Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Questions About .org

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Questions About .org

#11

Post by dpark »

sudosysgen wrote: post #10
dpark wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is a terrible idea and would result in the bankruptcy of Mozilla from the inevitable lawsuits. The registry owner would sue them and they’d also doubtless face a class action from the registrants themselves.

They would have absolutely no grounds to sue. At all. There are already lying DNS servers, they haven't seen any legal threat for this exact reason. Tons of organizations also redirect DNS for their network.

Maybe I’m wrong. I’d expect that orchestrating a deliberate MITM attack would violate some relevant laws.

Re: Questions About .org

#12

Post by mindslight »

dpark wrote: post #11
sudosysgen wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would have absolutely no grounds to sue. At all. There are already lying DNS servers, they haven't seen any legal threat for this exact reason. Tons of organizations also redirect DNS for their network.

Maybe I’m wrong. I’d expect that orchestrating a deliberate MITM attack would violate some relevant laws.

Creating a new name database that people can choose to use is not a "MITM attack".

Re: Questions About .org

#13

Post by dpark »

mindslight wrote: post #12
dpark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I’m wrong. I’d expect that orchestrating a deliberate MITM attack would violate some relevant laws.

Creating a new name database that people can choose to use is not a "MITM attack".

It absolutely is. Alice registers with Mozilla for the same .org Bob registers with the official registrar and Mozilla sends traffic intended for Bob to Alice.

Re: Questions About .org

#14

Post by mindslight »

dpark wrote: post #13
mindslight wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating a new name database that people can choose to use is not a "MITM attack".

It absolutely is. Alice registers with Mozilla for the same .org Bob registers with the official registrar and Mozilla sends traffic intended for Bob to Alice.

In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic.

But also note that per my description, Alice can't just register a domain that Bob has already registered at the legacy registry. Rather, the conflict in your example can only happen if Alice is registered at the legacy registry and Mozilla, lets her registration lapse at the legacy, and then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy.

Re: Questions About .org

#15

Post by dpark »

mindslight wrote: post #14
dpark wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is. Alice registers with Mozilla for the same .org Bob registers with the official registrar and Mozilla sends traffic intended for Bob to Alice.

In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice , because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. But also note that per my description, Alice can't just register a domain that Bob has already registered at the legacy registry. Rather, the conflict in your example can only happen if Alice is registered at the legacy registry and Mozilla, lets her reg…

> In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic.

Is your proposal then that Mozilla doesn’t actually use this database unless individuals opt in? In that case it’s worthless.

> then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy.

This is an entirely legitimate scenario. I don’t know why you’re being dismissive of this as if it doesn’t matter. You’ve described a scheme where Mozilla intentionally hijacks a registrar. Of course the original registrar is still relevant.

Re: Questions About .org

#16

Post by mindslight »

dpark wrote: post #15
mindslight wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice , because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. But also note that per my description, Alice can't just register a domain that Bob has already registered at the legacy registry. Rather, the conflict in your example can only happen if Alice is registered at the legacy registry and Mozilla, lets her reg…

> In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. Is your proposal then that Mozilla doesn’t actually use this database unless individuals opt in? In that case it’s worthless. > then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy. This is an e…

> Is your proposal then that Mozilla doesn’t actually use this database unless individuals opt in? In that case it’s worthless.

.org consists of many projects that themselves build Internet infrastructure. For example, Debian could ensure their ability to keep using debian.org in the face of "Ethos" shenanigans by making it so all their infrastructure used the new-world resolvers. And could even do the same for the repositories and apt, if they wanted.

> don’t know why you’re being dismissive of this as if it doesn’t matter

It's not that it doesn't matter, but that I see it is a good thing if there were competition between registries. In this scenario, what is actually happening is that Bob and the legacy registry are attempting to lay claim to a name that has already been claimed by someone else and recorded at the new registry. So Bob and the legacy registry can't claim the already-registered name in some universal sense - a registry of deeds does not own the plots of land that it keeps records on!

Re: Questions About .org

#17

Post by Ericson2314 »

mindslight wrote: post #16
dpark wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In your example, the traffic that goes to Alice is intended for Alice, because the initiators of that traffic have chosen to use the new database to direct traffic. Is your proposal then that Mozilla doesn’t actually use this database unless individuals opt in? In that case it’s worthless. > then Bob comes along and attempts to lay technical claim to the name because it is not registered at the legacy. This is an e…

> Is your proposal then that Mozilla doesn’t actually use this database unless individuals opt in? In that case it’s worthless. .org consists of many projects that themselves build Internet infrastructure. For example, Debian could ensure their ability to keep using debian.org in the face of "Ethos" shenanigans by making it so all their infrastructure used the new-world resolvers. And could even do the same for the r…

OpenNIC only uses unused tlds. But there could be an OpenNIC-only redirect in the legacy DNS record that would encourage users to migrate. Then the organization can look at traffic to decide when to switch.
Post reply on HN