Security Consultants Warn About PROTECT-IP Act 298
epee1221 writes "Several security professionals released a paper raising objections to the DNS filtering(PDF) mandated by the proposed PROTECT-IP Act. The measure allows courts to require Internet service providers to redirect or block queries for a domain deemed to be infringing on IP laws. ISPs will not be able to improve DNS security using DNSSEC, a system for cryptographically signing DNS records to ensure their authenticity, as the sort of manipulation mandated by PROTECT-IP is the type of interference DNSSEC is meant to prevent. The paper notes that a DNS server which has been compromised by a cracker would be indistinguishable from one operating under a court order to alter its DNS responses. The measure also points to a possible fragmenting of the DNS system, effectively making domain names non-universal, and the DNS manipulation may lead to collateral damage (i.e. filtering an infringing domain may block access to non-infringing content). It is also pointed out that DNS filtering does not actually keep determined users from accessing content, as they can still access non-filtered DNS servers or directly enter the blocked site's IP address if it is known. A statement by the MPAA disputes these claims, arguing that typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server and that the Internet must not be allowed to 'decay into a lawless Wild West.' Paul Vixie, a coauthor of the paper, elaborates in his blog."
Kay Bailey Hutchison defends PROTECT-IP (Score:5, Informative)
I sent my senator a short message detailing many of these concerns about the PROTECT-IP bill. You might be interested in her response.... WARNING: Don't read any further if you still have hope that senators can understand and address technology issues....
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Federal Communications Commission's actions relating to the openness of the Internet. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
The Internet is a valuable tool that facilitates business, education, and recreation for millions of Americans. In 2009, an estimated 198 million Americans had access to the Internet. I am committed to ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from the Internet as an open platform for innovation and commerce.
Instrumental to the success of the Internet is the long-standing policy of keeping the Internet as free as possible from burdensome government regulations. Increased investment in upgrading and expanding America’s communications infrastructure, and, in particular, new broadband networks, will ensure that all Americans have access to affordable high-speed Internet. However, in my judgment, intensified regulation of the Internet, such as government-mandated treatment of data, would stifle competition and would decrease the incentive for network operators to invest in critical infrastructure.
The case for additional broadband regulatory authority, or “net neutrality,” has not effectively been made. Broadband investment began to truly flourish when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a decision in 2002 to remove advanced communications technologies from the antiquated common carrier regulatory framework. However, advocates of a larger regulatory footprint have continued to call for net neutrality since 2006.
Unfortunately, the FCC chose to respond by beginning a new proceeding that would reverse the 2002 decision to treat advanced communications services with a "light touch" regulatory approach. On December 21, 2010, by a 3-2 vote, the FCC adopted new rules meant to impose a net neutrality regime on broadband services. I believe these new regulations represent an unprecedented power grab by the Commission to claim regulatory jurisdiction without Congressional authority. This FCC action threatens investment and innovation in broadband systems, places valuable American jobs at risk, and may subject communications companies to new legal liability in the management of their networks.
In response to the FCC's heavy-handed order, I intend to explore every option available to me to keep the Internet free from such burdensome regulations, including introducing a resolution of disapproval in an effort to repeal the new rules. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I will continue to work to prohibit further net neutrality-based regulations.
I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY to this message as this mailbox is only for the delivery of outbound messages, and is not monitored for replies. Due to the volume of mail Senator Hutchison receives, she requests that all email messages be sent through the contact form found on her website at http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=email_kay [senate.gov] .
If you would like more information about issues pending before the Senate, please visit the S
Re:typical users (Score:5, Informative)
15 years ago, 'typical users' didn't know how to use napster
I should think not, since Napster didn't exist until 1999. [wikipedia.org]
Re:In summary: (Score:4, Informative)
Yep. And here's what the powers-that-be will hear:
Laundry list of distinguished security researchers: "Blah blah nerd stuff neep neep neep."
MPAA Flack: "We wear suits. And we have money. By the way, Senator, how's that third vacation home working out for you?"
Re:Kay Bailey Hutchison defends PROTECT-IP (Score:4, Informative)
I think she wouldn't know the difference and this is the form response to any complaint about the tubes.
Wow. fucked up morons. (Score:5, Informative)
A statement by the MPAA disputes these claims, arguing that typical users lack the expertise to select a different DNS server and that the Internet must not be allowed to 'decay into a lawless Wild West.
dns filtering came to turkey 5 years ago.
EVERYONE knows how to bypass it now. and i mean everyone who is using internet - the equivalent of the 'mom in idaho' knows how to bypass it. her son, relatives, someone from neighborhood comes and bypasses it for her. people learned what 'opendns' means here. the term 'proxy' have become an everyday term, even in among the tech illiterate crowd. people ask about 'good proxy' to each other. (people learned about it when the courts started to ban i.p.s).
so, random 'mom in turkey' is able to do that, but the organization that represents all movie producers in america shits about otherwise ?
really. what kind of people are you letting you run your country and corporations and corporations' lackey organizations ? idiots ? morons ? bastards ? i think the last one is more likely. (i am not able to bring myself to say ngo regarding mpaa after that kind of idiocy)
Re:Wrong, there are laws, and this breaks one of t (Score:3, Informative)
wget -O /dev/null "http://216.34.181.45/"
--2011-07-18 17:39:41-- http://216.34.181.45/ [216.34.181.45]
Connecting to 216.34.181.45:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] [following]
--2011-07-18 17:39:42-- http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
Resolving slashdot.org (slashdot.org)...
this ip address simply re-directs to "slashdot.org".
so this does not solve the problem.