| ▲ | indolering 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The engineering effort! ECC solves the theoretical concerns around latency anyway yet we have people arguing that it shouldn't be done. But if it was worth making HTTPS faster to secure HTTP, why not DNS? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ekr____ 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Ah, I see what you're asking. You're not going to find this answer satisfying, I suspect, but there are two main reasons browsers and big sites (that's what we're talking about) didn't bother to try to make DNSSEC faster: 1. They didn't think that DNSSEC did much in terms of security. I recognize you don't agree with this, but I'm just telling you what the thinking was. 2. Because there is substantial deployment of middleboxes which break DNSSEC, DNSSEC hard-fail by default is infeasible. As a consequence, the easiest thing to do was just ignore DNSSEC. You'll notice that they did think that encrypting DNS requests was important, as was protecting them from the local network, and so they put effort into DoH, which also had the benefit of being something you could do quickly and unilaterally. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | akerl_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
HTTPS solved a bunch of real world threat models that were causing massive security issues. So we collectively put a bunch of engineering time into making it performant so that we could deploy it everywhere with minimal impact on UX and performance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||