News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why CISA Issued Our First Emergency Directive by tptacek on Saturday February 16, 2019 @04:08PM (#19180954)
As Colm MacCárthaigh noted on Twitter, not only does DNSSEC not defend against the most likely and damaging DNS attacks (hijacking between clients and servers, and hijacking at the registrar), it actually makes things worse: an attacker who has achieved the vantage point these attackers have can use DNSSEC to semipermanently poison records by using it to sign high-TTL records.

It's not my claim that DNSSEC is what enabled this attack in the first place. But there's no way I'm going to leave the irony of USG agencies laboriously configuring their security-theater DNSSEC protocol while not being able to defend their registrar accounts or get basic MFA deployed.

Re:Why CISA Issued Our First Emergency Directive by Abekkus on Sunday February 24, 2019 @08:31PM (#19242007)
Hijacked high-ttl records for signed zones aren't more dangerous than hijacked, high-ttl records for unsigned zones. Why do you claim that they are?

They are both invalidated through the same mechanisms. It would be nice if there were reasonable limits on TTLs, but I'm not getting invited to those meetings.