Slashdot Mirror


US .gov WHOIS Info Restricted Over Attacker Fears

An anonymous reader writes "VeriSign Inc has stopped providing access to information about the .gov internet domain, which is restricted to US government bodies, over concerns the data could be used in planning internet attacks."

178 comments

  1. I see no problem with this... by DragonMagic · · Score: 2

    I see no problem with this since there are proper steps in place to ensure that only US Government facilities and institutions can get .gov addresses. The databases of normal .com/.net/.org and such are available as public info mainly to ensure you know what company or entity is behind the domain (at least, that's what we assume).

    So if they take them down, even to say it's for protection, are we losing a facility, really?

    --

    Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
    1. Re:I see no problem with this... by 56ker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes - but this move just means they're getting paranoid - it's ineffective anyway. Either someone wants to reassure the general public that they'd doing something (however ineffectual) or Versign wants some press coverage on a slow news day.

    2. Re:I see no problem with this... by DragonMagic · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is insignificant, but the physical addresses of government facilities are available elsewhere, and simple lookups can get you the nameservers, etc.

      So just Verisign taking it offline isn't a problem, for whatever reason. We shouldn't be noting it as newsworthy, really.

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
    3. Re:I see no problem with this... by UberOogie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So if they take them down, even to say it's for protection, are we losing a facility, really?

      Frankly, yes. It is an instance of the government taking away information that should be available to the public under the guise of "national security."

      And in the current climate, this is exactly the kind of thing we should be fighting against, with Ashcroft in power.

      Granted that this is a relatively minor instance, but it is one that is part of a much greater whole.

      The interests of "security" cannot supercede the interests of liberty.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    4. Re:I see no problem with this... by cmallinson · · Score: 1
      It is an instance of the government taking away information that should be available to the public

      With all due respect, for what legitimate purpose would you need to know the IP address of a government computer? I understand that some people get scared when information that was once available is taken away, but let's not slide down the slippery slope.

    5. Re:I see no problem with this... by gmack · · Score: 2

      "So if they take them down, even to say it's for protection, are we losing a facility, really?"

      So if you spot a network problem or have an issue with abuse(it's happened) comming from a .gov domain how do you contact the admims?

    6. Re:I see no problem with this... by DragonMagic · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd like to point out that the government's nic is still available, only Verisign, a non-government corporation, removed their database of .gov from public view.

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
    7. Re:I see no problem with this... by freaq · · Score: 1

      is that REALLY the department of fish and wildlife that is saying that you're allowed to catch 47 salmon per day?

      --
      united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
  2. Internet attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What're they going to do? Terrorist DOS attacks? Oh the pain.

  3. Special Slashdot Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this another case of bureaucratic no-think?

    I guess they assume only .gov would be targets. Once again, their first premise is wrong.

  4. info on /whois by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Funny
    WhiteHouse.gov

    C/O George W. Bush
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC.

    Yup, wouldn't want anyone to know where HE lives, do we?

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:info on /whois by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Who believes that George W. Bush carries out
      the job description of the President?

      Bush is just the gopher who reads cue cards and
      the teleprompter for President Cheney and Vice-President Rumsfeld.

      Have a marijuana inspired weekend.

    2. Re:info on /whois by 56ker · · Score: 1

      Er seeing as the White House is in hundred's of films I hardly think it's location is a secret!

    3. Re:info on /whois by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      I thought the aliens blew the white house up already...

      What are the terrorists gunna do, plant peanuts?

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  5. Talk about a non-news item... by jea6 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you need whois data for a ".gov" domain, go to the General Services Administration.

    --

    sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    1. Re:Talk about a non-news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not about restricting the ability to to whois queries. Its about restricting the ability to download the zone file.

      Did you even read the article? Do you know what a zone file is?

    2. Re:Talk about a non-news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, doesn't that make the headline a bit misleading?

    3. Re:Talk about a non-news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea for whitehouse.gov, the named servers are all on the same network

      Domain servers in listed order:

      DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET 4.2.49.2

      DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET 4.2.49.3

      DNSAUTH3.SYS.GTEI.NET 4.2.49.4

  6. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an unexpected clever move, unfortunately it helps a shit:

    09/21/02 15:16:10 dig whitehouse.gov @ 212.185.249.50
    Dig whitehouse.gov@DNSAUTH3.SYS.GTEI.NET (4.2.49.4) ...
    Authoritative Answer
    Query for whitehouse.gov type=255 class=1
    whitehouse.gov A (Address) 198.137.240.92
    whitehouse.gov MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 100 wh.eop.gov
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov SOA (Zone of Authority)
    Primary NS: eopc.eop.gov
    Responsible person: postmaster@whitehouse.gov
    serial:2002072201
    refresh:900s (15 minutes)
    retry:300s (5 minutes)
    expire:604800s (7 days)
    minimum-ttl:7200s (2 hours)
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.41
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.42
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.43
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.44
    dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.2
    dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.3
    dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.4
    Dig whitehouse.gov@DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET (4.2.49.3) ...
    Authoritative Answer
    Query for whitehouse.gov type=255 class=1
    whitehouse.gov A (Address) 198.137.240.92
    whitehouse.gov MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 100 wh.eop.gov
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov SOA (Zone of Authority)
    Primary NS: eopc.eop.gov
    Responsible person: postmaster@whitehouse.gov
    serial:2002072201
    refresh:900s (15 minutes)
    retry:300s (5 minutes)
    expire:604800s (7 days)
    minimum-ttl:7200s (2 hours)
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.41
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.42
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.43
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.44
    dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.2
    dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.3
    dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.4
    Dig whitehouse.gov@DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET (4.2.49.2) ...
    Authoritative Answer
    Query for whitehouse.gov type=255 class=1
    whitehouse.gov A (Address) 198.137.240.92
    whitehouse.gov MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 100 wh.eop.gov
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov SOA (Zone of Authority)
    Primary NS: eopc.eop.gov
    Responsible person: postmaster@whitehouse.gov
    serial:2002072201
    refresh:900s (15 minutes)
    retry:300s (5 minutes)
    expire:604800s (7 days)
    minimum-ttl:7200s (2 hours)
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.41
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.42
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.43
    wh.eop.gov A (Address) 198.137.241.44
    dnsauth1.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.2
    dnsauth2.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.3
    dnsauth3.sys.gtei.net A (Address) 4.2.49.4
    Dig whitehouse.gov@212.185.249.50 ...
    Non-authoritative answer
    Recursive queries supported by this server
    Query for whitehouse.gov type=255 class=1
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) DNSAUTH3.SYS.GTEI.NET
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET
    whitehouse.gov NS (Nameserver) DNSAUTH3.SYS.GTEI.NET
    DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET A (Address) 4.2.49.2
    DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET A (Address) 4.2.49.3
    DNSAUTH3.SYS.GTEI.NET A (Address) 4.2.49.4

  7. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There shouldn't even be a .gov TLD.

    It should be .gov.us

    1. Re:Well by rtphokie · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. .com has become an internationalized TLD but .gov shouldn't exist at all.

    2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the United States had no right to demand a TLD after France invested all that hard work and money in creating the Internet!

    3. Re:Well by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What, you mean the US should do it like the rest of us?

      www.theregister.co.uk

      www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca

      But the USA is the Internet, right? That's why you have .gov, .com, and .net instead of .gov.us, .co.us, and .net.us

      It's always bugged me a bit, especially when companies in my country use .com instead of .ca - I always try .ca by default and many of them don't have the .ca even in use to point to the .com.

      I honestly don't know if there is even a TLD for the USA...

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    4. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US definitly deserves credit for doing the bulk of the work in creating the network. And I can understand why the .gov domain was created back then.

      However the internet has outgrown it's roots long ago, and TLD's should be universal. That was the reason the ccTLD domains where created wasn't it?

    5. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's grandfathered in due to the fact that the United States invented DNS and the internet, so we get dibs on all the good TLDs. If you believe otherwise, please respond below with some evidence to the contrary.

    6. Re:Well by thogard · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There shouldn't even be a .gov TLD.

      I guess you haven't heard of the new world order?

    7. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the United States government funded the creation of the internet, and they had the TLD first (.gov), I guess it is just tough luck.

    8. Re:Well by ToKsUri · · Score: 1

      I agree, however I am sure in a beginning when the TLD's where designed, they didnt expect internet becoming what is right now.

    9. Re:Well by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given that the .gov.us paid for the development of the internet protocols, including DNS, I think it's not too unreasonable that they get a meaningless perk like having their own TLD.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Well by angelo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It drives me nuts. .gov and .mil used to belong to the us... I've heard that .mil is going onto Internet2 and is leaving Internet. That takes care of .mil. Now it is the time to retire .gov. Move it to .gov.us, and there will be one address to worry about hiding from terrorists.

      www.gov.us could be the central directory to states and federal goverment agencies. That such a site doesn't exist (it sorta does in firstgov, and some news sites, but that's difficult to remember) is rather sad.

      The whole point of this heirarchy would be to have a website on anything and everything in the government, and have that site name be obvious.

      And another thing.. try going to http://state.pa.us ... can't do it without the 'www.' because the dns entry doesn't exist or else has been aliased improperly. The www. should be considered optional at this point. Hell, even eBay has a problem with this.

      this era of stupid web architecture must end.

    11. Re:Well by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      The British invented postage stamps, so they're the only country in the world that doesn't have to put their name on their stamps. You don't hear anyone complaining about this. It's a fair deal; they were the first so they get dibs.

      The international telephone prefix for the USA is 1, because we invented the telephone. Same deal here.

      So if you'd like your country to be the default for the next wave of communication technology, write your government officals encouraging them to invest in this sort of research so your country can beat the rest of the world to the punch.

    12. Re:Well by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If "TLD" means "Two Level Domain" yes there is. :)

      I don't know if you ever noticed, but postage stamps in every country in the world carry the name of that country somewhere on the stamp, except for one. Which one? The UK. Why? Because they were first with adhesive postage stamps as we now know them and started the tradition.

      I don't have any more of a problem with the US not having to tag .us onto its domain names than I do with the UK not putting its name on its postage stamps.

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
    13. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The international telephone prefix for the USA is 1, because we invented the telephone. Same deal here

      Except that you didn't invent the telephone.

    14. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.
      In "worldwide" internet, there surely are gov'ts in other countries...and should have .gov.ccTLD associated with them as well

      While I am as USA patriotic as you can get, the .gov TLD should be "globified"

    15. Re:Well by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

      The international telephone prefix for the USA is 1, because we invented the telephone. Same deal here.

      Not the same deal .. 1 is still a prefix.

    16. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New World Order only has one government.

      Let's panic.

    17. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot.

    18. Re:Well by FrostedWheat · · Score: 0, Troll

      you are an idiot.

      Yep, but at least I'm not an anonymous idiot :)

      Be proud of your idiotness!

    19. Re:Well by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      I don't know if you ever noticed, but postage stamps in every country in the world carry the name of that country somewhere on the stamp, except for one. Which one? The UK.

      Not quite analogous, 'coz there's a queen icon somewhere on the stamp. So, yes, while there's no mention of a country, there is still some identification.

      The problem with the .com/org/net TLD is that it has (rightly) become ubiquitous without any reference to the United States. I'm talking about sites such as this.

      Or this. (The last one is a governmental site; the .com site is maintained more often than the one with the stylistically correct url)

    20. Re:Well by NiTRiX · · Score: 1

      In some fashions I would agree with that, but being that the internets developement and birth place resides here in the US, I have always seen it as an American root, while the technology itself branches out into other countries. That's the same reason there is .com.tw and .com.fr; to distinquish between 'native' sites and 'foriegn' sites. Foriegn governments receive access to .gov.* TLD's in order to distinguish themselves from the United States. And I also believe that the /greater/ reason for these distinctions is to catagorize a given tongue.

      --


      on the sixth day God created man.
      on the seventh day, man returned the favor.
    21. Re:Well by kchoboter · · Score: 0

      Canada's International Code is also a 1.

      Check your facts, Alexander Graham Bell immigrated with his parents to Canada in 1870. He began the process of inventing it HERE! It wasnt until later that he went to the University of Boston. He was a Canadian citizen and did not gain US citizenship until 1882.

      And in my opinion... the TLD for the US gov should be us.gov what makes them think they own the .gov TLD.

      --
      4B4556494E
    22. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our US Congress RULED that WE invented the telephone, NOT CANADA.... SO BITE ME

  8. drugs by quigonn · · Score: 0, Troll

    The people at VeriSign should stop smoking so much pot and crack.

    --
    A monkey is doing the real work for me.
    1. Re:drugs by cornicefire · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they get paid as much as the NY Mets? They're certainly winning more games.

  9. Are they going to... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...hide the contents of the websites too?

    Not much point hiding the whois information of a domain if its accompanying website tells the whole world who and where they are...

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    1. Re:Are they going to... by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 2, Troll


      Not much point hiding the whois information of a domain if its accompanying website tells the whole world who and where they are...

      Generally the contents of a website don't list the DNS servers for that domain. Verisign has restricted access to .gov whois records in order to protect government DNS servers from denial-of-service attacks. Please read the article next time, even if it is poorly written.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    2. Re:Are they going to... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Not much point hiding the whois information of a domain if its accompanying website tells the whole world who and where they are...

      Does the web site typically list the name, address and phone number of the individual responsible for the site?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Are they going to... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

      It did say "internet attacks". There's not much point knowing the name and address of the person running a website if you're going to attack them over the net...

      Basically, it all sounds a little pointless to me. Security via obscurity.

      --
      -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    4. Re:Are they going to... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not hiding the whois information, they're hiding the zone file, which contains just two bits of information for each domain:

      What the names of their nameservers are
      What the IPs of their nameservers are

      You can still look this up via DNS, but it takes much, much longer.

    5. Re:Are they going to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, no? how do you think DNS works without nameservers? this is blatantly false and the moderators are completely moronic.

    6. Re:Are they going to... by Wakkow · · Score: 2

      You can still look this up via DNS, but it takes much, much longer.

      Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly, but I think a script that does a dig on the domains would be a lot faster than manually looking each up in a whois.. Or the same amount of time as writing a script to run the whois. Someone please explain to me what I'm missing?

    7. Re:Are they going to... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      VeriSign used to release the actual zone file, on an ftp site. You sign a document basically saying, "I'm not a spammer or that sort of thing", and they give you an account on the ftp site. You can go there and download the entire zone file in bulk.

      Now, they've removed the .gov entries from that zone file.

      You can still get that information by querying each domain, either through DNS or whois. But that takes much, much longer.

  10. sshhh! by 56ker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't say that too loudly - the *terrorists* might hear you! ;o)

  11. Re: and another by 56ker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yet another place you can get whois data on .gov domains - Network Tools.

  12. Even better ... by shri · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think they should restrict access to the .gov DNS records also. Would go a long way in making the .gov net a whole lot more secure. :)

    1. Re:Even better ... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      And do you have any *constructive* suggestions for making .gov websites more secure?

    2. Re:Even better ... by J'raxis · · Score: 1

      No. Why should we be serious about a government that is a fucking joke to begin with?

    3. Re:Even better ... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      Or take any notice of a president that got less votes than his rival eh?

      You can sling mud and criticise all day - you try actually being in the government and then I think you'll criticise it as an institution a whole lot less. It's better than having a dictator or a monarchy anyway.

  13. Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois info by Nijika · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It had to be a matter of public record anyway, right? I don't see what this solves. I think the old term "Security throught obscurity" applies here. That term has also been trampled on time and again because it just doesn't work. Hide information via one source, get all confident that you're safe, and then get surprised when you're actually not.

    Is there anyone out there who can explain what this accomplishes really? I'm seriously asking because I might be missing something.

    --
    Luck favors the prepared, darling.
  14. It probably isn't a hard thing to find... by sm0kes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm sure somewhere out on the Internet (Google.com comes to mind) the information is cached. How many times has information been available after lawsuits, infringements, and a range of other problems? How often are people able to get their email addresses of spam lists once it starts? I'm not going to be the one to post this information, but it's just something to think about...

    1. Re:It probably isn't a hard thing to find... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's not a hard thing to find. They managed to hijack and crash four planes, three of which actually hit -buildings- in urban areas. I think they're smart enough to be able to figure out where a server is when they want to. And I don't think their methods would be limited to running a WHOIS either..I mean really.

  15. ouhhhh the Terrorists by matto14 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    like the Terrorists are now going to use WHOIS. like they didn't do this before and don't know there targets. Besides the old fashioned mailing address system still works.

    --
    SCREW FLANDERS
  16. This may have unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I think the intent is admirable, the net effect might be somewhat frustrating. For example, how are we supposed to get contact info if say a governement group's DNS goes south? Or maybe just a portions of it? what about entities that have been misapportioned? (Good example is the City of Albuquerque, NM.)

    The quote that I found interesting is: "Also removed from the FTP site was the zone file for in-addr.arpa, which is used for reverse-DNS lookups (when somebody wants to find out what domain is associated with an IP address, rather than the other way around)." So is this a prelude for them to stop supporting rev. DNS? If it does stop, are they really aware of the potential consequences? (Stopped email, blocked access, etc.) What about who to contact and how to contact them about possible network outages?

    Things like this might seem like a good idea at the time, but can (and do) lead to other problems. I am in favor of security as much as the next guy, but half though-out moves like this don't help.

    -D.

    P.S. I wonder if they are going to stop publishing things like the white pages (online or even the print edition)? Hey they do have government entity addresses and phone numbers?

    1. Re:This may have unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Also removed from the FTP site was the zone file for in-addr.arpa, which is used for reverse-DNS lookups (when somebody wants to find out what domain is associated with an IP address, rather than the other way around)." So is this a prelude for them to stop supporting rev. DNS? Yes, then they can hax0r machines more effectively without a quick reverse lookup revealing it's from a gov address.
    2. Re:This may have unintended consequences by sjwt · · Score: 1

      but if you cant rev. DNS how are you
      suposed to know whos DOSing you..
      hmmm wonder why theyed want to stop
      that..

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    3. Re:This may have unintended consequences by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      No one is blocking PTR records, they're just not giving out the entire in-addr zone so you can see all of the NS delegations (which you could quickly grep for .gov, etc). Interesting thing is that there are no .GOV NS for in-addr zones, so it's a mute point, but there are plenty of .MIL.

      Futher, PTR records can be completely false, and the real useful data for finding a bad host is often found in ARIN/RIPE/APNIC local IP Registry database.

      However, the in-addr zone is still online (but .gov is not):
      ftp://ftp.rs.internic.net/domain/inaddr.zon e.gz

  17. rfc-ignorant listing by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder whether .gov will find itself listed in on rfc-ignorant for this.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    1. Re:rfc-ignorant listing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they will, because I don't think that the whois-induced danger to government institutions is any bigger than the danger to me. I'm forced to have my information listed, so should they.

    2. Re:rfc-ignorant listing by huge · · Score: 1
      They already should have benn listed there. From whois.rfc-ignorant.org listing policy :

      Domains are listed in the whois.rfc-ignorant.org zone based on meeting any of the following criteria:
      • a phone number of "555-1212";
      • an address of 1060 W. Addison, Chicago (for any organization other than the Chicago Cubs);
      • an address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC;
      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
  18. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by 56ker · · Score: 1

    The term security through obscurity is a pretty good maxim to use though. I used to connect to the internet using an Amiga - using yet another mailer as an e-mail client. As a result I was immune to all the PC and Mac viruses. In fact in a few years online - I never came across one Amiga virus. However you're right - this is just a token gesture and accomplishes nothing.

  19. Better yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut off the whole domain from the Internet. Physically separate it. Then it'll be REALLY secure!
    But then... are we keeping the bad folks out - or in?

  20. Bush and Iraq by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    Believe me, if there was some way to get Bush to STFU about his stupid Iraq-invading obsession, we would.

    Does anyone in the US have the slightest interest in (a) invading Iraq or (b) using the "War on Terror" momentum up on Iraq, which had nothing the hell to do with Sept. 11th at all?

    1. Re:Bush and Iraq by PoiBoy · · Score: 0
      As an American, the answers to your questions are yes and yes. Saddam is a terrible menace, and he must be dealt with in a forceful manner. I'm sick and tired of the UN's and Europe's complete lack of courage to stand up for democracy and human rights.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    2. Re:Bush and Iraq by doctormetal · · Score: 1

      As an American, the answers to your questions are yes and yes. Saddam is a terrible menace, and he must be dealt with in a forceful manner. I'm sick and tired of the UN's and Europe's complete lack of courage to stand up for democracy and human rights.

      Spoken like a true brainwashed american. Do you believe everything the government tells you?

    3. Re:Bush and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when he buys a dirty nuke from pakistan and uses it to contaminate major oil reserves or aginst US troops or Israel then whats going to happen?

      It the US goes aginst iraq, it does it alone. For the $100 billion its going to cost, maybe it would be cheaper to buy Saddam.

    4. Re:Bush and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our gummint is the best in the fuckin' world! The brave men that have protected our interests in other countries, especially in South America from the 50s to the present, have done our country and corporations a great service. I could really care less if a few duly elected governments were overthrown, thousands of people were murdered by allegedly CIA-funded death squads or "disappeared" by dictators paid in cocaine, or whatever dipshit theory you've heard. Nobody else matters but the fuckin' U.S. of A. I guarantee you, before his term is abolished and he has taken permanent control of the government, Bush will have secured our rightful place as leader of the world.

    5. Re:Bush and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we do. Until those damn terrorists attacked the US, I could stick my head in the sand and bitch about too many Buffy the Vampire Slayer reruns and the cold Big Mac I had for lunch two days ago.

      Rabblerousing the ignorant masses is what politics is all about. Wag the dog and all that.

      When Germans start comparing other heads of state (Bush) to Hitler, don't get indignant, shut the fuck up and listen, they can see the writing on the wall. Except this time around it's the US, and it's Muslims instead of Jews.

    6. Re:Bush and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The 'imminent threat' from Iraq is just a smoke screen perpetrated by Bush and his cronies with the goals of:

      Diverting attention away from his attacks on social security, healthcare, human rights, and the environment.

      Avoiding scrutiny for his (and Cheney's) questionable business ethics, including his secret backroom deals he cut with his oil buddies over the national energy policy.

      Settling an old grudge his Daddy has with Saddam.

      Overthrow Saddam and install a puppet government friendly to the whims of his oil buddies.

      The fact is that there is no more threat today from Iraq than there was after the gulf war 10 years ago. All the the so-called evidence Bush and his cronies have offered to justify an attack has failed to stand up to scrutiny. The evidence has been fabricated or deliberately misinterprated. There is NO radiographic evidence showing that Saddam has nuclear material needed to build a bomb. Journalists reviewing the sites where Saddam has been accused of rebuilding his bioweapons plants are still in ruin despite claims from Bush that they've been rebuilt. There in NO evidence that Saddam is suporting Al-Queda, despite extensive attempts by Bush to tie him to Al-Queda. (Bush eventually acknowledged the claim was false.)

      Granted that very few countries would miss Saddam if he were to suddenly go away. But think about the consequences if we put Bush's new beligerant policy of "Shoot first, justify it later" into practice. Will it reduce terrorism or increase it? Remember that one of the motives for the attacks against the US is the premise that the US is a an evil bully determined to wipe Islam from the planet. Bush's constant warmongering supports this notion. If we attack, we will be putting 100,000's of US servicemens lives at risk, spending billions of dollars to pay for it, and providing ample incentive for more terrorism.

      Wake up people. You're being sold a bill of goods. Bush is a dull-witted, warmongering, paranoid sociopath who is acting on his own personal agenda and is prepared to sacrifice this country to achieve them.

      Make Bush justify this action in the full light of day under public and international scrutiny. If there truly is a case for war, it will survive this scrutiny. Never accept "Trust me" as justification for bloodshed -- especially from a liar.

      "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

    7. Re:Bush and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! Another stupid American not reading the facts. Germany is correct in their statements, and their justice did NOT call Bush like Hitler, but said they were using Hitler-esque strategies. Whenever it was possible that the people might uncover that the government was incompetent at running the country, they went to war for a distraction. Bush is doing the same thing with his little private jihad on Iraq. Even though Suddam is agreeing to the terms, Bush still wants to go to war so nobody will realize him and his party cannot run the country worth a shit.

      Clinton government: Surplus funds, best world status ever.
      Bush government: Has to go to war to cover up his incompetence, debt in US funds, horrid world status. Calls people of Pakistan "pakis".

      Come the fuck on,
      -The English Troll. (and no, the name has nothing to do with where I come from, it's due to my correcting people's grammatical errors all the time).

    8. Re:Bush and Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If standing up for democratic and human rights is the goal, attacking China or North Korea should be the first choice. No? The US will never have the guts to attack these countries because it will seriously affect its interest in the region. Talk about hypocrites.

  21. The FAQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I guess the FAQ needs to be changed at whois.nic.gov:
    What is WHOIS?

    The .GOV WHOIS database is a tool that provides users with the ability to lookup records in the registrar database. Using WHOIS, you can search for people, name servers, and domains. From a UNIX system, you can use the -h option to point to the .GOV WHOIS server, nic.gov. For example, to find out about gsa.gov, use the following command: "WHOIS -h nic.gov gsa.gov".

    (posted anonymously to avoid karma-whoring)

    1. Re:The FAQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The had to do that anyway.
      coward@anon% WHOIS -h nic.gov gsa.gov
      zsh: WHOIS: command not found

    2. Re:The FAQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $ whois -h nic.gov whitehouse.gov
      whois: connect: Connection timed out
      $ whois -h nic.gov gsa.gov
      whois: connect: Connection timed out

  22. Whats the point? sources are everywhere by LogicX · · Score: 1

    why do they even try? everything but the contact info must remain available to actually use the resources; and then there are a million sources out there for the contact info.

    Non-authoritative answer:
    Name: whitehouse.gov
    Address: 198.137.240.92

    whois -h whois.arin.net 198.137.240.92

    OrgName: Executive Office Of The President USA
    OrgID: EXOP

    NetRange: 198.137.240.0 - 198.137.241.255
    CIDR: 198.137.240.0/23
    NetName: NETBLK-EOPNET-C
    NetHandle: NET-198-137-240-0-1
    Parent: NET-198-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Allocation
    NameServer: DNSAUTH1.SYS.GTEI.NET
    NameServer: DNSAUTH2.SYS.GTEI.NET
    NameServer: DNSAUTH3.SYS.GTEI.NET
    Comment:
    RegDate: 1993-05-21
    Updated: 2000-12-27

    TechHandle: WDR1-ARIN
    TechName: Reynolds, William
    TechPhone: +1-202-395-6975
    TechEmail: william_d._reynolds@oa.eop.gov

    # ARIN Whois database, last updated 2002-09-20 19:05
    # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's Whois database.

    --
    May this post be indexed by spiders, and archived for all to see as my Internet epitaph.
  23. The new eden for spammers :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "VeriSign Inc has stopped providing access to information about the .gov internet domain"

    Too bad .gov can't be sold to spam^Wcommercial companies: spamming and promoting porn sites without being annoyed by angry users who got your contact information in the whois database :)

  24. Had to remove directions from website as well by ShaggusMacHaggis · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work for the government, and we had to remove the directions to our office from our website. Didn't quite understand this..since we have our address on our website and all you need is something like mapquest to get directions. Makes no sense.

    1. Re:Had to remove directions from website as well by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

      You know, I stopped trying to make sense out of state and federeal government rules, I just follow them. We have a federal law that says where I work (at college) has to have a paper copy of everything even though it's all on the college's database. We have HUGE files that hold all of that stuff, yet each record is probably only 2-5 meg max for each student.

      --

      Gorkman

  25. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm on a mac and I've never seen a virus before. Hell, I've never even seen a virus in action on any computer!

  26. try this... by mijok · · Score: 0

    whois microsoft.com whois apple.com whois aol.com

    --
    Karma. Moderation. Is my .sig good now?
  27. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by octalgirl · · Score: 1

    "Security through obscurity" applies here. That term has also been trampled on time and again because it just doesn't work.

    Well, it's better than spoon-feeding it to them isn't it? I'm sure any threat to our govt sites already has that information anyway. The only way to really make this even half work is for every govt agency to associate new IP address to their sites.

    But whatever! Give them a break folks (not just this poster, but there is a lot of bashing going on here with this). Be glad they are doing something. We would all be bitching if they just sat around and did nothing. We are all well aware that the govt is trying to tighten up electronic security on every front. This is probably just a very tiny puzzle piece to homeland security. If all the techo-geeks here know better, then go ahead and right them your idea for a more digitally secure govt. They love white papers and case studies.

  28. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by vegetablespork · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Be glad they are doing something.

    I'd be more glad if they were doing something that had some hope of being effective.

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  29. Cool by ericsink · · Score: 1


    Maybe they should restrict access to the .COM domain as well, to prevent spam attacks.

    --
    Eric Sink
    Software Craftsman
  30. Great solution by FedeB · · Score: 1

    Exactly what it has to do to prevent attacks, hide.
    Its stupid.

  31. Why now? by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 3, Interesting


    So, I read the attached article, and I understand what Verisign is doing. My question is: why? What is the motivation behind them blocking access to these whois records?

    I agree with the article in saying "It seems so logical to take that .gov WHOIS info offline that you have to wonder why it wasn't done last year. After all, who really needs to do WHOIS look ups on government sites except hackers, mail spammers that are harvesting government email addresses and fearful folks who like checking where the IP's of mysterious visitors to their web sites originate from...". But then why are they doing this now? Has Verisign been motivated by the government?

    Actually, why do we have whois records for any domain?

    --
    www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    1. Re:Why now? by zenyu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, why do we have whois records for any domain?

      To catch hackers.

      When someone breaks into a a computer on your network, calling the owner of the domain can help you find the bastard. Or stop him in his tracks if he picks up the phone. You could probably get the same info by figuring out the ISP from their IP address or the route, then calling the ISP. This is probably even more accurate, but directness is good. Esp if the computer you see is just the first hop along the way to the bastard.

    2. Re:Why now? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      When someone breaks into a a computer on your network, calling the owner of the domain can help you find the bastard.

      When someone breaks into a computer on your network, you can't tell what his domain name is, only his IP address.

    3. Re:Why now? by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      It would have been better to say, "To find the owner of the netblock." That's the important info anyway, for tracking folks down. ARIN/RIPE/APNIC WHOIS hold this info.

      Domain WHOIS is really only useful for researching forward resolving information.

  32. I feel safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Gee...this makes me feel so safe and secure. I'm so glad to find out that our government officials are so smart and on the ball. There should be more measures like this one. Just think...in a few more years we could have every last shread of freedom revoked and then the world will be safe.

  33. Oh, that's a tough one by Khazunga · · Score: 2

    frodo:$ dig whitehouse.gov soa

    ; > DiG 8.3 > whitehouse.gov soa
    ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
    ;; got answer:
    ;; ->>HEADER ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
    ;; QUERY SECTION:
    ;; whitehouse.gov, type = SOA, class = IN

    ;; ANSWER SECTION:
    whitehouse.gov. 1D IN SOA eopc.eop.gov. postmaster.whitehouse.gov. (
    2002072201 ; serial
    15M ; refresh
    5M ; retry
    1W ; expiry
    2H ) ; minimum


    ;; Total query time: 476 msec
    ;; FROM: frodo to SERVER: default -- 127.0.0.1
    ;; WHEN: Sat Sep 21 15:10:23 2002
    ;; MSG SIZE sent: 32 rcvd: 88
    You know, if you hide the root servers DNS stops working, don't you?!

    --
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    1. Re:Oh, that's a tough one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey! frodo is my machine! how'd you root my box?

  34. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 2

    I don't think that's "security through obscurity", rather "security through incompatibility".

  35. Nah it's probably... by portwojc · · Score: 1

    I bet this is just an excuse to get them off the radar to avoid the spammers snagging email addresses from the database.

    1. Re:Nah it's probably... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, in the last week or two I think my spam counts have dropped. Perhaps this Patriot Act isn't all bad, and GW has been eliminating Spam^H^H^HTerrorists.

  36. .ca is not a country. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 5, Funny

    You damn pot smoking Californians need to realize CA is not a country (as much as you wish it were).

    Just because you somehow tricked the powers that be into making a .ca domain YOU HAVEN'T WON YET. I'm looking forward to .TX for Texas to leave the Union (and take GW with them).

    1. Re:.ca is not a country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must have crossed the red river in order to get computer access, you okie shiteater. Forget the border with mexico - I want a fence built between texas and oklahoma. I'll take illiterate mexicans any day over illiterate, inbred okies.

    2. Re:.ca is not a country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What would you prefer? Canada? Right, California has a bigger economy than that entire country, so it deserves its own TLD. Dude.

    3. Re:.ca is not a country. by deft · · Score: 2

      hehe.

      you be the 8th largest ecomony in the world, and then not get all ego on us.... then we'll see if maybe .boomersooner isnt a TLD soon enough... :)

      --

      There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    4. Re:.ca is not a country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      California is the 6th largest economy in the world. It trails France by $100,000 for the 5th. It was the 5th for the last two years.

      When you brag, please don't fuck it up by exaggerating in the wrong direction!

    5. Re:.ca is not a country. by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen proposals to the effect that California ought to be separate from the US in some things (such as international sporting events).

    6. Re:.ca is not a country. by ilyag · · Score: 1

      Personally, I look for a .ilyag domain.

    7. Re:.ca is not a country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've spoken to Northern Californians who would consider it desirable to seperate from Southern California. .sca and .nca ?

    8. Re:.ca is not a country. by PingXao · · Score: 1

      Texas. LOL.
      I'm all in favor of fighting a NEW war between the states. The explicit goal would be to forcefully expel Texas from the Union. See ya! You haven't *seen* stupid until you've seen Texas. If ignorance is bliss then Texas is awash in ecstasy.

      And yes, I've thought this long before W ever bought^H^H^H^H^H^H won the election in 2000.

  37. Structure of the .us domain by Nurgled · · Score: 2, Informative

    The .us country-code domain is not organised by entity type except in some special cases way down into the heirarchy.

    First, there's a state code which uses the standard two-letter abbreviations for the states, then there's a 'region code' which will either be a city, region or large town. Under that people are free to register whatever they like, with some special cases.

    The special cases are 'state' for special state-running bodies (are they called 'state government'?) and then a 'k-12' domain under which schools are organised by their respective school district.

    The .us domain, then, is a lot more organised and distributed than most other countries, which is probably a good thing given its size. The RFC which proposed the organisation of the .us domain (whose number escapes me now -- try looking on the .us registry site) explains that they did not create .gov.us and similar because it would cause confusion, and that the US Federal Government alone would use .gov while state governments use .state.tx.us (or similar). At this stage in the game, moving the .gov domain to .gov.us would just cause a lot of problems as invalidating that many URLs en-masse is never a good idea.

    1. Re:Structure of the .us domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a lame excuse..

    2. Re:Structure of the .us domain by ckd · · Score: 2
      The .us domain, then, is a lot more organised and distributed than most other countries, which is probably a good thing given its size.

      Well, it used to be. Now Neustar (the bozos of .BIZ) are running it, and selling off every name they can. For example, random.us is already registered.

      The .us domain used to be one of the last sections of the DNS that used an actual hierarchical scheme, instead of the usual "let's reinvent the flat namespace" of so many other TLDs. Now, it's just another land rush. Sigh.

  38. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by 56ker · · Score: 1

    Actually if you'd actually used e-mail clients and browsers on the Amiga (which I doubt you have) I think you'll find they're compatible with pretty much every website and mail server. You can be running an obscure browser ie Opera on the PC and run into more problems. Like Opera the browsers on the Amiga (IBrowse, Voyager, AWeb) allow you to spoof more popular browsers for webpages that can only be viewed by a particular type of browser.

  39. I am not in front of my mac right now... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1, Troll
    however IIRC, when you do a whois for apple.com using the nettool (the program under utillities) in os X, it returns
    "apple.is.the.choice.for.every.self.respecing.te rrorist.com"

    At least it worked in 10.1

  40. Who cares? by WickedClean · · Score: 1

    So what if they stop access to .gov. I want to know when I'm going to stop getting deceiving snail mail from places like Register.com who deceptively try to get me to swtich my domain over to them with a bogus "RENEW NOW" notice.

    --
    ...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
  41. Opps...U.S. government uses other TLDs too! by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 2

    Only shows how dumb some in the U.S. government/VeriSign are. On an aside, read up on the SAIC (they own a stake in VeriSign last I checked). Interesting. Anyways, many U.S. government sites rely on .COM, .NET, .ORG, and other TLDs as well for their operation so not sure how restricting only .GOV zone access does much really...

    And anyways restricting zone file access doesn't work - domain speculators and others have for years basically compiled their own for other TLDs such as .COM - and since .GOV contains relatively few entries compared to the likes of .COM, the task of assembling much of the zone from the outside is quite trivial.

    I'm sure idiots already are trading the .GOV zone files on irc for porn, etc or maybe even trying to sell it like they do with email addresses.

    Off-topic ramble: It's sad to say, but it very much appears the terrorists are winning or some even argue already have won. Various people over the years used to warn that Americans could lose their freedoms quicker than they ever imagined - it's now happening; more detention camps are being constructed with vastly larger ones out on bid from my understanding - why would such large detention camps be needed? There aren't that many terrorists...unless the U.S. government now considers Americans terrorists...wait they already have...enemy combatants...and now the standard has been further lowered...query the .GOV zone without authorization and you too are a terrorist...better delete dig, whois, ping, right now!! :-;

    Ron

  42. you want to silence bush? i know how. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you just go along with him! but, you can't be seen helping the big'o'bad Americas can you?

    We're going to hit iraq hard. And don't you think for a minute the '"War on Terror" momentum'(as you put it) will be used up there.

    Heaven forbit we defend ourselfs. or if that word doesn't work for you we can always go back to the "because your so small, we could" logic. i really liked that.

    1. Re:you want to silence bush? i know how. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Heaven forbit we defend ourselfs.

      ehm - do You remember how You defended Yourselves by feeding and actually creating Saddam@Iraq 20 years ago, when You feared Iran will take over? Who will be next? Saudi Arabia, where Enron built all the pipes? No. I think Democrats will be the first to go, shot in the back in dark streets... Think about supporting Israel, instead of finding how to blow more $$$ to army budget... Get serious about defending Yourself.

  43. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my God -- that is so gay! Let's disconnect the Root DNS servers from the internet so that terrorists can't glean bits of information about potential targets either!

  44. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    He means "incompatibility" as in Amiga can't run VBScript or compiled Win32 binaries. So that "annakournikova.jpg.exe" that you just received can't actually run on your machine. And Amiga mail clients aren't Outlook (duh?) so they don't have all the buffer overflows that Outlook has.

  45. Why Still TLD's Mapped To Countries? by reallocate · · Score: 2

    Why do we still have TLD's mapped to country names? Do they serve any essential technical purpose?

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Why Still TLD's Mapped To Countries? by EvanED · · Score: 2

      For government functions they do. Also, if you go to a site with Germany's TLD, you can be pretty sure it's in German, etc.

  46. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heck, a guided tour will give you the location ffs.

  47. Google by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

    Doesnt matter, its probably all morrored on Google anyways.

    1. Re:Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Search for gov.zone on Google comes up with the actual zone files in only the 3rd listing:

      http://madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca/cns/ftp/doc/InterN IC/domain/

      Plenty of places outside of US control have the .GOV zone data as of yesterday (before NSI decided to remove it today).

      While the gov.zone file in the above link may be outdated, gov.zone.gz is only 1 week old.

      I wonder how much has changed in 3 years since this Russian site last cached .GOV?
      http://provider.kht.ru/software/tacacs/SERVER/ftp/ unix/internet/bind/Internic/

      There are some really lame .GOV domains
      <snip>
      2002092100 ; serial
      <snip>
      1877US2JOBS NS NS1.XPANDCORP.COM.
      <snip>
      1877USAJOBS NS NS1.XPANDCORP.COM.
      1903TO2003 NS NS1.HQ.NASA
      <snip>
      1STGOVT NS NS-EAST.CERF.NET.
      <snip>
      21STCENTURY NS AUTH00.NS.UU.NET.
      <snip>
      4GIRLS NS CHERRY.HHS
      <snip>
      4WOMAN NS CHERRY.HHS
      <snip>
      4WOMEN NS CHERRY.HHS
      <snip>
  48. LAMEIS by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

    This is pathetic... security through obscurity? If you live in constant fear of the infinite possibilities then the terrorists have already won. Besides, if the government would pay for decent systems and good sys admins, this wouldn't be a problem... well at least not to the extent where we would have to hide their IP's and stuff. That's just pathetic.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  49. It is important.... by nn43 · · Score: 1

    It is important that our government be even more unreachable with the citizens of this country. Who wants to hear from whiney citizens anyhow - besides they obviously are dangerous!

    I think we should move the fences further out from the white house so that you need binoculars to see it.

    I think we should close down streets around government buildings for a half mile around, and make security such an intrusion and frustrating experience no one will want to visit their lawmakers.

    I think they should make snail mail even slower and have it sitting around for weeks at a time in some postal facility and then simply ignore email sent to them.

    Then the lawmakers and executors of the law can live peacefully doing what ever they want irregardless of the citizens of the country.

  50. abuses by Tom · · Score: 2

    After all, who really needs to do WHOIS look ups on government sites

    How every sysadmin on the globe who would like to tell you that there's a problem with your servers, routers or users? Whois tells me who to contact (and sometimes, if it's a live attack, abuse@whoever.tld just doesn't cut it).

    Maybe I should just firewall .gov - after all, if they are too afraid to post harmless whois info, everyone with a clear mind should stay out of the blast radius.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  51. .gov zone file available here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    You can still download the .gov zone file here

    (11:45am EDT Saturday 21-Sep-2002)

  52. That's incorrect, it should say Crawford, TX by Heretic2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not like Bush actually ever does real work! It's on perma-vacation a couple hours away from me.

    1. Re:That's incorrect, it should say Crawford, TX by The_Guv'na · · Score: 2

      Look at the guy. Listen to him. Would you want him doing any real work?

      Oh and if you see Blair, call him a murderous decietful conman. And that Ali will see him this saturday.

      Ali

  53. Bad headline by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If you read the article, you'll see that this has nothing to do with WHOIS (which contains information on the name, address, etc of the person who owns the domain). It's about the DNS zone file, which looks something like this:
    slashdot.org. NS NS1.OSDN.COM.
    slashdot.org. NS NS2.OSDN.COM.
    slashdot.org. NS NS3.OSDN.COM.
    NS1.OSDN.COM. A 64.28.67.51
    NS2.OSDN.COM. A 209.192.217.106
    NS3.OSDN.COM. A 64.28.67.53
    That's all it contains for each domain -- the names and addresses of their DNS servers. Nothing more.
  54. hypocritical government... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

    VeriSign Inc has stopped providing access to information about the .gov internet domain, which is restricted to US government bodies, over concerns the data could be used in planning internet attacks.

    Meanwhile, the government is trying to pass a law making it illegal for us to do the same thing.

  55. Not fair... by hendridm · · Score: 1

    So the government is worried about attacks. What about the rest of us who hate putting out personal information in the whois database? Although it's easy enough to falsify, why should I have to?

  56. THIS AINT SO SMART! or s-m-r-t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So national security says i cant know the dns server address but i can know the location of GWB's favorite hang-outs? along with maps?!!
    http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/specialnotams/Spe cial_Inte rest_NOTAMs_graphics_.htm#Washington, DC

    http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/specialnotams/Special_In te rest_NOTAMs_graphics_.htm#Crawford, TX

    http://www.faa.gov/NTAP/specialnotams/Special_In te rest_NOTAMs_graphics_.htm#Thurmont, MD

  57. This is just Verisign saying "Hey Look at us!" by RonVNX · · Score: 1

    "Hey look at us, we're patriotic (idiots)!"

  58. America is the greatest country on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree! God bless America! God bless diversity! God bless affirmative action! God bless illegal immigrants! God bless Israeli spies! God bless rising crime rates! God bless rape! God bless failing public schools! God bless senseless attacks on foreign countries! God bless nuclear weapons! God bless pollution! God bless drugs! God bless AIDS and homosexuals! God bless the Patriot Act! God bless America! God bless America! Praise the Lord! I'm proud to be an American! There is so much to love I don't know where to stop -- God bless it all!

  59. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by deft · · Score: 2

    isnt there some logic to the idea that obscurity is a nice addition the great security?

    i mean, i can put on my bulletproof vest, make sure i have body guards... but what about the not eating at the same place every day. doesnt that help make it harder to kill me too?

    i think patterns make you predictable, and obvious ecurioty patterns dont help.... and its easy to implement isnt it?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  60. Mirror of the zone files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So here are all the zone files, .gov and .mil included. Dont thank me, thank Google.

    http://madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca/cns/ftp/doc/Inte rN IC/domain/

  61. pathetic asprinationlistic move by zenst · · Score: 1

    So we as individuals have to provide and have our info available but large goverments that represent the public and are more than able to defend themselfs unlike an individual who relies upon said goverments; are able to do this and hide. Security thru obscurity does not work and only goes to lend an air of arragance about the whole issue. If there is a problem fix the problem not hide it away - but there again this is the paracetamol/asprin generation and when the brain goes I'm tired or hungry or get this crap outa my system we go - naaaa go away pill time. So narrow minded that they seem to have a longterm goal of it :-/

  62. And a GOOD reason for this would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that the laws of that country TLD apply to that TLD.

    Ergo, "Underage" sex is 18 in .us, 16 in .uk, Pot ads legal in .nl, women whowing their faces illegan in .ym (Yemen?)

  63. If you want to participare in a public network... by TobyWong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to participare in a public network then they shouldn't be hiding whois information. Nobody is saying they can't run their own top secret nework (as I'm sure they already do to some degree) but participation in this giant public network involves some amount of conformance to standards.

    Any information that is so critical to national security shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.

    --
    - Toby
  64. Perhaps it should be restricted for anyone that re by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Id love to have mine restricted. i had to get a sepreate PO box just to avoid the flood of spam US mail i got when i first registred my domain years and years ago..

    I asked and was told NO.. phfft.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  65. is .gov really worth protecting? by sweet+'n+sour · · Score: 1
    I don't know about the rest of you people, but what the heck does the government have online that's all that important to begin with? Tax forms?

    It would seen to me that if someone wanted to attack us, they'd try to hit Microsoft. The majority of the computers out there have their os loaded... so it would make sense to try something that could affect as many systems as possible.

    I also take offense to the fact that us "little people" are still left out the the open while the government saves its' own ass. If the whois info is so revealing, then they should just block it completely.

  66. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i mean, i can put on my bulletproof vest, make sure i have body guards... but what about the not eating at the same place every day. doesnt that help make it harder to kill me too?

    Nice analogy, but it doesnt hold. If you know bullets can kill you but you can simply replace every part of yout body that is vulnarable to them with one that is invulnarable (no "armor",these bullets just go right trough you and automagicly a photo gets printed out of the one who pulled the trigger) Sound like a joke, but computer-security really is that simple.... ok so its not simple, but hiding your computer from "atackers" really is not one of the better ways to start.

  67. an idea? by Alsee · · Score: 2

    If anyone has a mirror of this data perhaps they could run a whowas server.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  68. There is a reason for this.... by Fapestniegd · · Score: 1

    Our government over here in the U.S. is completely bought and paid for by corporattions.
    Ergo the .gov is just another .com TLD if you consider this.

  69. The **ZONEFILES** have been restricted, NOT WHOIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This article is almost totally inaccurate. The
    whois data for .gov has not been managed by
    verisign for at least several years, it is maintained by nic.gov, and is still very much available on www.nic.gov.

    It's the actual DNS zonesfiles that have been taken offline. These used to be available via FTP from ftp.internic.net. The .com/.net/.org ones used to be available too, and I actually have copies of them from when they were available; but they were taken offline perhaps as long ago as 5 years? These are still available, but you have to enter into a contractual agreement with ICANN rather than them being available via FTP. It's a shame these were taken away as they made an excellent seed data for search engines and that was probably their most common use.

    The problem is that they also make great seed material for `bad' search engines such as spam collectors or security scanners.

    The .gov, and .edu and in-addr.arpa zones continued to be made available via FTP up until just now.

    Interestingly ftp.ripe.net (the european version of arin) still makes the in-addr.arpa zone available for all the IPs that they manage.

    This while issue has absolutly nothing to do with whois information or address/contact information. The zonesfiles that were removed do not contain anything other than domain names and the nameservers that control them.

    The only reason for doing this is to make it slightly harder for search engines/scanners to get good seed data.

    Personally I think this is a pointless thing to do. It raises the bar to finding information high enough to annoy legitimate information collection for use by good search engines but does little to stop a determinated attacker or in any way improve security.

    It's trivially easy to get seed data from search engines like google, just make a script that searches for .gov and then feed that into a security scanner instead.

  70. Wow - think about Yellow Pages by paja · · Score: 1

    I would not need whois to find an address where to land hijacked jet. Maybe I can review local Yellow Pages (if its not against the U. S. law to export Yellow Pages) or use other useful tools .

  71. Who are they helping? by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 1
    Given the atrocious inaccuracy of VeriSign WHOIS info (have you ever tried to get them to change a phone number?), and the tendency of Goverment info to be even less accurate, on the average, than civilian counterparts, I'd say that this is a net gain for the hackers.

    They won't waste so much time on false leads.

    --
    The Web is like Usenet, but
    the elephants are untrained.
  72. .GOV zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Search for gov.zone on Google comes up with the actual zone files in only the 3rd listing:

    http://madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca/cns/ftp/doc/InterN IC/domain/

    Plenty of places outside of US control have the .GOV zone data as of yesterday (before NSI decided to remove it today).

    While the gov.zone file in the above link may be outdated, gov.zone.gz is only 1 week old.

    I wonder how much has changed in 3 years since this Russian site last cached .GOV?
    http://provider.kht.ru/software/tacacs/SERVER/ftp/ unix/internet/bind/Internic/
    There are some really lame .GOV domains
    <snip>
    2002092100 ; serial
    <snip>
    1877US2JOBS NS NS1.XPANDCORP.COM.
    <snip>
    1877USAJOBS&nbs p ; NS NS1.XPANDCORP.COM.
    1903TO2003 NS NS1.HQ.NASA
    <snip>
    1STGOVT NS NS-EAST.CERF.NET.
    <snip>
    21STCENTURY NS AUTH00.NS.UU.NET.
    <snip>
    4GIRLS NS CHERRY.HHS
    <snip>
    4WOMAN NS CHERRY.HHS
    <snip>
    4WOMEN NS CHERRY.HHS
    <snip>
  73. Re:Perhaps it should be restricted for anyone that by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    It's as simple as listing a bogus address (real street and zip, tho, in case they cross reference it).

    Better yet, list your registry's address so they can see all the lovely spam you get.

    Standard thing I do at Rat Shack, etc., when they ask for my address. I just look at a business card on the desk and give them the info from there.

  74. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by lommer · · Score: 1

    I think the catch-phrase is security enhanced through obscurity. This is generally a good deterrant against lazy script kiddies who'll target anyone, but against someone who has you lined up in their sights and doesn't care about anyone else, it doesn't do much.

  75. How about... by ilyag · · Score: 1

    US government being set to the moon, and having no connection to the outside world for security?

    Or, maybe, we should send 3 parties - the government, the terrorists, and then the rest of us?

  76. Hey retard moderator! Here's the proof! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2

    So bite me, and your piss-poor Troll mod. Now *this* is flamebait. (for your information)

  77. Consequences by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    So now when a .gov domain comes in I can't verify it. That means when an attack comes in that purports to be from the .GOV TLD I can just assume it is spoofed and block the whole address block that ARIN associates with it. Right.

    I would hope a more sane approach would be to provide sufficient information to say that yes it is a valid domain, and to have the sense to have a common contact procedure for problems. The whole point of "whois" is to help maintain the security of the network, turning off whois for the .gov TLD is the same as saying we don't care about your security, only our security. However, if we can't verify, isn't the correct solution to route around or isolate the problem area.

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  78. WHOIS advertising attacks by phorm · · Score: 2

    As it is, myself and several others I know who handle domains have gotten emails from a company asking us to "renew" our domain. Further reading into this shows that the company sending the letter had no relation to the company from which the original domain was bought (though the word "renew" indicates a renew of the original "contract", scamming buggers). I figure that they go out looking for expiring domains and use WHOIS to find the billing contact to send their crapmail to. Being as there are many potentially more malicous uses for this, perhaps hiding the WHOIS isn't such a bad idea in some cases.

  79. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by 56ker · · Score: 1

    Actually they could but under emulation. Anyway for using e-mail and browsers - why do you need to run VBScript or Win32 binaries? And yes - I was well aware that PC executables won't run on an Amiga unless you're emulating a PC. Actually out of all the e-mail clients I've ever used YAM has been the best one - pity there isn't a PC port.

  80. Re:If you want to participare in a public network. by SacredNaCl · · Score: 0, Troll

    YAY! This is great! Now all all of the spam will come from NASA.GOV, IRS.GOV, WHITEHOUSE.GOV, FBI.GOV...and we wont have a contact to them to fix their mail server. Groovy. Progress at every level.

    I find the governments arguement less than compelling.

    --
    Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
  81. BULL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reason is the US DOD started a disinformation campaign last year. It plans to promulgate information to its own benefit with the emphasis upon false and misleading and propaganda.

    This way there is no way to track those odd .com domains back to the government. Like the ones which say, "Terrorists wanted." There are also kiddie porn honeypots to use for more traditional entrapment.

  82. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by deft · · Score: 2

    as it is with ever changing technology, theres no way to always be secure, not all the time. so no, you can never be fully protected... so again, why not keep moving?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  83. Re:Q: I never checked, but what WAS in the whois i by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    "... why do you need to run VBScript or Win32 binaries?"

    The, um, viruses are PC executables. Hence they won't run on Amiga, and that's what he meant by "incompatibility." Not that you couldn't "use the Internet," just that PC viruses won't run on your computer.

  84. I WANNA DOT-GOV DOMAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WAAH! why can't the "civilian" registrars provide service this good?!

  85. National Security: [definition] by Quietti · · Score: 1
    Tjp($)pjT wrote:
    turning off whois for the .gov TLD is the same as saying we don't care about your security, only our security.

    Congratulations, you have just produced a "ma and pa" compliant definition of National Security.

    Seriously, what else is new? When it comes to governments, civilians don't count; if saving the president or its goons is at stake, sacrificing "ma and pa" (and a whole planeload of them, at that) is always perfectly fine. They even call that "colateral damage".

    Funny how citizens are not allowed to accidentaly get a cop or politician killed and call it "colateral damage" too... Democracy? Bah, who's kidding who?

    --
    Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
  86. Actually Calfiornia has the 7th largest GDP in the by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

    world. So technically you're right, however, i was just being a smart ass! I love California (something to do with being an Okie! lol Damn Grapes of Wrath).

  87. Apparently you've never been to OK or AR by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Arkansas and Oklahoma should patent stupid. There are some bright spots but for the most part IQ is severly lacking. Now don't get me wrong, give credit where credit is due. Most people are stupid. Hell, I probably couldn't pass my own critical standards. The south does have a shitload of stupid people.

    For example, my state of Oklahoma is approximately 60% registered Democrat. In every election these dipshits vote for Republicans. This is the worst bandwagoning state ever (thank god for that because I would have never gotten my great seats for OU games). Oklahomans have a major inferiority complex when it comes to Texas too. Granted I hate Texas but I've lived there.

    You would think a state that is subsidized by the larger states would come to the conclusion that "hmmm, those Californians, New Yorkers, ... are doing better than we are financially. Maybe their political views aren't wrong."

    I have the perfect solution to every stupid fucking Republican BandWagoner in this state. Since Republicans believe that Government Subsidies are bad how about Oklahoma only gets back from the Federal Government what we pay in? What's that you say? Oklahoma gets 2.5 times what we pay in? Hmmm... sounds like those "spending democrats" are doing the dipshits of Oklahoma a favor by subsidizing our roads, healthcare, education, ...

    The one line I like to give to my Republican friends is this, it's okay to help someone in need. Of course Oklahomans are hypocrites too because these are the same dumbfucks that go to church (you should see the fucking churches in Norman, almost every one of them has doubled in size in the last 5 years) and give their money to buy their way into heaven, but won't help a starving family who has no access to education, medical sevices, food, or a standard of life above the poverty line.

    George W gave me a $20K tax cut last year (I make a shitload of money and am still a democrat to my idiot family's dismay) but did I miss that $20K? No, but I guaranfuckingtee you some poor family struggling to get by in Little Axe probably misses that extra few dollars in Government aid that they no longer receive because "The American People Need A Tax Cut". Fuck George W. Anyone could do a better job (and avoid starting WWIII).

    So next time some asshole republican comes up to me saying how great our President is and how he restored respectability to the office, I'll just smile because the idiots are getting what they deserve. Don't get me started on the Largent/Watts shit. DONT VOTE FOR PEOPLE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE FOOTBALL PLAYERS!!!!! (This goes for Nebraskans too.)

  88. Re:Hey retard moderator! Here's the proof! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest a book on DNS.

  89. Bad Thing (tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Some server of a customer of ours was broken into, and it attacked hundreds of other sites, among them .mil and .gov sites (an antarctic research-station among them). Thanks whois I was able to inform and conctact them.


    Now I can't. So go fuck your .gov-sites, you stupid jerks, if you don't even want people to help you.

  90. My little ol'granny with a pleasent smile... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1



    It looks like from this angle that my Grandmother runs the CIA, and she makes a fine apple pie too.

  91. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    XLI:
    The more one produces, the less one gets.
    XLII:
    Simple systems are not feasible because they require infinite testing.
    XLIII:
    Hardware works best when it matters the least.
    XLIV:
    Aircraft flight in the 21st century will always be in a westerly
    direction, preferably supersonic, crossing time zones to provide the
    additional hours needed to fix the broken electronics.
    XLV:
    One should expect that the expected can be prevented, but the
    unexpected should have been expected.
    XLVI:
    A billion saved is a billion earned.
    -- Norman Augustine

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...