Re: Interesting new dns failures

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> ok, so 'today' you can't think of a reason (nor can I really easily) but
> it's not clear that this may remain the case tomorrow. It's possible that
> as a way to 'better loadshare' traffic akamai (just to make an example)
> could start doing this as well.
>
> So, I think that what we (security folks) want is probably not to
> auto-squish domains in the TLD because of NS's moving about at some rate
> other than 'normal' but to be able to ask for a quick takedown of said
> domain, yes? I don't think we'll be able to reduce false positive rates
> low enough to be acceptable with an 'auto-squish' method :(

Auto-squish on a registrar level is actually starting to work, but there
is a long way yet..

As to NS fastflux, I think you are right. But it may also be an issue of
policy. Is there a reason today to allow any domain to change NSs
constantly?

> -Chris