undefined

points

by EGreg4 hours ago |

comments

by tptacek4 hours ago|

[-]

In addition to the fact that almost nobody uses DNSSEC, it solves none of the problems indicated by this article.

by EGreg3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Right, but neither do these problems apply to domains, as much as they apply to ATProto accounts.

You don't even have the frameworks that are available to protect domains. (Domain lock, transfer, etc.) And registrars are regulated by laws and frameworks in ways ATProto hosts aren't. Don't get me wrong, if a registrar transfers your domain due to a social engineering attack on the registrar, then you might lose it (an attacker almost did this to me once via a SIM swap, and I had to call GoDaddy to prevent the transfers). But that's not the same as, say, hacking the web hosting server.

In any case, tptacek, Safebox is supposed to solve these actual problems, by making sure no one can actually get into the box (no ssh, etc) so it's a "neutral ground" that no one can really "own", "redirect", steal keys or impersonate you. If you read https://safebots.ai/about you'll see what I'm talking about. If you do, I'd love to read any feedback you might have, given your background in security!

by ranger_danger4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Seizing domains is a lot more common than it used to be though, enough that it's a real concern for me personally, and I'm not sure there is a viable solution at the moment. There is also the concern of countries/governments or specific ISPs simply blocking access to one's domain in various ways... and the number of authoritarian regimes that have been blocking large portions of the Internet has only grown with time.

And regarding DNSSEC... if your domain is taken by the registrar (court order, ToS violation, etc.) or a government that can command the parent TLD to act, they can just revoke your old key and transfer the domain to someone else (or setup a placeholder under their own DNS) and now your protection and all concept of ownership is completely gone without your consent. This happened a few years ago with Epik seizing the soyjakparty and kiwifarms domains, including their hosting from a subsidiary company Terrahost... and KF has never even lost a lawsuit, but there are some specific people that really don't like them, and have gotten adept at claiming ToS violations via every possible company that touches them in order to try to make them go away.

by nekusar4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> Yes you do own your domain, as much as you can own your house

Uh, no.

I can legally shoot and kill intruders due to castle doctrine and stand your ground laws in my physical home. And legal invasions require being in front of a judge and a search warrant.

A domain can be seized for 'terms of service' (aka kangaroo court) reasons. Stand your ground nor castle doctrine doesn't apply to your digital house.

by iamnothere3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Domains typically can’t be seized for arbitrary ToS violations, as registrars who do this can lose their accreditation with ICANN (and thus their ability to host domains at all). If the registrar could “frame” you for something like DNS abuse then maybe they could justify a suspension, and if they don’t unsuspend it after you correct the issue, you’d have to file a complaint with ICANN to (hopefully) get it back. If something like this happened and became public, though, the registrar would lose tons of business, as people would develop doubts about the registrar’s reputation.

by EGreg3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we.

How many houses were actually seized, repossessed, commandeered with "eminent domain", slowly taken over via "adverse possession", encroached on with easements and air rights, and whatever else? Versus how many domains?

There is no violence on the internet. You can't shoot intruders. And that's a great thing.

Put in legal terms, you do NOT have this level of ownership to your house... and you certainly do not have sovereign immunity on your land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

Usually the best you can get is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple

You probably have something more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freehold_(law)

What you are describing is more like the king of England being able to shoot people on his own property, and have full sovereign immunity (in theory, I mean recently a British prince was arrested on allegations of far less).

by nekusar1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not sure where you're from, but in my state, we have "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" laws.

That means if you are a home invader, I can legally shoot and kill you. There'll be an investigation, but both statutes are affirmative defenses to killing.

Its not that I want to, or look forward to it. I don't, and I hope I never have to. But I will, if I'm forced.

by EGreg1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I am familiar with it. But even then it applies only “if a person is under an imminent threat of serious physical harm or danger by a guest (or an intruder) in their home, they do not have to attempt to safely escape the situation prior to using physical force; the homeowner may immediately use force to eliminate the threat in their home.”

For example shooting a 5 year old kid who trespassed on your property isnt covered