OpenDNS safer or not?

OpenDNS safer or not?
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 General Computer Security    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
OpenDNS safer or not? peter 06-19-2007
Posted by davidu on June 23, 2007, 7:27 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> That's why we LOCK the front door. Now will you please stop trying to kid
> me? Nothing of this will change that OpenDNS deliberately introduces wrong
> DNS replies for whatsoever reasons, adds non-ICANN TLDs, create a new
> incomptabile root zone without any authority, breaks any authority chains
> anyway (no chance for root-delegation), and much more.

What are you talking about? I'm not getting into the discussion about
how ineffective ICANN is but we do follow their TLDs. Show me a TLD
we've created. I challenge you to name one.

As for "wrong DNS replies" -- that's another claim with zero evidence.

Are you finished?

-David


Posted by Sebastian G. on June 24, 2007, 1:53 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
davidu wrote:

>
>> That's why we LOCK the front door. Now will you please stop trying to kid
>> me? Nothing of this will change that OpenDNS deliberately introduces wrong
>> DNS replies for whatsoever reasons, adds non-ICANN TLDs, create a new
>> incomptabile root zone without any authority, breaks any authority chains
>> anyway (no chance for root-delegation), and much more.
>
> What are you talking about? I'm not getting into the discussion about
> how ineffective ICANN is but we do follow their TLDs. Show me a TLD
> we've created. I challenge you to name one.


.cmo

Just to name a favorite example directly from the opendns.org front page
advertisement... the FAQ also mentions .og ...

> As for "wrong DNS replies" -- that's another claim with zero evidence.


So? Then I must have been mislead by the "New! Block adult sites. Accurate
and free." advertisement.

> Are you finished?

Not yet. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS> tells that every hostname
that cannot be "auto-corrected" gets redirected to an advertisement page.
D'Oh, and then there's a press release "OpenDNS is not SiteFinder, for
obvious reasons", with an interview of David A. Ulevitch... oh geez, sorry I
fell for your scheme, you stupid troll. A Gmail mail address? You must be
kidding...

Seems like since 07-04-22 some idiot also added very wrong implemented
recursion for unqualified queries.

And I better stop thinking about this braindead DNS hijacking before I
really get sick.

Posted by Neil W Rickert on June 23, 2007, 11:36 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

>I was using the term to refer to security software in general. How
>about the options in many browsers to block phishing sites?

Quite different, in my opinion. Whereas OpenDNS returns deliberately
false information, the phishing filters in firefox and in IE7 advise
that a site has been reported as a phish site. They don't actually
block access - you can choose to continue to the site.

>The point is that most users don't want to keep track of malware,
>phishing, etc. -- they WANT to delegate that responsibility to someone
>else.

That's fine. I don't like the method used by OpenDNS, and I am
unwilling to trust their DNS servers.


Posted by Barry Margolin on June 24, 2007, 9:20 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

>
> >The point is that most users don't want to keep track of malware,
> >phishing, etc. -- they WANT to delegate that responsibility to someone
> >else.
>
> That's fine. I don't like the method used by OpenDNS, and I am
> unwilling to trust their DNS servers.

That's your perogative. But it doesn't make OpenDNS a security hole for
the people who DO want to make use of its features.

If you have antivirus software, do you maintain all the signatures
yourself, or do you let it download them from the AV vendor
automatically? Even if YOU maintain it yourself, do you think that 90%
of computer users could do this competently?

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Posted by Sebastian G. on June 25, 2007, 9:47 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Barry Margolin wrote:

> But it doesn't make OpenDNS a security hole for the people who DO want

> to make use of its features.

And doesn't have to, because it already is one.

> If you have antivirus software, do you maintain all the signatures
> yourself, or do you let it download them from the AV vendor
> automatically? Even if YOU maintain it yourself, do you think that 90%
> of computer users could do this competently?

And what exactly does antivirus software have to do with security? Beside
introducing vulnerabilities?

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: OT: TRUTH: MACS ARE SAFER THANS WINDOWS May 30, 2007, 5:51 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy