As unrest grows, Iran restricts access to Instagram, WhatsApp

Post by akerl_ » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:43 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #209

tptacek wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Virtually everyone relies on ISP DNS servers, which can trivially bypass DNSSEC (DNSSEC collapses down to a single bit in the header on the last hop from server to stub resolver). If all you're trying to do is resist DNS censorship, you can get almost everything you need from using an out-of-country name and DoH, which is universally available, very much unlike DNSSEC.

DNS without DNSSEC is pretty much vulnerable to the kind of censorship that won't even let you know you are being censored... Any name system without something equivalent to DNSSEC is. With DNSSEC it is still vulnerable, but only to the kinds that you will know you are being censored, so you can try to get it from another country or another channel. If your ISP denies DNSSEC for you, you already know you are being at…

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:22 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #211

marcosdumay wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS without DNSSEC is pretty much vulnerable to the kind of censorship that won't even let you know you are being censored... Any name system without something equivalent to DNSSEC is. With DNSSEC it is still vulnerable, but only to the kinds that you will know you are being censored, so you can try to get it from another country or another channel. If your ISP denies DNSSEC for you, you already know you are being at…

For the vast majority of DNSSEC-enabled end user systems, the user's device is not doing its own DNSSEC validations. It's using a DNSSEC-enabled resolver and trusting the bit set on the DNS query response where the recursive resolver says "yup, I confirm that DNSSEC is good here". Given that these resolvers are generally provided by the user's ISP, if the ISP wants to lie about DNSSEC, they can just fudge the results…

Post by amir734jj » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:26 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #179

jimbob45 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is geographically two countries away from Israel, the country that clandestinely fomented similar riots/insurrections in 10+ other countries that border Israel during the Arab Spring. Furthermore, Israel has been greatly outspoken in its hatred of Iran and Iran's nuclear program, going so far as to deploy the most sophisticated cyberattack in history[1]. It would hardly be a conspiracy theory to pin this on Isra…

> It would hardly be a conspiracy theory to pin this on Israel rather than women suddenly waking up and deciding to riot after thousands of years of oppression. Or, you know, it could be that Iranian women just want that freedom back that was taken from them some 40 years ago. It's not like they've had to cover their hair and follow islamist rules for all of history. If you have any trust in pictures left, go look it…

Post by norwalkbear » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

nashashmi wrote: post #111

Quoted post unavailable.

Post by norwalkbear » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

anvic wrote: post #26

bpodgursky wrote: post #11

Google pulling out of China instead of catering to censorship was a principled move, but fairly obviously did not lead to more freedom of speech in China. It helped kickstart a domestic, government-obedient tech industry. I don't know what the right move here is. Nobody who thinks there's an obvious right answer is worth listening to.

The right move is letting countries govern themselves in whatever way they see fit and leaving them alone. Or would you like to have Iran or Pakistan or whatever intervening in the domestic issues of the West?