[FoRK] [External] : Re: Is this a dumb question?

Gregory Alan Bolcer greg at bolcer.org
Thu Mar 18 08:35:37 PDT 2021


Yes, but for any arbitrary domain and dynamic ephemeral certs with the 
permissions encrypted inside of them for both access and micro-resource 
based permissions--not some traditional, centrally managed VPN and 
revocation list.

Greg

On 3/18/2021 8:22 AM, Aaron Burt wrote:
> Add physical cryptographic tokens and you have .mil or eop.gov basically.
> 
> On 2021-03-18 06:58, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>> I'm guessing it'd be verticalized task specific access rather than
>> geographic.  As there would be so many of them, there'd be no reason
>> to only think of access at the big granular level.
>>
>> Different virtualinterwebs could have different terms of service for
>> using them including use and types of software, apps, content, QoS,
>> etc.  If you don't obey the ToS then your next little emphemeral,
>> contemporaneously generated crypto access is not renewed.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On 3/10/2021 9:48 PM, Reza B'Far wrote:
>>> Interesting... so, how would that work in practice from Nation/State
>>> sponsored attacks?  As in where would you restrict things? You would
>>> restrict, say *.cn?
>>>
>>> I like Network/Hardware solutions over software solutions because they
>>> erect physical barriers that have a much higher cost.  Bunch of dudes in
>>> a basement can't access satellites or subterranean cables (well, not
>>> easily and at low cost).  I think you could really fight things like
>>> IP-theft which seem to be a big focus of the recent attacks by just
>>> "cutting off" the hose.
>>>
>>> On 3/10/21 3:45 PM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>>>> I like the idea of having a gTLD that you can only get on with proper,
>>>> time based, ephemeral certificates.
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>> On 3/8/2021 11:21 AM, Reza B'Far wrote:
>>>>> Reading the details of the Chinese attack... and the Russian attack...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would the western world not just go to a model where bit hoses of
>>>>> internet are closed to those countries?  I mean, I understand there is
>>>>> really no effective way of "cutting off" networks globally... but 
>>>>> there
>>>>> are ways to basically restrict bandwidth and that would really create
>>>>> problems for those countries.  Why would we not do that?  Like why 
>>>>> would
>>>>> NATO for example have a wing that can just limit the bandwidth to a
>>>>> point where it becomes very "expensive" to mount large attacks?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> FoRK mailing list
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!MpcwtB_41r7tNYNgvsLt6a3mXDs4TEKQbhPI3FT_ZFW1xhUBzLTc-ziNgD2WXUoR$ 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FoRK mailing list
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!MpcwtB_41r7tNYNgvsLt6a3mXDs4TEKQbhPI3FT_ZFW1xhUBzLTc-ziNgD2WXUoR$ 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FoRK mailing list
>>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FoRK mailing list
>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork


More information about the FoRK mailing list