IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

Leigh Porter leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com
Tue Apr 24 14:30:15 UTC 2007



Don't forget to post to the list where you will do this so I can come 
and watch ;-)

Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
> Mr. Oquendo (I presume "Mr." but if it's "Ms." please accept my
> apologies...), it appears that there is little common ground between you and
> me.  So, rather than stringing this out for the next several days and boring
> everybody else to tears, I will say thanks for the "chat" and I look forward
> to continuing this in person over a beer or other libation at some future
> gathering.
>
> Marc 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. Oquendo [mailto:sil at infiltrated.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:58 AM
> To: Marcus H. Sachs
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)
>
> Alrighty... Since you pointed out this article I already read.
>
>
> // QUOTE //
> "This is the U.S. government stepping forward and showing leadership," 
> Douglas Maughan, an official with the Department of Homeland Security's
> Science and Technology Directorate, told United Press International.
> // END //
>
> Strong leadership? What are they implying they will lead. They can't even
> lead their own security issues and I've yet to see anything on GCN, FCW
> implying that mil or gov servers had their DNS servers hijacked. So what is
> proposed that they will lead?
>
> // MORE //
> The DNS Security Extensions Protocol, or DNSSec, is designed to end such
> abuse by allowing the instantaneous authentication of DNS information --
> effectively creating a series of digital keys for the system.
>  
> One lingering question -- largely academic until now -- has been who should
> hold the key for the so-called DNS Root Zone, the part of the system that
> sits above the so-called Top Level Domains, like .com and .org.
>
> ...
>  
> The draft lays out a series of options for who could be the holder, or
> "operator," of the Root Zone Key, essentially boiling down to a governmental
> agency or a contractor.
> // END //
>
>
> You mean like Verisign? Why should the US handpick a company or one of their
> contractors to manage this. You're implying that a PRIVATE CORPORATION would
> never follow the will of the one feeding it... I could as could anyone else
> point out the systemic abuse that would follow. One would have to be
> ignorant to ignore the potential for abuse not solely from a government
> whispering sweet nothings in the ear for sake of perhaps censorship, but
> what about the private abuse... No form of oversight other than the US and
> our Department of Terrorism and Paranoia Security are mentioned.
>
>
> // QUOTED //
> "Nowhere in the document do we make any proposal about the identity of the
> Root Key Operator," said Maughan, the cyber-security research and
> development manager for Homeland Security.
> // END QUOTE//
>
>
> Uh... In the same article it states "The draft lays out a series of options
> for who could be the holder, or "operator," of the Root Zone Key,
> essentially boiling down to a governmental agency or a contractor." Yet here
> is Maughan stating "Oh no... DHS and the US government won't pick who holds
> keys..."
>
>
> // QUOTE //
> "The Root Key Operator is going to be in a highly trusted position. It's
> going to be a highly trusted entity. The idea that anyone in that position
> would abuse it to spoof addresses is just silly."
> // END //
>
>
> The idea that it has a huge potential for abuse is not silly. I can see
> where some would be either too good hearted to take heed to common logic,
> but the potential for abuse is right smack dab in anyone's face. You pointed
> out the article Mr. Sachs, so please explain to me how you can now come back
> and state "But the DHS has no intention on controlling the key... Sure they
> intend on handpicking who does, but that doesn't mean said company will not
> follow what it is mandated to do by US government, nor will said company
> abuse it on their own."
>
> I can point out hundreds of contractors with the government who so blatantly
> con the government and circumvent laws. But that would be geared towards a
> political mailing list, not this one.
> So if we're to stick to the facts, getting the gist out of the article you
> chose... You just re-confirmed the US government's underlying desire to
> somehow control the root keys...
>  
>
> --
> ====================================================
> J. Oquendo
> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743
> echo infiltrated.net|sed 's/^/sil@/g'
>
> "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have
> to say something." -- Plato
>
>   



More information about the NANOG mailing list