Re:For DNSSEC
by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @04:35PM
(#10019252)
There is nothing stopping you from doing online signing with DNSSEC. FWIW, DNSSEC is on it's third major iteration, 2/3rds of the TLDs have deployed it, and major DNS service providers are getting into the act.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:For DNSSEC
by marcosdumay on Thursday August 06, 2015 @05:14PM
(#10019497)
You can even avoid domain enumeration by doing online signing with DNSSEC. It's just that people still prefer the offline option.
And the offline signing option adds complexity to the protocol.
Re:For DNSSEC
by marcosdumay on Thursday August 06, 2015 @10:28PM
(#10020670)
Ok, my point about people preferring the offline option wasn't criticism.
I'd it being the preferred option is strong evidence that the extra complexity is worth it.
Re:For DNSSEC
by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @08:24PM
(#10020327)
So you are arguing to remove the offline signing capabilities?
Re:For DNSSEC
by indolering on Thursday August 06, 2015 @09:42PM
(#10020521)
That would force companies to either own all of the front-end server farms or store their keys on machines in untrustworthy environments.
Yes: a choice between two very unattractive options. Isn't DNSSEC great?
Re:For DNSSEC
by indolering on Tuesday August 11, 2015 @05:04PM
(#10044381)
Uh? You can run everything in offline mode, unless you really care about trivial zone enumeration.
I am not talking about the current DNSSEC, of course.