SERVICE: DNS — ISP, GOOGLE, or OPENDNS; OPENDNS for me

Monday, March 5, 2012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2012/02/25/a-closer-look-at-google-public-dns/

Tech|2/25/2012 @ 5:34PM
A Closer Look at Google Public DNS
Elise Ackerman, Contributor

*** begin quote ***

What role has Google played in the DNS ecosystem? Do you see them as a competitor or a partner?

Google has helped raise the importance of DNS above the network engineering community, which has been really good. They’ve also worked with us to advance the state of the art for DNS performance, something we’ve really enjoyed working with them to make happen. It’s not so much competition as it is choice in the market. If they started defaulting Chrome to use Google DNS, I think that’s something we would take issue with, but for now, we like the idea of people using a DNS other than their ISPs, that’s a good idea for a lot of reasons.

What are some of those reasons?

I like the idea of separation of services. ISPs provide a pipe. Other vendors provide security. Other vendors provide email. When one party controls all the services, it’s a “synergy” for the company, but rarely for the consumer. With DNS in particular, there are performance and security benefits that third party DNS providers offer that ISPs aren’t incentivized to do since DNS is a cost-center for them, and a profit-center for us.

*** and ***

I think anything which promotes heterogeneity on the Internet promotes stability. Diversity in services, service providers, and separating the layers of the networking stack are all important. Your ISP no longer provides you email because everyone either uses their own or has an account with Hotmail, Gmail or Yahoo mail. The same way people unbundled their email from their ISP, I think they should do with their DNS. Separation of services has been a long-standing best practice in the security community, and it applies now more than ever. In that vein, I’ll reiterate my view that I think Google controlling search, the browser, and the network or DNS layer is a dangerous trifecta that the consumer will probably be best served avoiding.  I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough.

*** end quote ***

I’ve been a fan of separation of duties.

ISP EMAIL has always been a trap for their Customers. That “customer@isp.net” is the property of the ISP; not the Customer. Once you give that out to enough people you’re locked in.

Why not use a DNS service that has an incentive to be loyal to you?

Since finding OPENDNS, I have not had an DNS outages. I know that VERIZON, COMCAST, and GOOGLE have had outages.

Easy decision fmpov.

# – # – # – # – #


ISP: Verizon / Yahoo email is insecure

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

verizon.net
incoming.yahoo.verizon.net (No SSL, port: 110)
outgoing.yahoo.verizon.net (No SSL, port: 25 or 587, use authentication)
Your Verizon Yahoo! Mail ID (your email address without the “@verizon.net”)
Email Address: Your Verizon Yahoo! Mail address (e.g., user@verizon.net)
Your Verizon Yahoo! Mail password

# # # # #


TECHNOLOGY: SPAM is preventable

Thursday, July 8, 2010

http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/26/internet-malware-security-technology-cio-network-spam.html

Digital Frontlines
We Can’t Get Rid Of Spam
Ed Sperling, 06.28.10, 06:00 AM EDT

*** begin quote ***

After nearly 15 years of filling inboxes with electronic garbage, the problem only seems to be getting worse.

Spam may well be one of those IT problems that never completely goes away, like rust on a ship. There are filters and services that can keep it to a manageable level, but even those don’t get rid of the problem entirely. Some of it still creeps through spam blockers, ultimately costing companies sizable amounts of money in terms of storage and employee productivity that is used to read it and delete it.

*** end quote ***

>We can’t get rid of spam

Sorry, but I disagree. And, with that type of attitude, we will never be rid of it.

Let’s start with the basic features of the internet.

IPv4 doesn’t FORCE full authentication. IPv6 moves us along. No one is really pushing IPv6.

The mail protocol has no real authentication.

Now on to the details. The Peering Points have no economic interest in stopping SPAM or creating a feedback mechanism. The ISPs have some half-hearted “committees” working on “solutions”. (Note, when one domain was cut off spam dropped dramatically, but it was reconnected. Someone’s pocket book get hit?)

BUT, any assumption that “it can’t cured” is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Like the “user’s chronological age” problem, (i.e., how does a website KNOW there’s a child at the other end of the wire), this solution to SPAM is TOTALLY within the ISP’s control.

(1) Implement a fully authenticate email protocol. (SMTP has served well for decades; time for a face lift.) Turn the smart folks loose on the problem.

(2) End free email service. “Stamps” for email sent and received are essentially micropayments for cryptographic keys.

(3) If the User gets spam, give them a feedback loop to get their money back. That gives the ISP the trail. (Wall Street and most businesses can handle “chargebacks”.) Get after the various ISPs and Websites with email, that pass spam, with a big club — additional expense!

(I have to laugh when I get spam on Yahoo that purports to originate FROM a Yahoo email address. Yahoo doesn’t even bother to parse it’s own email. If the email purports to have originated from within it’s own domain, why is it coming in from the outside. That should be an easy fix.)

(4) Implement a PKI infrastructure and than you know who sent it and can come down hard on that person. Why should email be like writing on a postcard? Could it be that there are economic advantages to allowing snooping?

The software vendor’s are not immune to criticism in this mess. They put out OS and Applications software that buggy and allows this mess to continue.

IMHO, this SHOULD BE a solved problem.

# # # # #


TECHNOLOGY: Slashdot has the beginnigns of a giant internet issue

Sunday, December 28, 2008

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/12/27/1833202.shtml

*** begin quote ***

Fairpoint Pledges To Violate Net Neutrality

Posted by timothy on Saturday December 27, @02:46PM

from the we’ll-read-it-to-you-over-the-phone dept.

The Internet Censorship Communications

wytcld writes “Fairpoint Communications, which has taken over Verizon’s landline business in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, has announced that on February 6 ‘AOL, Yahoo! and MSN subscribers will continue to have access to content but will no longer be able to access their e-mail through the third-party Web site. Instead, Yahoo! and other third-party e-mail will be accessed directly at the MyFairPoint.net portal. Since Verizon spun off its lines to Fairpoint in a maneuver that got debt off of Verizon’s balance sheets by saddling Fairpoint with it, there was concern by the public service boards of the three states about how Fairpoint would deal with that debt. Fairpoint’s profit plan: force all Webmail users through Fairpoint’s portal, by blocking all direct access to Webmail portals other than its own. Will Fairpoint’s own search engine portal be next? What can stop them?”

*** end quote ***

Here’s one to watch.

Not sure where the needle is in this haystack! BUT, (there is always a big butt), it seems as if the ISP FAIRPOINT maybe, while taking over from Verizon, screwing all the customers.

I know that is a total surprise.

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” Captain Renault in Casablanca

At the very least, it’s a good reason NOT to use your ISP’s email address. I do feel sorry for all those @verizon.net users who now will have to change their email address. (I preach having your own domain! No one listens. Sorry, no sympathy here.)

I can’t wait to see how this plays out.

Whose got the popcorn?

# # # # #


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,069 other followers

%d bloggers like this: