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

Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

nasdaq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 414 posts

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#321

Post by buffrr »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #306
buffrr wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what they meant is that with decentralized DNS, it is possible to replace certificate authorities by using DNSSEC + DANE RFC6698[0], but I agree the way it's mentioned is confusing. [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6698

ok. obviously you can replace cert authorities with those systems on present DNS too, it doesn't require a "(more) decentralized DNS", right? Replacing cert authorities with something DNS-based (or alternative decentralized DNS based) doesn't actually seem relevant to the problem they are highlighting, of sci-hub's DNS records being removed by private or government actors making it harder to find sci-hub... no?

To answer your first question, with the present DNS, If you use DANE, the trust is centralized since you have to trust the root DNS keys and the registrar (imo still better than trusting a large number of CAs. letsencrypt already relies on DNS to issue certificates).

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#322

Post by woodrowbarlow »

skynet-9000 wrote: post #197
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's related. ISPs and telecom in the US do not invest adequately in infrastructure, and the existing infrastructure is overloaded. net neutrality was all about how that infrastructure can be utilized; ISPs want to profit off the scarcity by allowing big companies to pay for priority so that their website would load faster at the expense of everyone else (big companies want this too, and they want it to be expensive,…

> some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.

i'm not aware of any ISPs that have taken that step in the US, but since the 2017 repeal it is now a legal business strategy. it has happened in portugal (although that's irrelevant to US law) -- customers get a base package and need to pay extra for the "social media package" (which unlocks twitter and facebook) or the "streaming package" (which unlocks netflix, youtube, etc.) (this is on top of the subscription fees you pay for netflix, etc.).

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#323

Post by a1369209993 »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #159
emacdona wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Followed by this: 'Handshake is “is effectively a decentralized domain name server,” Roquerre said.' -- thus implying that DNS is NOT decentralized? The article is pretty bad. For his sake, I hope they are taking his quotes out of context. Because I had a quick look at https://www.namebase.io/ -- and it does look interesting. It appears that they have decentralized the REGISTRY by putting it on the "Handshake" blockc…

DNS is not decentralized in the sense that matters for censorship, which is the most important sense in this discussion. I don't know anyone who believes DNS is suitably decentralized to resist censorship.

> I don't know anyone who believes DNS is suitably decentralized to resist censorship.

Technically DNS-the-protocol is suitably decentralized to resist censorship[0]; it's the particular canonical infrastructure of the main DNS system that's the weak link there. (Edit: by which I mean I think emacdona was talking about the protocol in general, and if you meant to object to that admittedly-debateable choice of focus, you should probably explicitly point out the distinction between the protocol (that anyone can use) and the canonical system (that is run by (tautologically) malicious corporations).)

0: Although it could use some cryptographic additions for better security, and it has problems with global uniqueness in the face of malicious actors pushing records to the effect of "sci-hub.org IN A some.fbi.ip.addr". But if you can find a trustworthy (possibly-suffix-indexed collection of) root server to start from, the protocol itself works fine.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#324

Post by alasdair_ »

andromeduck wrote: post #208
alienlid wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tweet thread on his death that was illuminating for me https://mobile.twitter.com/hides_minimally/status/1348704670...

It's a bit weird to blame capitalism when it was the state and not the actual IP holders that wanted to press charges.

Only after the IP holders contacted the state and told them a crime. had been committed.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#325

Post by Nition »

tmoravec wrote: post #164
pedro2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have NextDNS just enable Handshake in settings.

I have NextDNS, enabled Handshake in settings, and still doesn't resolve.

If you're on Windows, try flushing your DNS cache. Open the command prompt and type:

ipconfig /flushdns

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#326

Post by vagrantJin »

a1369209993 wrote: post #320
jcytong wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Phonebooks were like DNS for telephone numbers." A floppy was like the save icon on old software. :)

"Why do you have a bunch of 3D-printed save icons on your desk?"

"Oh cool, are those real save buttons?"

I suspect these jokes are more reality than we think.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#327

Post by toxik »

dang wrote: post #267
toxik wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How fortunate that this was never claimed.

Please follow the site guidelines when posting here. They include: " Don't be snarky. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was not being snarky, I pointed out that the argument was made about a statement that was never made.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#329

Post by skynet-9000 »

morlockabove wrote: post #219
skynet-9000 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some ISPs also wanted to sell "internet lite" packages that are cheaper and only allow you to connect to a fixed set of websites. presumably they would also take money off the back end from those websites that want to be in the list. In the U.S.? I thought this was only in India with Facebook's non-internet Internet.

You think they don't want to implement it in the US?

If they wanted, they could have done so.

Re: Sci-Hub Is Now on the ‘Uncensorable Web’

#330

Post by Fnoord »

walrus01 wrote: post #21

People have been trying to make alternative DNS name systems and alternative root nameservers a thing for 20+ years now. Has never caught on. On the other hand I 100% endorse sci-hub having a presence as a tor service.

.onion caught on.

Plus there's a myriad of questionable TLDs. In my world these are 'alternative DNS'.

Also, something like DNSCrypt can work for clients regardless of DNS root servers.

I get what you mean though, and in that regard you're right.

Post reply on HN