On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, Watson Ladd wrote:
What's wrong with DNScrypt?
It's just a preconfigured new VPN protocol where the clients need to
know the public key of this new VPN protocol provider to setup a VPN
limited to "DNS"Curve packets.
- It is incompatible with IETF VPN protocols (IPsec/IKE,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19/03/15 23:43, Zhiwei Yan wrote:
>>> Hi, all, I think it's better that this draft contains some solution
>>> about the client authentication to decrease/avoid the DoS atta
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 19/03/15 23:43, Zhiwei Yan wrote:
>> Hi, all, I think it's better that this draft contains some solution
>> about the client authentication to decrease/avoid the DoS attack. But
>> it's really not the focus of this draft. In order to
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 19/03/15 23:43, Zhiwei Yan wrote:
> > Hi, all, I think it's better that this draft contains some solution
> > about the client authentication to decrease/avoid the DoS attack. But
> > it's really not the focus of this draft. In orde
On 19/03/15 23:43, Zhiwei Yan wrote:
> Hi, all, I think it's better that this draft contains some solution
> about the client authentication to decrease/avoid the DoS attack. But
> it's really not the focus of this draft. In order to solve this
> problem, many other schemes can be used, such as D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Paul,
On 20/03/15 01:59, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:49 AM, W.C.A. Wijngaards
> wrote:
>> On 14/03/15 01:19, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> Greetings again. I mentioned this to Wouters a while ago,
>>> before the DPRIVE WG started, but
On Mar 19, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Watson Ladd wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:49 AM, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:
>>> On 14/03/15 01:19, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. I mentioned this to Wouters a while ago, before
the DPRIVE WG s
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:49 AM, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:
>> On 14/03/15 01:19, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> > Greetings again. I mentioned this to Wouters a while ago, before
>> > the DPRIVE WG started, but it is worth bringing up here if the WG
>> >
On Mar 19, 2015, at 8:49 AM, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:
> On 14/03/15 01:19, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > Greetings again. I mentioned this to Wouters a while ago, before
> > the DPRIVE WG started, but it is worth bringing up here if the WG
> > is considering this for widespread deployment.
> >
> > draft
Hi, all,
I think it's better that this draft contains some solution about the client
authentication to decrease/avoid the DoS attack.
But it's really not the focus of this draft. In order to solve this problem,
many other schemes can be used, such as DHCP, SAVI and DANE. Anyway, this draft
can m
On Thu, 19 Mar 2015, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:
Could perhaps a different algorithm, like ED25519, provide better
performance, and would that performance then be adequate?
Different algorithms differ in performance how much? A factor 2? Maybe
10? Compared to a botnet, I don't think that it is ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Paul,
On 14/03/15 01:19, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. I mentioned this to Wouters a while ago, before
> the DPRIVE WG started, but it is worth bringing up here if the WG
> is considering this for widespread deployment.
>
> draft-wijnga
Greetings again. I mentioned this to Wouters a while ago, before the DPRIVE WG
started, but it is worth bringing up here if the WG is considering this for
widespread deployment.
draft-wijngaards-dnsop-confidentialdns running over UDP opens up the server to
a trivial CPU denial-of-service becaus
13 matches
Mail list logo
