either.

=> have we? I am afraid most HTTPS are MITM'ed where SSH & co are
blocked.

>  (Or SSH: most hotspots and many ISP block SSH.)

=> I know and it is a shame! BTW for ISP it is for me a good (and
enough) reason to go another one (fortunately in France ISP
competition is high: no NAT, no silly filters, less than 20 EUR
per month for 20Mbits/s triple play...)

>  We promised in Vancouver to seriously strengthen the Internet against
>  surveillance. Was it an empty promise, politician-style?

=> the political side is politician-style, do you have a doubt?

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email