News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on P2P DNS. Parent comment

Re:P2P DNS by teddyh on Saturday April 30, 2016 @09:24PM (#11604458)
What about DNSSEC? Does this not add tamper proofing?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P2P DNS by KaiserPro on Sunday May 01, 2016 @04:40AM (#11605425)
It does, to a lesser or greater extent. The problem is that the root node/TLD provides trust for everything below it. This means that like HTTPS trust is also centralised (but also federated, which is even worse.)

However I'm not an expert in DNSSEC so there could be nuances that I'm missing

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P2P DNS by simoncion on Saturday April 30, 2016 @09:57PM (#11604531)
I'm not going to talk about DNSSEC [0], but I will make the argument that DNSSEC isn't DNS, but rather a DNS extension.

[0] Mostly because being able to intelligently talk about it is currently way above my pay grade.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P2P DNS by teddyh on Thursday May 05, 2016 @07:21AM (#11635158)
That’s slightly like arguing that TCP is not IP but an extension of IP.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P2P DNS by agumonkey on Sunday May 01, 2016 @06:17AM (#11605632)
Just yesterday I was reading and trying to setup dnscrypt. I don't understand how it differs with DNSSEC yet (if it does).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:P2P DNS by pilif on Sunday May 01, 2016 @07:09AM (#11605748)
dnscrypt protects the traffic between you and your resolver.

DNSSEC makes sure that the records presented by your domain have not been tampered with (though in fact it only makes sure that the records have not been tampered with by anyone but the registry or the government the registry is controlled by)

[ Parent | on HN ]