2014-wachs-censorship-resistant
findings extracted from this paper
-
DNSSEC fails to withstand legal attacks because governments can legally compel DNS authority operators to manipulate entries and certify the changes; the trust chains DNSSEC establishes mirror DNS zone delegations and therefore inherit the same jurisdictional vulnerabilities. A Danish police incident demonstrated the collateral damage: 8,000 legitimate domains were accidentally removed when censorship procedures were executed against a single target. Chinese DNS injection has been shown to have worldwide effects on name resolution through out-of-bailiwick NS record chains.
-
GNS uses a proof-of-work-gated network flood for key revocation, requiring an adversary to block flood traffic on every path between the revocation origin and all peers to suppress it. This is substantially more robust than X.509 certificate revocation lists, which an adversary can render ineffective by simply blocking access to CRL servers — a weakness severe enough that browser vendors must bundle revocation lists inside software updates.
-
GNS encrypts all DHT queries and responses using a zone-private-key-derived symmetric key (h = x·l mod n; query = H(hG)) such that a passive DHT observer can only mount a confirmation attack — requiring simultaneous knowledge of both the zone's public key and the specific label. Without both values, an adversary observing DHT traffic cannot determine the label, zone, or record data; even fully participating malicious DHT nodes see only opaque signed blobs unlinkable to their originating query.
-
GNS bounds the trusted computing base (TCB) for any individual name resolution to fewer than approximately 125 entities (constrained by name label length) and makes the full trust chain transparent to the user. By contrast, even simple DNS lookups can silently depend on correct answers from over 100 DNS zones; China's DNS injection caused global collateral damage precisely because out-of-bailiwick NS record chains made the full trust graph invisible to resolvers and users alike.
-
Blockchain-based naming systems such as Namecoin are insufficient under a strong adversary model where a nation-state can muster more computational resources than all other participants combined, allowing it to produce alternative valid chain histories. This vulnerability is most acute during system bootstrapping and in censored regions where the user base is small, precisely the conditions under which a censorship-resistant naming layer is most needed.