This is a discussion on Re: Pimping DNSSEC (was Re: DNSSEC - Signature Only vs the MX/A issue.) - DNS ; Ralph Droms wrote: > The immediate RoI isn't directly like locking your door, because you don't > have the risk of anything being stolen *directly* from you if you don't > apply DNSSEC to your zones. It's more indirect - ...
Ralph Droms wrote:
> The immediate RoI isn't directly like locking your door, because you don't
> have the risk of anything being stolen *directly* from you if you don't
> apply DNSSEC to your zones. It's more indirect - somebody else trying to
> access your website won't be robbed through a phishing attack if you put a
> lock on your door.
It depends on how much your reputation is worth. I was having dinner
with a guy the other day whose site had been hacked using a SQL
injection attack which resulted in customers' information being acquired
and misused. He certainly didn't think that this was his customer's
problem - indeed, his e-commerce site has been offline for three months
now because they're so worried about the possibility of compromising
their customer info again. DNSSEC doesn't solve this problem at all,
but the point is that companies who don't have a monopoly, which is most
companies, really do care whether their customers' transactions are safe.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.