Slashdot Mirror

... I will post it again. This relates to the page views GoSquared measures, NOT to the entire internet.

GoSquared self-describes as "trusted by 30,000 businesses", which is not a small number, but also doesn't really compare to the number of businesses with websites out there. http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/ says there are about 150 mio domains (in the most popular gTLDs). Assuming domains is a decent measure for websites (which it isn't, but let's go with that for now), at best GoSquared measures 0.02% of the internet.

That means, we only know that 0.02% of 40% was affected, which is some 0.8% of the total internet.

But wait, we're talking page views, not websites. http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/ estimates 3.76 billion pages (indexed, not existing). If we assume those 3.76 billion pages are spread evenly across those 150 mio domains, we have some 25 pages per domain.

It now depends on the type of businesses GoSquared represents: are they SMEs (often with no more than 1-5 pages on their domain) or large businesses (often with hundreds of pages)? With 30,000 customers, my guess would be that they represent more SMEs than large businesses, meaning the total number of pages they represent is actually less than 30,000 x 25. Which also means the 0.8% percentage of total page views would drop even further.

Lastly, page views does not mean traffic. Traffic is mostly generated from streaming media these days, not pages.

All the numbers to be taken with a grain of salt, of course, but they still seem to be in a better range than the ones GoSquared published. Never trust statistics you didn't forge yourself.

The biggest problem with IP address availability is web sites that use SSL annoyingly needing a single IP address per site.

There are currently about 120,000,000 domains in the most popular non-geographic TLDs. If every single one of those has an HTTPS server, then that consumes about 3% of the IPv4 address space.

They only checked 4 million URLS. There are 87,966,601 registered domain names according to this page: http://whois.sc/internet-statistics/

This 37% statistic is complete bunk. What they should measure is the amount of traffic dedicated to porn...

Strangely, though, the web site commemorating the [major theft]|[harmless prank] was only established yesterday.

Whois - caltechcannon.com
      Domains by Proxy, Inc.
      DomainsByProxy.com
      15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
      Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
      United States

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com
      Domain Name: CALTECHCANNON.COM
            Created on: 05-Apr-06
            Expires on: 06-Apr-08
            Last Updated on: 05-Apr-06

Also referenced is howeandser.com -- same date, same semi-anonymous registrar. You'd have thought that the website would have been the *first* thing they put together!

Strangely, though, the web site commemorating the [major theft]|[harmless prank] was only established yesterday.

Whois - caltechcannon.com
      Domains by Proxy, Inc.
      DomainsByProxy.com
      15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
      Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
      United States

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com
      Domain Name: CALTECHCANNON.COM
            Created on: 05-Apr-06
            Expires on: 06-Apr-08
            Last Updated on: 05-Apr-06

Also referenced is howeandser.com -- same date, same semi-anonymous registrar. You'd have thought that the website would have been the *first* thing they put together!

This is. Apart from that, nothing. More importantly, there's nothing stopping you from making amazingkiddiesexvideos.com. It's an opt-in business standards label, but they're trying to market it as a measure against child porn, for the sake of the save-the-puppies angle in the news.

This has nothing to do with morality or filtering technology or anything. "Some people" means ICM Registry, who aside from pushing the idea itself, plan to be the ones in charge of charging "$10 (U.S.) annually from every .xxx domain registered" (http://www.icmregistry.com/).

The sick thing about this is the audacious misrepresentation. The notion that it is going to have any effect on child porn is insulting, and the fact that "Child and family safety groups" is unbelievable. It's a consumer rights idea, nothing more.

The fact is, nobody can let on that they care about the rights of consumers who are paying for sinful, immoral porn. But, it's such a huge, tantalising pie that it was only a matter of time before someone found a way to get a piece. Touting the "OMG SCARY INTERNET" angle will still get you most anything, if you're a corporation...

Meanwhile, the child pornographers will continue to run their .com sites, and the authorities will continue to bust them the same ways as before.

A whois (or even Godaddy) search for the sites listed in the article (www.irhabi007.ca and www.irhabi007.tv) show that they're currently available for purchase.

I'll be first to call "bullshit" on this whole story.

Before anymore of you spout off about how this guy's use of his free speech rights is what got him into trouble, RTFA!

"Tsouli has been charged with eight offenses including conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to cause an explosion, conspiracy to cause a public nuisance, conspiracy to obtain money by deception and offences relating to the possession of articles for terrorist purposes and fundraising. So far there are no charges directly related to his alleged activities as Irhabi on the Internet, ..."

LOOK! No Internet-publishing charges! They found out who he (allegedly) was by accident!

My only question is where are the Internet spooks who should be hunting these guys? They break into servers in the US and put beheading videos on them, and no one bothers to check the logs? Where are the honeypot jihadi forums? Is anybody looking into wtf http://www.whois.sc/irhabi007.com is all about? Is the owner a fan or an identity theft victim?

Great Idea!

So good in fact that someone at google already registered it.

http://whois.sc/156.33.15.27

OrgName: U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
OrgID: USSAA
Address: 2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
City: WASHINGTON DC
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20510
Country: US

NetRange: 156.33.0.0 - 156.33.255.255
CIDR: 156.33.0.0/16
NetName: SCC
NetHandle: NET-156-33-0-0-1
Parent: NET-156-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: SEN-DMZP.SENATE.GOV
NameServer: SEN-DMZS.SENATE.GOV
NameServer: DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET
NameServer: DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET
NameServer: DNSAUTH3.SYS.GTEI.NET
NameServer: AUTH03.NS.UU.NET
NameServer: AUTH50.NS.UU.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1991-12-03
Updated: 2002-09-12

by techno-vampire (666512):Without TLDs, we'd have to come up with an entirely new way to resolve DNS, and I very much doubt it'd be as quick or as reliable as what we have now.

by Aardpig (622459):Can you explain why, in detail? Because I disagree with you.

Yes. Go ahead and read it yourself:

"Feeling the "URGE," MTV Networks Announces a New Digital Music Service in Collaboration With Microsoft

"URGE unites powerful music DNA of MTV, VH1 and CMT with Microsoft's industry-leading technology and consumer reach to deliver an immersive entertainment experience.

"NEW YORK and REDMOND, Wash. -- Dec. 13, 2005 -- MTV Networks, a division of Viacom, Inc. (NYSE: VIA and VIA.B), and Microsoft Corp. today announced that they have collaborated on the design and development of MTV Networks' forthcoming digital music service called URGE. Set to debut in 2006, URGE will provide an immersive music experience and will be integrated into a forthcoming version of the Microsoft® Windows Media® Player. The collaboration unites MTV Networks' music DNA, marketing strengths and powerful MTV, VH1 and CMT brands with the technology leadership and consumer reach of Microsoft. (...)

Besides, go to www.urge.com. Isn't it strange for Microsoft project that domain is registered by Viacom/MTVi (http://www.whois.sc/urge.com), hosted on Netscape-Enterprise web server, AND has copyright:

© 2005 MTV Networks. MTV, URGE and all related titles and logos are trademarks of MTV Networks, a division of Viacom International Inc. All rights reserved.

I'm used to Slashdot editors getting it wrong, but this time it was like CNN editors read too much Slashdot.

Just so you know, this site is being hosted by the schools own server. wellington.org is on the IP address 205.182.87.5, which lies in an ip block owned by "the wellington school". I sure hope to god they have an up-to-date server they have in the school's backoffice, or it will be toast tomarrow!

It has been known for some time that google registered gbroswer.com. Could this simply be the beginning of the Google Browser?

C) My domain information is fake. Fuck em.

Just wait until someone sends a letter to Intercosmos stating 'lazylightning.org' has false registration information.

B) why should the registrar or ISP get to make additional money on top of the already outrageous costs associated with registering a domain name just to protect my information that shouldn't be required anyway?

Well, that's you're call, but I've seen registrars (in the $10/year range) charge as little as $1/year for this protection. My current registrar charges $8.88/year/domain plus $2.88/year/domain for WHOIS protection. I don't think that's a bad deal.

combining your link with the cia fact book

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2119rank.html
http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/country-ip -counts.html

we get that USA uses 4.5, UK 4.2, Japan 1.1 and China uses 0.0555 ip-adresses per capita, so they are not really the problem ..

Swaziland has 18682461 ip-adresses and a population of 1138227 which is 16.4 per capita..
Uruguay has 42701418 ip-adresses and a population of 3415920 which is 12.5 per capita..
.. I don't understand .. maybe they've never heard about LAN's? (or something is seriously wrong with the ip address space)

IP allocation by country.

USA: 1.3 billion. UK: 254 million. Japan: 141 million. China: 72 million.

Something is going to have to change here.

Who is Nexenta Systems, Inc. (gleaned from the HTML title attribute of http://www.nexenta.com/ anyway, and why do they feel the need to hide their identity (http://whois.sc/nexenta.com)? They're referring to this Debian port as 'Nexenta OS', but then using the domain gnusolaris.org (where they have also hidden their details behind a Domains by Proxy registration). They have this to say on 'the future': "We do hope that at some point, sooner rather than later, our changes (so far for the most part just cleanups to build the DEBs in the new Solaris-like environment) will be integrated with the upstream. At the end of the day - this would be the right thing to do." - presumably they mean that they intend for this to become an official Debian port (eg Debian GNU/Solaris)?

Registrant:
      Domains by Proxy, Inc.
      DomainsByProxy.com
      15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
      Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
      United States

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com
      Domain Name: NEXENTA.COM
            Created on: 15-Jul-05
            Expires on: 15-Jul-08
            Last Updated on: 11-Oct-05

http://www.whois.sc/popeblog.com How about: http://www.popedontblog.org/

In the wake of recent releases of Google Desktop 2.0 Beta and Google Talk 1.0 Beta, Gmail now is finally open to everyone. Other exciting rumors suggest that Google may even try to compete with Internet Explorer by producing a product called GBroswer. Other Google features include Maps, Blogger, Hello, iGoogle, Google Earth, and Picasa. Now it appears they've produced a new Google Theme Song.

and have done since the 19th of february 1998

Anyone else notice that the domain opensuse.org is registered to the caped crusader himself?

By submitting this price request, I understand that the quoted price will be at least $1,000 and may be over $10,000. The quoted price is a fixed, one-time only fee that will be valid for 7 days. This is not an auction. I understand the pricing terms and am prepared to spend at least $1,000 for this domain.

That's fantastic, so I wonder if all 571 websites are now down due to one /. post! Now that would call for a /. story, which should in turn /. http://www.whois.sc/ Who says reading /. is passive!

bo

wow slashdotted so early ... 571 websites share the same server by the way. http://whois.sc/getoutfoxed.com

Fox owns simpsonsmovie.com

Registrant: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (DOM-365367) 10201 W. Pico Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90035 US Domain Name: simpsonsmovie.com Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com/

(http://www.whois.sc/simpsonsmovie.com)

Very cute.

I have nothing particularly against Dotster but last time I looked, Dotster and MyDomain.com looked suspiciously like the same system behind the scenes except that all the extras that Dotster charge for are free at MyDomain.

I don't use them these days but MyDomain.com generously do a pretty good free DNS and email forwarding service for any domain. It doesn't even need to be registered with them.

By incredible coincidence: Dotster and MyDomain have the same phone and fax numbers and adjacent PO Boxes.

I have nothing particularly against Dotster but last time I looked, Dotster and MyDomain.com looked suspiciously like the same system behind the scenes except that all the extras that Dotster charge for are free at MyDomain.

I don't use them these days but MyDomain.com generously do a pretty good free DNS and email forwarding service for any domain. It doesn't even need to be registered with them.

By incredible coincidence: Dotster and MyDomain have the same phone and fax numbers and adjacent PO Boxes.

How do we know that Filipe isn't a disgruntled employee waiting to take the company down from the inside?

If he is, he's certainly established a good front. He currently owns almost all the variations of "forbes" and "sucks" (including this article's "from the X department", forbesucks.com). Though he somehow missed forbessucks.org. As interesting as it sounds, I don't think I'll bother adding it to my collection.

Actually, the tipoff that it's not just a potentially disgruntled employee comes from another whois detail, the registrar:

"With a dedicated account approach, MarkMonitor's multilingual staff registers all gTLDs (general top level domains) and over 200 ccTLDs (country code top level domains). The MarkMonitor staff has a thorough understanding of ccTLD registration and local presence requirements, taking the guesswork out of the equation."

That's an awful lot of work to hide an evil plot... but then, maybe Filipe is *really* disgruntled.

On a side note I wonder how forbes has/would handle something like forbessucks.com.

They have/would have bought it.

Registrant:
Forbes, Inc.
(DOM-1334284)
60 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011 US

Domain Name: forbessucks.com

Registrar Name: Markmonitor.com
Registrar Whois: whois.markmonitor.com
Registrar Homepage: http://www.markmonitor.com

Administrative Contact:
Filipe Carreira
(NIC-14324246)
Forbes, Inc.
60 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011 US

After the whole debacle with the DNS somehow i don't see Verisign prioritize ethics over profit any time soon

could this be the start of GBrowser http://www.whois.sc/gbrowser.com/ [whois.com]

The whois record for panix.com is:
Domain Name.......... panix.com
Creation Date........ 1991-04-22
Registration Date.... 2005-01-15
Expiry Date.......... 2006-04-23
Organisation Name.... vanessa Miranda
Organisation Address. 1010 Grand Cerritos Ave
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Las Vegas
Organisation Address. 89123
Organisation Address. NV
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... na vanessa Miranda
Admin Address........ 1010 Grand Cerritos Ave
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ Las Vegas
Admin Address........ 89123
Admin Address........ NV
Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
Admin Email.......... [protected]
Admin Phone.......... +44.702413697
Admin Fax............ +44.7026413697

Tech Name............ Domain Admin
Tech Address......... Burnhill Business Centre
Tech Address.........
Tech Address......... Beckenham
Tech Address......... BR3 3LA
Tech Address......... Kent
Tech Address......... GREAT BRITAIN (UK)
Tech Email........... [protected]
Tech Phone........... +44.2082496081
Tech Fax............. +44.2082496076
Name Server.......... ns1.ukdnsservers.co.uk
Name Server.......... ns2.ukdnsservers.co.uk

<meta name="jedi-mind-trick" content="You will bookmark this site and use it a lot.">

If you really want to ruin the fun about discovering his identity, just check out the domain registration for exeem.com. http://whois.sc/exeem.com

Doh!

everyone knows that this has always been 'damn small linux' except that article uses the linking text of "www.dslos.com" though it really goes to "www.damnsmalllinux.org". dslos.com is a working url, which is the same as the normal site except it says 'demi sized linux' in the title bar and elsewhere instead of 'damn small linux'.
i thought maybe this 'demi sized' version of the name has been the clean version for a while, but a google search brings up nothing.
i guess its not that bad but does this suggest that MS wanted the os to present itself in a 'cleaner' fashion, without the word "damn"?
also why does the article point to the damn small version rather the the demi sized. maybe they just recently set up the domain or something and the dns hadnt fully moved over at time of publishing? although a whois on dslos.com shows it was registered on nov 4.
(although note on that the whois.sc info on the site it shows 'desktop sized linux' as the title bar... i guess they arnt even sure what they want the clean version to be. wierd.)

everyone knows that this has always been 'damn small linux' except that article uses the linking text of "www.dslos.com" though it really goes to "www.damnsmalllinux.org". dslos.com is a working url, which is the same as the normal site except it says 'demi sized linux' in the title bar and elsewhere instead of 'damn small linux'.
i thought maybe this 'demi sized' version of the name has been the clean version for a while, but a google search brings up nothing.
i guess its not that bad but does this suggest that MS wanted the os to present itself in a 'cleaner' fashion, without the word "damn"?
also why does the article point to the damn small version rather the the demi sized. maybe they just recently set up the domain or something and the dns hadnt fully moved over at time of publishing? although a whois on dslos.com shows it was registered on nov 4.
(although note on that the whois.sc info on the site it shows 'desktop sized linux' as the title bar... i guess they arnt even sure what they want the clean version to be. wierd.)

Spammer Jeremy D. Jaynes: Represented by David A. Oblon. E-mail addresses: dao@albo-oblon.com, aolaw@his.com, and web form. Source.

Spammer Jessica DeGroot: Represented by Thomas V. Mulrine. Unable to locate e-mail address, but web form. Source.

Spammer Richard Rutkowski: Represented by Leo R. Andrews, Jr. E-mail address: leoa@erols.com. Source.

[Attention, Messrs. Olbon, Mulrine, and Andrews: if you discover this posting and decide to try to track down this 'anonymous coward' with revenge in your hearts, please note that your own actions put your e-mail addresses into the public record and onto the Internet, so kindly don't try to blame me for it. Mr. Olbon, you included your e-mail address in numerous Washington Business Journal articles you authored, and included your second e-mail address when you registered your firm's website. Mr. Mulrine, you signed up for the appropriate service with Martindale. And Mr. Andrews, you included your e-mail address in a legal pleading.]

According to WHOIS, the domain was created about a month and a half ago, apparently owned by Linaire.

Check here if the link in the story disappoints you with no Administrative Contact information.

joogle.com is already taken by a search spammer, though joogle.net has expired and could become available Any Day Now. I'd love to be able to one day say "I rescued [a-z]oogle!"... or alternatively, "I got a nastygram from Google!"

So, I'm OOgling the 1,430 entries for *oogle.*, just in case there's one somebody else missed...

Sorry, wrong link in parent. 4752 registered domain names with google in them.

they have a lot more people to sue

Whois.sc displays screenshot of website homepage at least a couple of months ago.

What's really scary about IP allocation is how many individual corporations have so many IPs.

It might seem reasonable for IBM and Apple to have an entire Class A, but why do Ford, Eli Lily, Halliburton, Prudential, GE, and Merck have entire Class A IP blocks when they're not using a fraction of them??? The IP allocation list reads like a who's who of political favors.

The whois history reveals a bit more about the domain (which was picked up by google just very recently).

Hostway has a zero tolerance policy for chargebacks. Any customer who disputes a credit card payment is subject to a fine, suspension and account termination at Hostway's discretion. A charge of $25.00 per chargeback will be assessed to all accounts that receive a chargeback.

Daily Changes (last 24hrs)
Active | Deleted | On-Hold | New | Deleted | Transfered | TLD
26,365,081 | 14,870,072 | 346,746 | 41,938 | 18,769 | 25,823 .COM
4,371,932 | 2,850,938 | 63,376 | 6,284 | 3,293 | 3,814 .NET
2,788,070 | 1,706,901 | 33,401 | 3,934 | 2,526 | 2,243 .ORG
1,088,545 | 249,234 | 1,274 | 1,734 | 1,021 | 557 .INFO
922,483 | 235,428 | 1,021 | 2,003 | 1,098 | 700 .BIZ
739,098 | 23,161 | 490 | 978 | 239 | 403 .US
36,275,209 | 19,935,269 | 446,308 | 56,871 | 26,946 | 33,540 Total
Last Updated 1/24/2004

Actually, the status of .su is debatable -- IANA froze the domain so that no new .su domains could be created, but it was reopened by .su administrators a few years later, even though IANA & ICANN didn't recognize it as an active TLD. .su still isn't listed on IANA's public list of ccTLDs, but it's listed the in whois.iana.org database because .su's administrators are too stubborn to give up. (The .su root servers are also .ru root servers, which makes them hard to ignore.)

Using the ccTLD of a "deleted nation" is kind of iffy. The ccTLDs are supposed to be based on ISO 3166-1, and the ISO is allowed to reassign old codes to new nations. If IANA let ccTLDs outlive their nations, they increase the chances of having two claims to one ccTLD. Sooner or later, somebody would get accused of ccTLD-squatting.

For the record, ccTLDs have been sucessfully dissolved before: .cs in 1995 and .zr in 2001. (Also, I'm told .dd was dissolved when the two Germanies unified, but I'm not sure .dd was ever active to begin with.)

If the end of Niue's independence led the ISO to drop nu from ISO 3166-1, IANA and ICANN probably would try to freeze or delete .nu, depending on how active it remained and who was willing to keep managing it.

Keep in mind, though, ISO 3166-1 doesn't require political independence for a region to have a geographic code, because it's still useful for "distant regions" to have their own codes for non-Internet purposes (like air travel and shipping). There are completely uninhabited islands that still have ISO codes! As long as people are living on Niue (and New Zealand doesn't ask for deletion), the ISO will probably leave nu on the list.