the special sauce writes
"A few months back, our customers (we run a regional ISP) started receiving deceptive domain renewal notices from Verisign and Verisign partners such as Interland. A couple of our customers temporarily lost their domains in the process as the registrant, contact information and hosting company was all changed. Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a customer. He was forwarding a "reminder" e-mail he had received. It was an SSL certificate "renewal" notice from a UK company, Comodo. It instructed him to "upgrade" his current certificate (issued by Equifax) before it expired." More information on this charming practice follows...
the special sauce Continues:
"For those who don't know, Equifax was just bought out by GeoTrust, who offers a QuickSSL product. Comodo's e-mail was advertising an "InstantSSL" product, which I myself mistook for the GeoTrust product on first reading the e-mail. When I realized my mistake, I contacted Comodo and inquired as to their relationships with Equifax and GeoTrust and how they came by my customer's information. The response: "We have no relationship with Equifax or GeoTrust. The information on a certificate is public information which we have used to inform this company that they have an option when they come to buy their certificate." My interpretation: Comodo is harvesting contact information from certificates in bad faith, to market a competing product. Furthermore, I think they have targeted Equifax customers because the company was just bought out. In any buyout, confusion exists as to the "new" company's identity. I think they are offering a product whose name is confusing similar to a GeoTrust's product. The language in their e-mail does everything possible to obfuscate the fact that they are not affiliated with Equifax, encouraging customers to "renew" and "upgrade" their certificates. In reality, if my customer had clicked the links in the e-mail, he would have been purchasing a new certificate from a company with which he had no previous relationship.
So I ask, is this not cert slamming? I don't expect this to be as big a problem as Verisign's domain slamming: we simply host less certificates than domains so it is easier to warn all of our customers with secured web sites. Nevertheless, I've reported the practice to the FTC."
Slashdot Mirror
Don't customers have to have their service provider actually changed (w/o authorization) for the practice to be considered slamming?
I mean, what's described here is disgusting, but I don't know that the terminology fits.
- DDT
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
What exactly does this story have to do with VeriSign?
If we're going to start working slams against companies we don't like into unrelated stories, we should at least cover all the bases by saying something tangential about Microsoft or an RIAA member while we're at it.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Verisign only complains if anything takes money from them. If they don't lose money, they don't care.
I spoke with a person at Verisign about an obvously false whois registration, that belongs to a spammer. This clearly violates ICANN rules, but Verisign does not want to hear it.
Fight Spammers!
Sure it's Cert slamming. There's no doubt about that. The problem is though, that to date there is no law against it. That's right, perfectly legal. For example I have on my desk a letter from "The Admiistrative Office of RPR/OFV Records Division". It looks vaguely like something from the IRS, certainly it is from some government agency. When I open it, it looks like a check for $1600 and a ticket for a cruise. Of course, it is all a bogus marketing scam. Probably trying to sell time shares. It's totally and intentionally misleading but, at the same time it is still legal.
Furthermore I wouldn't look for a law against it any time soon. Things like certificates and how they work are a bit on the technical side, at least for our poor overworked legislators. They have a lot of catching up to do and are currently bogged down trying to stop the MP3 swappers from being the scurge of humanity that they are.
While I don't condone the spam advertising methods here, this is NOT comparable to Versign's shady practices. Verisign was sending out notices that tried to make people believe they were renewing their domains, but were actually switching providers.
There is no deception here. It's a simple advertisement asking you to switch.
Nothing to see here.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Verisign partners such as Interland
Is it just me or are these internet companies' names getting more cheesy everyday?
Soon we'll have CutCo, EdgeCom, and the ever waiting CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet joining the leagues of crap companies im sure.
Anyone know if Comodo's cross-signed with another provider? I dont' see Comodo listed with their own top-level pre-trusted root in Konq 3.0 or Mozilla 1.0, so I sure hope they are cross-signed with someone.
That would be truly unfortunate for the victim to fall for this and end up with a cert that nobody's browser trusts.
Comodo is a spam-laden organization. I run a web hosting and network management firm in Edmonton and we've received countless offers for "CHEAP SSL" and other services from Comodo!
It's been thoroughly discussed in other location such as WebHostingTalk.com which I suggest anyone interested in pursuing a Comodo service look at first. These guys actually responded in the forum with a nice show that they don't actually care who they spam provided it makes a buck.
Sincerely,
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
- A company uses publicly-available vehicle registration information to pitch extended warranties.
- A tax company uses public appraisal tax rolls to offer their assistance in filing appraisal appeals.
- A company sends a homeowner a form and fee request to file a homestead exemption, again using information from public tax rolls.
- An insurance company sends a "reminder" about homeowner insurance renewal, using information publicly available in some states (usually loan information).
- A doctor's office uses publicly-available information to notify a pilot that it's time for he/she to renew their medical certificate.
In all these cases, companies are pitching their wares using public information, knowing full well that a small percentage of the population will choose not to check the details. Exploitive? Maybe...but certainly not illegal. And it can't even remotely be considered slamming.It even looks like Comodo was very straightforward with you when you requested additional information. I see no attempt by Comodo to obfuscate their purpose.
If this company is UK based i would advise you to report them to the Office of fair trading and the UK Trading Standards , these kinds of practices are despicable and the OFT and TS do not take kindly to this sort of behaviour
I cannot even count the number of bogus faxes / emails I have received telling me one of my domains (or some clever spelling thereof) is about to expire.
Gee, marketing people are creepy slimeballs. I'm stunned. No. Really.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
So Comodo spams website owners. As a result, the website owners might get tricked into buying this cert "renewal".
But who makes the Certificate Signing Request for website owners? In most cases the company hosting the web site. (Unless it's co-location).
I expect competent tech support personnel to filter out these bogus certificate renewals immediately.
-------
Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
I got those notices myself for Uncoveror.com, uncoverer.com, and dontbuycds.org, but my e-mail from GoDaddy warning me that they are bogus came first, and I was not fooled. I hope everyone behind this scam goes to the slammer, and finds out several times per day why it's called that.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Yup, even in the southern hemisphere it's happening.A 53F05EC FC6CC256ABF00090DE4
E A2 77DCC256BC9000CA1D2
Internet Name Group (no URL any more that I can find) and Internet Registry have both been trying it on in Ausralia and New Zealand. The ACCC (commerce department in Aus) and the Commerce Commission in NZ are both keeping an eye on the matter.
Stories on the subject here:
http://www.idg.net.nz/webhome.nsf/nl/D6AC0
and here:
http://www.idg.net.nz/webhome.nsf/nl/A8539751DE
apologies for the evil links... goddam Notes.
I am a leaf on the wind
SSL and crypto in general is all about trust. Would you trust someone who engages in deceptive marketing? Then again, so does Verisign, with their domain stuff. Are there any good certificate issuers?
Don't you think that calling their offering a RENEWAL is deceptive?
Let's review the wording:
"Did you know that your current SSL Certificate protecting [customer domain] will expire in only 60 days? "Before you renew please read the following important information from Comodo. "We offer SSL certificates that provide;"
Note the "BEFORE you renew". Note the "We offer". Note that a list of services follows this, along with pricing. Please explain how this can be interpreted as a renewal notice coming from your certificate authority.
As for the "upgrade", I certainly would consider it an upgrade of service to pay only $49 rather than the rip-off $1000 that Verisign charges.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It's becoming clear that we need spam laws which provide for a penalty against the beneficiary of a spam, even if they did not originate it. An acceptable defense would be that the beneficiary had taken legal action against the spammer. That would make third-party spam actionable. (It may be, anyway, but it's a bigger legal battle under current law. I've been talking to an an anti-spam lawyer, and he's unwilling to take on Verisign because they have too much money.)
I personally like the term "poaching" when referring to these types of practices. Strip mining is nasty, but not necessarily illegal (though it should be.) Poaching, by the very definition is:
To take or appropriate something unfairly or illegally.
I can't think of a better way of describing this type of information THEFT, for the gain of the THIEF.
"We have no relationship with Equifax or GeoTrust. The information on a certificate is public information which we have used to inform this company that they have an option when they come to buy their certificate."
They aren't trying to 'inform', they're hard selling, in bad faith. They're misleading consumers into thinking there is no alternative. It's opportunistic, and pretty close to criminal.
An insurance company sends a "reminder" about homeowner insurance renewal, using information publicly available in some states (usually loan information).
I get notices from insurance agencies, credit card companies and any number of other bulk mailers. The difference is, they are out in the open about wanting to sell me a product i don't have, or informing me i have an alternative to the products i may already be using.
These companies are playing dumb. "aww shucks, you mean folks didn't realize they didn't HAVE to re-up with us? well, gosh golly, i guess we'll be more careful next time." A mailing could just as easily be sent out that says "we noticed that your domain name / cert is about to expire. Please consider us as an alternative when you renew." That'd be a company hawking their wares. What they're doing now is a clearly deceptive business practice. Slamming just happens to be the closest description.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
IANAL. Now, of course you have to consider that it's up to a court to determine whether a servicemark or trademark is being infringed upon, but "confusingly similar" certainly meets the standard for infringement. However, the special sauce got a different reading than I did - no doubt coloured by the fact that Comodo [brings visions of flushing to mind] spammed his customers for competing (and probably lame) products. I'd be pissed too.
However, my reading of the spam was that it's pretty straightforward. There's obsfucation, but it's arguable that they consider their product an "upgrade" in much the same way Microsoft salesdrones consider W2K Server an "upgrade" to your favorite Unix/Linux distro. Companies often offer "renewals" or "competitive upgrades" to entice users to switch from Brand X.
IMHO, what Verisign has done in its spam "renewal" campaign is fraudulent. In a related anecdote, I've found it next to impossible to move my domains to another registrar; hell, I've had problems just moving them between hosting services.
But, back to the topic, Comodo [flush] ain't slamming, I've experienced that joy on two occasions. BellSouth got a new Access app that had a *required* a selection from a lookup table of long distance providers. The default at the time was AT&T. I went from *no long distance* (I *PAID* a monthly fee for disabling long distance. Not that it mattered, because BellSouth was perfectly happy to sign me up with AT&T for my non-existent long-distance service at a $15 a month fee. I still haven't found out how much they got for it, but after repeated phone calls and legal threats I enjoyed 8 months of free local phone service to settle the matter. Of course, that was after about 8 weeks of haranguing dozens of people - your mileage may vary.
Second was when I ordered DirecTV DSL for one of my company's East Texas offices. As in most places, the local Bell does the actual activation - molasses slow for competitors' customers, blazing quick (in comparison) for Bell customers. But I signed up for DirecTV DSL and SouthWestern Bell *canceled* that work order, telling DirecTV DSL that we'd already signed up with SouthWestern Bell; a blatant lie. Still dealing with that one.
My attorney told me that if a contract exists, and I become aware that a competitor is trying to win my customer's business *prior* to the expiration of the contract between me & my customer, then the competitor can be sued for damages due to "tortious interference"...
Most of the time, the competitor would back off until the contract was within 3 months or so of expiring. There were a couple of times, though, that we went to court - & got money both times for damages (customer for breach of contract, competitor for "TI").
So how is this situation different from VeriSign, et al, slamming domain registrations? Why aren't the lawyers having a field day with this? Or are they, & I just missed the cloobus?
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
And here we have a certificate authority (CA) who's masquerading as a competitor, in order to slam "subscribers" and certify their identity to end users.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I had this with one of the afore-mentioned companies a few months ago. (I'm a coward and don't want to get into trouble, so I won't mention names.) They got e-mail addresses for every listed contact from our whois record, and sent off letters to anyone for whom they could find an address, warning that our domain name registration was about to expire.
Including our CEO.
Who, not understanding what it was, and also not realizing that I'd only just renewed the domain name for five years and we weren't in any danger of losing our domain name until 2007, passed it on to the secretary with instructions to pay the bill.
Now, in fairness, the letter is cunningly worded, and probably can't be technically construed as slamming; it gives you the option. But, hoo boy, is it slimey!
The first I knew about it was when I started getting automated e-mails from our original registrar asking me to go through certain steps to authorize the name transfer. I tracked down what was happening, and got on the phone to Dom. Reg. of ***.
Forget the long, boring, tedious arguments. And the appalling insolence and downright rudeness of their people. Just a few points...
* They're used to complaints. Despite their protestation that I was only the second person who'd ever complained about this, as soon as you mention the word slamming they've got a rehearsed speech about the wording of paragraph five which they quote to prove it's not slamming. Uh-huh. Try doing a Google search on them and see if it's that rare a complaint.
* They're unhelpful buggers. No matter when I called, I was always told that nobody who was there could help me with my complaint, and I'd have to call back.
In the end, it works out okay. All you have to do is not authorize the transfer and they can't do anything about it, and they have to refund your money. Except for a processing fee. Trust me -- I argued and bitched and generally made a nuisance of myself by pointing out there was nothing in any of the correspondence we'd received or on their website about a processing fee, and we got the money back.
But believe me; there is one company who is now boycotted for life in my books.