WikiLeaks reveals Internet weakness

P

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,995
Reaction score
4
What the WikiLeaks brouhaha has revealed about the Internet stands, irrespective of the final outcome. It can be safely assumed that the US was straining it’s foofee valve to stop WikiLeaks (no fakery here) and this has revealed some weaknesses which can be abused and exploited if controlled (as the US has shown).

Control over domains, DNS or IP addresses. This has got to change.
Control over monopolies disbursing digital money (PayPal). This has got to change.
To name two.

An independent entity (UN?) or a myriad of alternate sites so that there is choice and the facility is not controlled by a single, self-interested entity.
 
I agree 100%. Control of the internet should be removed from the US. They have shown they can't be trusted. I posted a link here last week about the US shutting down 72 websites by simply removing them from the DNS servers. The US must be stopped!
 
Saying that, the only people to really abuse a root dns server so far has being china. Why the hate for America who have not exploited a root dns server as opposed to the chinese who have abused a root dns server?
 
Welcome to the first real information war.

There was a story on Slashdot last week (can't be bothered to find a link now) about how the founders of the Pirate Bay are helping other parties to create some sort of distributed DNS framework.

We really need something like that, as the events of the past week have proven.
 
Last edited:
I was actually thinking about this last night. The botnets and Zombie armies of exploited PC's have become the pawns also in all these DDOS attacks. So how to deal with those? Then as pointed out, how to secure the internet so that normal users don't suffer in a war between states or corporations. Such a protracted battle might leave the internet unusable or completely broken. Countries may even decide to take their networks offline from the net and become segemented. Not a good scenario. The internet should be treated as an international resource and protected from petty squabbles.
 
@OP: Wait .... you want to call for decentralising the DNS servers?
No, that would not work.

You want to call for handing control over to another entitiy.
No, that would present a similar problem, with the same risks.

So, then, what exactly are you proposing?
 
davemc said:
@OP: Wait .... you want to call for decentralising the DNS servers?
No, that would not work.

You want to call for handing control over to another entitiy.
No, that would present a similar problem, with the same risks.

So, then, what exactly are you proposing?
Click to expand...

Some kind of P2P DNS infrastructure would be best.
 
w1z4rd said:
Saying that, the only people to really abuse a root dns server so far has being china. Why the hate for America who have not exploited a root dns server as opposed to the chinese who have abused a root dns server?
Click to expand...

There is no ‘hate’ involved (you ‘hate’ spinach) and I don’t disagree about China. The point I was trying to make is that NO-ONE (China or America or...) can be trusted with Internet control and users should strive to design matters such that NO-ONE can exert control over it to their advantage and the detriment of others.
 
davemc said:
@OP: Wait .... you want to call for decentralising the DNS servers?
No, that would not work.

You want to call for handing control over to another entitiy.
No, that would present a similar problem, with the same risks.

So, then, what exactly are you proposing?
Click to expand...

Simple. I am not ‘proposing’ anything. I am highlighting the fact that whatever the WikiLeaks outcome (separate issue) it has highlighted weaknesses in the ‘net and revealed hypocrisies involving “trust us – we are unbiased, have a kick-ass constitution and are governed by the rule of law” (when it suits us). This will forever be a lame motivation for any country thanks (really) to America.

I feel confident about critiquing and pointing-out flaws in the ‘net (IMO) but lack the expertise to do anything about it. I leave that to, more expert, others.
 
Palimino said:
There is no ‘hate’ involved (you ‘hate’ spinach) and I don’t disagree about China. The point I was trying to make is that NO-ONE (China or America or...) can be trusted with Internet control and users should strive to design matters such that NO-ONE can exert control over it to their advantage and the detriment of others.
Click to expand...

That post was not so much directed at you. That bit was in response to Valis`s comment. The Pirate Party/Bay has plans for a DNS like you want.
 
I am not keen on having some group of upstarts on their own DNS network steal my domain name.
Perhaps a better written set of regulations is in order?
 
Internet 'Kill Switch' Would Give President Power To Shut Down The Web!

I really can't see anything happening to make the internet a more decentralised and safer place as long as the US retains significant physical control, eminent domain and is making active plans to retain control...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html

A new Senate bill, sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, proposes to give the president the authority "to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet," according to CNET.

The authority granted to the government in the bill, known as the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), has been likened to an Internet "kill switch."

The bill would require that private companies--such as "broadband providers, search engines, or software firms," CNET explains--"immediately comply with any emergency measure or action" put in place by the Department of Homeland Security, or else face fines.

It would also see the creation of a new agency within the Department of Homeland Security, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC). Any private company reliant on "the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. 'information infrastructure'" would be "subject to command" by the NCCC, and some would be required to engage in "information sharing" with the agency, says CBS4.

Numerous groups, such as TechAmerica, have criticized the bill, warning of the "potential for absolute power" and expressing reservations about the "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach."

Liberman recently defended the PCNAA, arguing that it was imperative the president had the ability to "say to an electric company or to say to Verizon, in the national interest, 'There's an attack about to come, and I hereby order you to put a patch on this, or put your network down on this part, or stop accepting any incoming from country A.'"

He added that the bill is necessary for it would reduce the liability of companies that may need to resort to extreme measures in an emergency situation. Companies might have to "do things in a normal business sense you'd be hesitant to do but national security requires you to do," Lieberman explained, adding "We protect them from that because the action the government is ordering them to take is in national security or economic interest."
Click to expand...

Interesting that the US has been talking about this for a while now... before all of this wikileaks stuff broke.
 
Garyvdh said:
Interesting that the US has been talking about this for a while now... before all of this wikileaks stuff broke.
Click to expand...

and now thanks to Assange it's going to receive more support
 
Alan said:
and now thanks to Assange it's going to receive more support
Click to expand...

Yep, talk about an unintended consequence.

He releases all of that info... and the net result is that the entire internet is locked down even tighter. :D
 
Here is some interesting and related information:

"Policymakers disagree about whether the recent Chinese hijacking of Internet traffic was malicious or accidental, but there's no question about the underlying cause of this incident: the lack of built-in security in the Internet's main routing protocol. Network engineers have been talking about this weakness in the Internet infrastructure for a decade. Now a fix is finally on the way."
Click to expand...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/1...rnet-Traffic-Hijack-Due-In-Jan?from=headlines

For those interested in information about the pirate bays p2p dns system: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...irate-bay-cofounder-floats-p2p-dns-system.ars

America of course is much against the idea of net neutrality.
 
davemc said:
I am not keen on having some group of upstarts on their own DNS network steal my domain name.
Click to expand...

You’re jumping the gun. Obviously that is unacceptable and will be a valid criticism during any design effort.

Perhaps a better written set of regulations is in order?
Click to expand...

This is a very, very valid point and I feel will comprise an integral part of solutions. The thinking trend is that solutions MUST be technical. This is simply not true and may prove impossible. The assumption of accountability and responsibility must be inclusive (not just the US and G8 countries [or some other elite]) yet not give overarching power to anyone and advantage only the truth and human rights, if the Internet is to have a long-term viability.
 
Thanks for the Pirate Bay DNS link W1z.

It would seem to me that there is no reason to not run more than one DNS system.
The IP protocol specifically allows for an initial configuration of at least 4 DNS servers that are searched in order.
The first 2 can be used for the existing centralised hierarchy, whilst the next 2 can be used for any other system.

Somebody needs to take the first step, and get some 200 000 or so people to start replicating the existing DNS hierarchy and sharing that information back.
Once the replicated DNS information is up and running, then the world can start adding the new "non centralised" DNS servers to their configurations voluntarily.
Once 2 or 3 million people are using the dual setup, then real fight over control can begin, which will be an interesting fight to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X