Slashdot Mirror

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

The actual complaint in the class action law suit has very serious confusion involving the technical issues surrounding the SiteFinder.

In the introduction, they discuss that the SiteFinder replaces what was previously done with 404 errors. However, as has been previously discussed many times here on SlashDot, 404 errors occur when the domain exists, but the requested document does not exist on the webserver hosting that domain (it is the webserver than returns the 404 HTTP error code). In actually, when a domain didn't exist, you would get an error stating "Could not find domain". The complaint even describes how, in the past, incorrectly typing a URL would give a 404 error (they use the typo "ssyncalot.com" as a typo of "syncalot.com"). This behaviour never occured.

Although I feel that legal action against Verisign is a good idea, the plaintiffs should perhaps organize their technical facts before appearing in court.

Weird, it looks like Verisign bought that company ?

www.bcrvm1.com


No mention of ol' Dr Dave though...

I wonder what it means ?

"And in the darkness to bind them."

I thought BIND already had a patch to save us from the darkness

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

By using the service(s) provided by VeriSign under these Terms of Use, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions here in and documents incorporated by reference.

So you're saying that Stratton Sclavos was elected?

There are many alternatives to KaZaA, starting as low as 99 cents a month, that will protect your privacy and enable you to share music legally.

# Sole Remedy.
YOUR USE OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH ANY OF THE MATERIALS, RESULTS OR OTHER CONTENTS OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES OR WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, OUR PRIVACY STATEMENT, OR OTHER POLICIES, YOUR SOLE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF THE VERISIGN SERVICES OR OUR SITE.

I'd guess the guy responsible for "the company's globally deployed registration and resolution infrastructure that currently supports the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS)."

I wonder which one of these characters made this mess happen?
http://www.verisign.com/corporate/about/executive. html

IIRC, this sounds like the brainchild of someone like Aristotle Balogh - and if they haven't moved in the last 3 years they should still be here.

IIRC, this sounds like the brainchild of someone like Aristotle Balogh - and if they haven't moved in the last 3 years they should still be here.

What, you mean the same lsh that was just exploited two days ago?

Frankly, I think you'd have better luck searching the web for 'ssh'.

Try searching the web for more options. I strongly recommend checking out Intel and eBay's sites.

Not in the least. Check out result #5 when you search for Michael Sims. Ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha.

Search results

Server Error

The server encountered an error and could not complete your request.

If the problem persists, please mail google@google.com and mention this error message and the query that caused it.

Nice job. Not only does Google invade your privacy, it also fails to search. Why are people using this piece of crap instead of better search engines?

Verisign Legal Department:

According to the Terms of Service for your Sitefinder
service at [URL], my sole remedy is "to
discontinue use of the Verisign services or our site."

I am strongly dissatisfied with the Sitefinder service but cannot
discontinue use thereof. Further, with the profit-driven Sitefinder,
Verisign has strayed from the spirit of Jon Postel's charter to "preserve
the central coordinating functions of the global Internet for the public
good."

In addition to the technical objections to the Sitefinder (chiefly the
misleading or incorrect error messages generated by wildcards in the .com
and .net zones), I bring to your attention the following business objection:

Verisign is abusing its monopoly in the .com, .net, and Global Registry
domains via the Sitefinder service. Any domain holder that wishes to avoid
Sitefinder's misdirection must register common misspellings, which directly
benefits Verisign's Global Registry regardless of the registrar used. No
other organization is in a position to so blatantly exploit the domain name
system for their own profit.

In addition to the technical objections to the Sitefinder (chiefly the
misleading or incorrect error messages generated by wildcards in the .com
and .net zones), I bring to your attention the following complaint:

Verisign is abusing its monopoly in the .com, .net, and Global Registry
domains via the Sitefinder service. Any domain holder that wishes to avoid
Sitefinder's misdirection must register common misspellings of their
domain(s), which directly benefits Verisign's Global Registry regardless of
the registrar used. No other organization is in a position to so blatantly
exploit the domain name system for their own profit.

I disagree to the Term of Service of Verisign's Sitefinder. The Sole Remedy
offered in the Terms is impractical, to wit: I, along with millions of of
other internet users, cannot discontinue use of Verisign's services without
discontinuing use of the DNS, a key component of everyday internet usage.
Therefore, I respectfully ask that Verisign discontinue the Sitefinder
service immediately.

Sincerely,
rm

HeHe

Check out point 14. If you spell a domain incorrectly, your accept the terms:

14. AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND. By using the service(s) provided by VeriSign under these Terms of Use, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions here in and documents incorporated by reference.

Okay, I'm as peeved off about VeriSign's stupid wildcarded search engine as the next /. geek, however...

Rather than skipping down to Point 14, you should start with the very beginning of the ToS:

This Agreement sets forth our obligations to you, and your obligations to us solely in relation to the use of the Site Finder services provided through this web site (the "VeriSign Service(s)").

Like 99.999% of the /. community, IANAL. But it seems pretty clear to me that the ToS are very carefully specifying that the phrase "VeriSign Service(s)" means only "Site Finder services".

So my reading of their ToS is:

• These terms do not apply to lookups involving VeriSigns DNS servers. SiteFinder is a web site/wannabe-search-engine, not a DNS server.
• These terms do not apply to DNS lookups where VeriSign returns the SiteFinder IP address. Again, you are using VeriSign's DNS server, not their Site Finder web site.
• These terms do apply if for some ungodly reason you actually decide to use Site Finder's search engine.

If you don't agree with the current SiteFinder terms, or don't want to keep checking the ToS page all the time to see if they've been revised to give VeriSign ownership of your car, dog, house, and/or spouse -- then don't use their silly search engine.

IANAL, but is there any legal precidence about this type of licence?

Well, NOUAL (Neither Of Us Are Lawyers ;-), and I imagine there's a lot of legal precedents for whether a web site can enforce terms of service posted online. And I bet you can find a precedent for "Yes", "No", and "Only On Alternate Tuesdays".

Easy case of "Yes": My ISP posts their ToS on their web site, and modify them whenever they like -- but, and this is a big "but", I signed a contract with them saying I'd abide by their posted terms, whatever they happen to be this week.

Easy case of "No": The ToS page contains a clause saying that by using the web site, the web site's owner gains ownership of your car, dog, house, and/or spouse.

Something that's probably "Only On A Tuesday": A home repair website might have a ToS page that says that you agree to indemnify them against any and all damages that arise from you following their instructions on how to repair an electrical outlet. If some moron managed to injure or kill themselves because the site failed to mention that you shouldn't lick a live socket while standing naked in your kid's wading pool during a rainstorm...well, I could see a case like that going either way.

I noticed that they have a terms of service for the "service." Interesting what we're "agreeing" to by making a typographical error.

For my part, I sent Verisign an email in which I rejected the terms of service, and informed them that I would regard future invitations to use their service (displays of the site) in any way I see fit, including, without limitation, the right to "meta-search" it. While I was at it, I also informed them that I would further regard their display of sitefinder as an agreement to warrant their service free from defects, including, without limitation, fitness for a particular purpose.

Not that it will do anygood, but how can they expect their terms and conditions to be binding on anyone if the "service" is forced on you?

Here are the results. Just for fun now on Google.

Have any of you read the "terms of use"? http://sitefinder.verisign.com/terms.jsp What a load of bollocks - do they seriously want us to believe that being redirected without our control to some bogus directory site is a legally binding agreement?! Go fsck yourselves Verisign!

Probably your ISP. Mine's too slack to block it, so if you want to see the page, here's where it redirects you: http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=notarealadd ressatall2323.com&host=notarealaddressatall2323.co m

Hey, you're misquoting the GeoTrust.com web site... they're compatible with 98% of all browsers, not 90%... there's a huge difference.

Especially considering those 'big players' are barely any better. This (somewhat outdated) page on Verisign's web site even claims that their own Verisign root certificates are present in only 98% of the browsers available.

So 98% compatibility for GeoTrust certificates and 98% compatibility for Verisign certificates... would you pay more for the Verisign certificate?

And Thawte's root cert only shipped with IE 3.01 and 3.02 of the IE 3's... and those Thawte root certs expired in 1998, so they don't do you much good unless you've installed newer ones... but if your installing new root certs in your browser, why not install the GeoTrust ones? IE4 on the Mac also has the same root cert expiration problem.

So, yes, using a Thawte SSL cert will allow SSL connections without the little warning message on a few more browsers on certain platforms. But do you think someone running a piece of crap browser from 4+ years ago is going to get worried about a warning message saying the authenticity of a certificate cannot be verified? They probably can't even see half the sites they visit, and get a barrage of javascript errors on every page they go to (remember those?)... what's one more little warning message to click through?

$20 per domain year for .coms/.nets ? Phew - that's pricey! OpenSRS sells domains to their resellers for $10/year (although a number of resellers are using domains as "loss leaders" - see EV1servers.com for an example). Even then, OpenSRS makes a profit as .com/.net registries have to "buy" the domain names off Verisign in the first place (as they are the "central" registry) for $6/year. And I'm sure if Verisign is purchasing millions of domains years in one "block", then Verisign will be able to give Verisign an appropriate discount...

a) Xenu's Link Sleuth is a Windows program that checks broken links
b) Xenu is an excellent worldwide free product written by Tilman Hausherr
c) Tilman fights Scientology
d) Verisign is controlled by Scientology (can't prove it, so)
e) Verisign lauch Sitefinder
f) Xenu.exe program is almost unusable

My two cents.

a) Xenu's Link Sleuth is a Windows program that checks broken links
b) Xenu is an excellent worldwide free product written by Tilman Hausherr
c) Tilman fights Scientology
d) Verisign is controlled by Scientology (can't prove it, so)
e) Verisign lauch Sitefinder
f) Xenu.exe program is almost unusable

My two cents.

Interestingly, verisignsucksmyballs as well.

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=verisign.co m&host=verisign.com
or
http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=sitefinder. verisign.com&host=sitefinder.verisign.com

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=verisign.co m&host=verisign.com
or
http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=sitefinder. verisign.com&host=sitefinder.verisign.com

New Official Verisign Response

Official Verisign Response

Terms of Service

I'm having a hard time picking a favorite section. It could be section 10 - Sole remedy: don't use the service. Heh. Or section 12 - Indemnity: by using the service you indemnify Verisign for any damage that use of the service may cause you. Or section 14 - agreement to be bound by terms of use.

Shouldn't making baseless legal threats or trying to convince people that they are bound by a valueless contract be a crime - maybe a minor felony, but the US bar might consider disbaring lawyers who are involved in such shady goings on.

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url='//--></scr ipt>"//--></script>><font size="
+3"><b>If <em>she</em> loves us then we <em>have</em> to be cool!<br>
<img src="http://www.patrick.fm/boobies/boobies.php/tex t/VeriSign"><br>VeriSign! Hot
babes love us! You should too!<br><br><br><br></font&g t ;|

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url="//--></scr ipt>malicious code<script>

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url='//--></scr ipt>"//--></script>><font size="
+3"><b>If <em>she</em> loves us then we <em>have</em> to be cool!<br>
<img src="http://www.patrick.fm/boobies/boobies.php/tex t/VeriSign"><br>VeriSign! Hot
babes love us! You should too!<br><br><br><br></font&g t ;|

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url="//--></scr ipt>malicious code<script>

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url='//--></scr ipt>"//--></script>><font size="
+3"><b>If <em>she</em> loves us then we <em>have</em> to be cool!<br>
<img src="http://www.patrick.fm/boobies/boobies.php/tex t/VeriSign"><br>VeriSign! Hot
babes love us! You should too!<br><br><br><br></font&g t ;|

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url="//--></scr ipt>malicious code<script>

Never thought it'd happen, but I'm rooting for the squatter... if there's a group worse than spammers and domain squatters, it's Verisign. Just on a whim, I typed in a non-existent domain name, and sure enough, found myself on their page. Take a look at the "Terms of Use". Sections 2 and 14 are really telling:

2. You may have accessed the VeriSign Service(s) by initiating a query to our DNS resolution service for a nonexistent domain name.
14. By using the service(s) provided by VeriSign under these Terms of Use, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by all terms and conditions here in and documents incorporated by reference.

I'm not sure how the came up with the fact that I, the end user, made a query to their DNS server. In fact, I did not. My ISP may be using their services, but I personally have no legal relationship with Verisign whatsoever. My ISP may be using their services, but that in no way establishes a relationship between myself and Verisign. IMO, unless you're querying Verisign directly, their terms of use cannot possibly apply -- which means that they apply to almost noone. I would challenge them to show any log that shows my IP address accessing their service. If they can't, then I did not in fact access their service.

And what's worse is the implication that I can bound by "Terms of Use" that I have never seen, based on the assumption that I made the query, when in fact the query mas made to a DNS server at my ISP (and again, I don't really care how my ISP handles that request as long as it sends me the requested info.

Having trouble figuring out why site finder is controversial, they don't outline that at their web site...

but I did try

amp

somewhere in the middle is the behemoth financial company

slashdot

nothing

sun biometrics

some stuff about sun as in java

and then the

sun biometrics international

the fraudulent company designed to part fools from their money.

Figures.

Having trouble figuring out why site finder is controversial, they don't outline that at their web site...

but I did try

amp

somewhere in the middle is the behemoth financial company

slashdot

nothing

sun biometrics

some stuff about sun as in java

and then the

sun biometrics international

the fraudulent company designed to part fools from their money.

Figures.

Having trouble figuring out why site finder is controversial, they don't outline that at their web site...

but I did try

amp

somewhere in the middle is the behemoth financial company

slashdot

nothing

sun biometrics

some stuff about sun as in java

and then the

sun biometrics international

the fraudulent company designed to part fools from their money.

Figures.

Having trouble figuring out why site finder is controversial, they don't outline that at their web site...

but I did try

amp

somewhere in the middle is the behemoth financial company

slashdot

nothing

sun biometrics

some stuff about sun as in java

and then the

sun biometrics international

the fraudulent company designed to part fools from their money.

Figures.

Would you say this is fair?

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=www.microso ft.com&host=www.microsoft.com

"We didn't find www.microsoft.com"
"There is no web site at this address."

Only in a perfect world...

Their new ad campaign with naked women went too far in my opinion. They were basically asking to be sued. Didn't they think about the children?

I sent an email to various VeriSign addresses about their abuse. Somehow one of them got routed to a Network Solutions drone.

The drone informed me in a form letter that VeriSign's practices were "well within the guidelines" established by the document Domain Name System Wildcards in Top-Level Domain Zones.

After deconstructing this, we are left with: VeriSign is within the guidelines of the document VeriSign wrote on the matter.

Uhm...

I don't know what you're doing, but:
Here
We didn't find: "www.omgwhatisthisurlyouaretypinghere.comLOL"
There is no Web site at this address.

Did You Mean ?
We did find these similar Web addresses.
# www.slashdot.net # www.slashdom.com # www.slashdot.com # www.splashdot.com # www.slashnot.com

Say about them what you want but I admire VeriSign's new ad campaign.

In that case, uou can e-mail Christopher Parente directly -- the guy that used to be associated with that address -- at CParente@verisign.com. But don't tell him I sent you. :-)