Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 17:28:04 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cliftonr@lava.net Subject: Re: Any workarounds for Verisign .com/.net highjacking? Message-ID: <XFMail.20030916172804.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20030916.180417.44250294.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17-Sep-2003 M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <XFMail.20030916170025.jdp@polstra.com> > John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030916172804.jdp>