Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US .gov WHOIS Info Restricted Over Attacker Fears

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the paranoia-strikes-again dept.

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."

5 of 178 comments (clear)

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

    There shouldn't even be a .gov TLD.

    It should be .gov.us

    1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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?