Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by NCommander on Thursday August 25 2016, @01:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-haz-RRSIG dept.

In the ongoing battle of site improvements and shoring up security, I finally managed to scratch a long-standing itch and signed the soylentnews.org domain. As of right now, our chain is fully validated and pushed to all our end-points.

Right now, I'm getting ready to dig in with TheMightyBuzzard to work on improving XSS protection for the site, and starting to lay out new site features (which will be in a future post). As with any meta post, I'll be reading your comments below.

~ NCommander

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @06:39AM (#393371)

    ISPs need to prevent obviously bad traffic from their network, or UDP needs an overhual.

    Which is the proper approach, either from a technical or liability/moral perspective?

    The only reason I can imagine ISPs not wanting to drop bad traffic leaving their network is due to the work involved, either man-hours or equipment processing load.

    Giving UDP an overhaul seems like trying to close the barn door after the horse has left. In hindsight, designing UDP to make DDoS attacks more difficult seems like a good idea, but my mind boggles at how much stuff would break if the protocol itself was heavily changed. By contrast, nothing stops the system making use of UDP to demand its own syn/ack type of handshake before dumping data back at the source IP...