That's fair, but you seem to be misunderstanding the objections as well. We're not crying because we can't spy on people at Starbucks. We *are* authorized to monitor our endpoints and have to make security sacrifices just so folks can /change which corporation/ spies on them :(
-
-
Replying to @daoist
I don't follow. If you're authorized to administer the endpoints, just don't use DoH and no sacrifices will be necessary?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso
I can control the endpoint and the applications *I* deploy to it. Controlling what malware decides to do is another matter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @daoist
I still don't follow, if you're asking malware authors to promise never to use DoH, isn't that what you were making fun of earlier? To quote you, "Pretty please use the DNS resolver I configured?".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It seems like you're saying you think software shouldn't use DoH because if you disable it, malware might ignore you. That just doesn't make sense - malware *is* software - it can use DoH today whether other software does or not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso
imagine if DoH were never an RFC and wasn't deployed by the top unblockable web search provider. In that world, malware would not be able to use DoH without being obvious and being caught. I'm not saying we shouldn't *use* DoH. I'm saying we shouldn't even *invent* it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @daoist
Isn't that just saying "Pretty please only use these protocols?", it's just a minor variation of what you were making fun of. Malware authors use their own protocols all the time? https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1094/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In general, I reject the argument that we shouldn't invent anything that malware might benefit from. Malware can and does abuse cryptography, email, irc, twitter, anything. The benefit to society of those things is too great to not invent them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @taviso
we disagree on the benefit to society. DoH promises that one's queries won't be spied upon. Instead it just aggregates the spying into the hands of larger entities who can then create a more full picture of my activity. to me that's *worse* than plaintext DNS.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @daoist
DNS snooping is a real problem, invasive ISPs and wifi networks are real scenarios for people. You'll be able to disable it on your endpoints if you think it's worse than plaintext DNS (?), but we should do something for the users affected. Not everyone is as lucky as you.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
I have a question, is HTTPS worse than HTTP? You might be surprised to learn that some people used to argue that, it sounds pretty silly now.
-
-
Replying to @taviso
The cost/benefit for https vs http is much much much (280 char limit here) more skewed towards the benefit side.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.