[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4835AF00.90101@freethemallocs.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:36:00 -0800
From: Jonathan Smith <smithj@...ethemallocs.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Root name server changes -> bind
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Florian Weimer wrote:
| The party isn't untrusted (they're still involved in operating the B
| root). They're not a third party, either, they're the legitimate owner
| of that address block.
Oh. I didn't understand that from the articles I've read.
So, why are they running a DNS server on that IP?
| ICANN should have arranged for a longer transition period, as it was
| done in previous transitions (I think a few older address still respond
| to queries).
I think the transition period began in late 2007, but this is the first
I've (and, I think, many others) heard about it.
| There's no way to retire an IP address, especially if it is located in a
| network prefix that is still in production (which was a driving force
| behind most past root servers migrations).
I was under the impression that ICANN "owned" or at least "was in charge
of" the allocation of IPs for the root name servers. So why couldn't
they just bar (via policy, not via technical means) whoever owns the
rest of the prefix that IP is in from using it?
Anyway, if the IP is in the hands of a trusted party, I'm much less
concerned. That just wasn't the impression I had.
smithj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkg1rwAACgkQCG91qXPaRek7fQCfRhsgegj2pKK2NRb8Bb+CVba5
H3wAnRqQUF87txOTvxDRvGm5/9shYTKe
=PqSd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
