From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 16 18:01:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE6D16A662 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blake.polstra.com (mail.polstra.com [206.213.73.132]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5B943FF7 for ; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:01:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from strings.polstra.com (strings.polstra.com [206.213.73.20]) by blake.polstra.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8H0S4Zj068743; Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20030916.180417.44250294.imp@bsdimp.com> Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:04 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra To: "M. Warner Losh" X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500273, version=0.14.5 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: dan@langille.org cc: cliftonr@lava.net Subject: Re: Any workarounds for Verisign .com/.net highjacking? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:01:08 -0000 On 17-Sep-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: > John Polstra writes: >: On 16-Sep-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: >: > I think we should put a filter for this nonsense into the base >: > system. Hack the resolve to filter out the adddress, and hack bind to >: > filter it out too. that way we can leverage our position in the name >: > servers in the world to do something about this BS. >: >: I think so too, in principle. But we need something better than a >: hard-coded IP address. It would take Verisign about an hour to figure >: out they need to change the address frequently. (Well, OK, a day ... >: it's Verisign, after all.) > > Agreed. but it wouldn't be too hard to determine at boot/hourly doing > a bogus query to find the address of the moment. Even they would be > hard pressed to change things more than hourly. True, we could probably do it. I guess we'd have to generate a few random and unlikely queries, try them, and see if all/most of them resolve to the same address. Or maybe the to the same small set of addresses, depending on how determined Verisign is to make this work. I just _love_ how Verisign doesn't even have a reverse DNS record for that address. Jerks. I sincerely hope that for once, the herds of cattle who use AOL and MSN and think "internet" and "web" are synonyms will realize this just ain't right and raise a fuss about it. But given their meek response to spam, pop-ups, and spyware, I'm not all that optimistic. John