that's not going to help much if the authoritative name servers (which is what dyn is, btw) go down for more than a day.
Max record cache time is 86400s (24h), so if the attackers can keep it down for 24h then google will have to have custom instructions in place (or cache more aggressively than the RFC allows)
Is there any reason why Dyn has to be "down" from Google's perspective? Is it possible that the large DNS providers maintain private network between each other, such that DDoS attacks that are effective against the public are ineffective against the private network?
Since the attacked dyndns DNS servers are evidently anycast, the google server you are reaching might connect to a different dyndns server than you do. If google has luck to reach a less overloaded server, they might get an answer where you get none.
In addition, Google Public DNS engineers have proposed a technical solution called EDNS Client Subnet. This proposal allows resolvers to pass in part of the client's IP address (the first 24/64 bits or less for IPv4/IPv6 respectively) as the source IP in the DNS message, so that name servers can return optimized results based on the user's location rather than that of the resolver. To date, we have deployed an implementation of the proposal for many large CDNs (including Akamai) and Google properties. The majority of geo-sensitive domain names are already covered.
I'm a Verizon FIOS customer in NYC and was unable to reach nytimes.com and several other sites this morning. Switching my DNS to Google's (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) seemed to fix the problem, but I don't understand why yet.
I'm not a cocoa developer, and I don't really know who matt is, or what library that may be ;). Once I'm a seated cocoa developer I probably will though, but then my general point no longer really applies.
To address the "moving off of Parse" comment: The way I've dealt with this is to use the Parse REST Client instead of the Parse SDK. That way you're object model isn't tied to parse PFObjects and you can swap out the Networking layer if you choose to move to another vendor. If you control the full stack, you can even model your backend to more-or-less mimic Parse's Rest API.
Yeah in retrospect we should have definitely done this. Although it causes a significant trade off to prototyping speed. I am not sure if its not just worth using your own API at that point.
That is completely irrelevant to this articles point of illustrating Objective-C bugs that are fixed by Swift. Nowhere did it claim that no other language had solutions for @Override
haha these answers are cracking me up. Who cares? Do people develop iPhone apps using Go? Swift never claimed to invent new paradigms that didn't exist in other languages, it simply brought them to Cocoa.
My comment was specific to lxcid's comment and his surprise to see all these features in a language. I don't understand why my reply got downvoted.
> Who cares? Do people develop iPhone apps using Go?
There is no built-in support for people to start caring in the first place anyway. But Go fundamentally is better suited for server-side code rather than applications as Swift is supposed to.
That's kind of irrelevant. The only thing that really matters since swift is built to natively support Cocoa, is was this possible in Objective-C (and to a lesser extent C and C++).
http://www.investors.com/news/technology/click/apple-iphone-...