From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40f353c957e2ac20128c149f8bb178aa@ladd.quanstro.net>
References: <4B57048D.6040002@maht0x0r.net>
	<4f34febc1001231559s3ffb6037o2a193bf4689b961@mail.gmail.com>
	<eeae7618fa33fc4dd4519a70b4ed354f@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<dd6fe68a1001231652sbc2692bh75559cf7cca58ef6@mail.gmail.com>
	<8094c7f53bad7b2e0bed09ec4bfd41dc@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<dd6fe68a1001231711u6157bbdcv42c564722749b9de@mail.gmail.com>
	<40f353c957e2ac20128c149f8bb178aa@ladd.quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:19:33 +0100
Message-ID: <f4d8fa41001240519n5898a98cv26d100ad779415e1@mail.gmail.com>
From: hiro <23hiro@googlemail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] Are we ready for DNSSEC ?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c5d35f38-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

so you need to have a more "secure" dns because you don't trust your ssl?

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 2:18 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wro=
te:
>> > doesn't work with the recent renegotiation bug.
>>
>> disable renegotiation.
>>
>> > but i don't
>> > think one can dismiss dns as a non-issue.
>>
>> dns is a non-issue if the rest of ssl is working.
>> dns is irrelevant if it isn't.
>
> the renegotiation bug is a protocol flaw. =C2=A0i'm
> not so sure i trust ssl enough to decide i don't
> care of dns gets hijacked.
>
> - erik
>
>