Hacker News

points by teddyh 1 day ago | 0 comments

Sometimes that rebuttal is summarily dismissed for being old, so here is a modern rebuttal, from a few weeks ago in fact: <https://circleid.com/posts/common-beliefs-about-dnssec-put-t...>

[–] eqvinox 1 day ago

Huh. Multiple European TLDs (dk cz se nl sk no ch) with >50% DNSsec signatures on domains. https://stats.dnssec-tools.org/#/?top=tlds&tld_tab=3

Honestly, I would've expected everything in that table to be an order of magnitude worse for DNSsec. Good to know!

(It's linked from the article you linked, transitively thanks for that link!)

[–] tptacek 1 day ago

This is the funniest DNSSEC thing I've read, by the way. Apparently the market failure of DNSSEC is because of... me?

[–] teddyh 1 day ago

I don’t know why you would find it funny; You brag about trying your best to do exactly that:

“[…] it's what the security team at one of the few large tech companies that actually have [DNSSEC] enabled told me when I asked why the hell they had it enabled.”

— <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44957512>

[–] tptacek 1 day ago

Oh, I absolutely have it as a goal! It just shouldn't be possible for me to singlehandedly succeed at it.

[–] teddyh 1 day ago

I agree. You have even stopped responding to rebuttals entirely.

[–] tptacek 19 hours ago

And yet here we are! Your own source says I'm the prime mover. You better get smarter about convincing me to like DNSSEC, because if you don't, your project is doomed!

[–] teddyh 17 hours ago

Your old post about DNSSEC has been thoroughly answered, many times since it was written. Many points you made are now invalid, because things have changed. But you refuse to respond to modern arguments for DNSSEC. Even here, you only respond flippantly and derisively, ignore all arguments, and only talk about how you are the subject of attention. There are other people who behave this way, but they seem to be getting less and less approval lately.

[–] tptacek 16 hours ago

Two things.

First, you're the one who brought up this stupid article claiming that I'm singlehandedly responsible for the failure of DNSSEC. Not me. Next time, don't cite it!

Second, you have a funny definition of "thoroughly answered". People have written posts disagreeing with it. Their arguments are not persuasive. Clearly, for the last decade or so, my arguments have been carrying the day. You can't just write a rebuttal and declare the debate over!

DNSSEC proponents are weird about this stuff. Someone else took me to task for not point-by-point including their rebuttal article in my original post, like that's a reasonable demand to make.

[–] akerl_ 1 day ago

Somewhere out there, a Linux users group is acting out mock trials to charge you with murder of a crucial security standard.