211–220 of 327 posts
Build in a layer for onion routing as well, so that all the servers in the middle don't automatically know who you're trying to reach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Domain squatting is like a disease, but how would you regulate it? Where is the line between just a parked domain that a lot of tech (and non-tech) people reserve for their future projects, and a domain acquired for re-sale? Given a good offer you would probably sell one of the domains you own just as well, wouldn't you?
How are trademarks registered? Why not use the same procedure for domain names?
Asymmetric keys as the only addresses, and an authenticated version of Virtual Ring Routing as the routing protocol. That guarantees you're talking to the correct server for an address, that addresses never need to change, and that a server can have as many different addresses as it needs to. Build in a layer for onion routing as well, so that all the servers in the middle don't automatically know who you're trying t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Domain squatting is like a disease, but how would you regulate it? Where is the line between just a parked domain that a lot of tech (and non-tech) people reserve for their future projects, and a domain acquired for re-sale? Given a good offer you would probably sell one of the domains you own just as well, wouldn't you?
How are trademarks registered? Why not use the same procedure for domain names?
In the case of Delta Airlines and Delta Faucets for example who would get to have "delta.com"? Then what about all the other countries with independent trademark rules and authorities?
I like the idea, but it would end up being way more complex than it seems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be careful what you wish for. JS and HTML5 is why we don't have Adobe Flash anymore. There was a whole period in the noughties when web interactivity sucked and so external plugins like Flash, Silverlight and Java applets took up the slack. The alternative to JS is not "no scripting", it's websites that only function with proprietary plugins installed.
There is a lot of stuff that html should do straight out of the box and that should never have required javascript, like form validation, autocomplete, date pickers, video streaming, etc. Javascript would have been limited to actual SPA instead of being required today even to render static content.
I'm confused by this comment - HTML5 does do all that out of the box. Are you saying it should have done it from the start?
I don't get the bit about JS being required to render static content either...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't any security aspect to NAT, you're relying on the fact nobody's added an upstream route back to you: https://www.anvilsecure.com/blog/dhcp-games-with-smart-route...
NAT without port forwarding done by router facing the ISP, the default kind of NAT which the subscriber does not have to worry about configuring, has very great security aspect. Connect your home network devices to the router doing that kind of NAT,and this automatically protects all devices in your local network from incoming connections.
NAT has become too complex and most consumer versions of it are developed for ease of use over security. Don't trust NAT to protect your network, because the device doing NAT in your home network most likely wasn't developed to use it as a security measure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NAT without port forwarding done by router facing the ISP, the default kind of NAT which the subscriber does not have to worry about configuring, has very great security aspect. Connect your home network devices to the router doing that kind of NAT,and this automatically protects all devices in your local network from incoming connections.
Yes, but that's an unintended consequence and cannot be relied upon. Any default-configuration firewall would achieve the same, but in a more reliable manner.
No, it's entirely unrelated to NAT. That's a consequence of the firewall on the router.
IPv6 doesn't get rid of the firewall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but that's an unintended consequence and cannot be relied upon. Any default-configuration firewall would achieve the same, but in a more reliable manner.
> that's an unintended consequence No, it's entirely unrelated to NAT. That's a consequence of the firewall on the router. IPv6 doesn't get rid of the firewall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can host more than one domain per ip. And most hosting providers, not just cloud providers do also offer packages with a static IP address. Yes, we do not have enough IP address for all IoT devices, for all refrigerators and smart bulbs.
> You can host more than one domain per ip. Yes, but some things become tricky: - SMTP reputation is related with reverse DNS of your public IP - reverse-proxying TLS-encrypted trafic relies on SNI headers, which not all protocols implement - some protocols entirely don't have a virtualhost (domain) notion, like gopher or SSH Overall, it's not so easy and simple. Sure i don't care that IoT devices don't have public a…
But also those IPs should be available without an entity having to assign.
And not only that but we would also need a free DNS system so you can't be denied host resolving.
And the domain names shouldn't be controlled by someone entity because you can be denied having one or the issuer can withdraw you domain.
Most censorship I've seen was done by DNS filtering. Also some domain names were withdrawn from their owners even if they didn't do something illegal.