Verisign Typosquatter Explorer

jelyon quotes Seth Finkelstein's website "I have written a program " Verisign Typosquatter Explorer" in order to examine [the Verisign] suggestions [for mistyped domains]. Future data may be analyzed as interest permits. Note tests with some domains seem to return results which are not constant, i.e. differences when the program is run repeatedly. This is not a program bug. Reloading the Verisign page also changes which squat-suggested domains are displayed. I don't believe it's an advertising rotation, but the behavior is similar to that practice."

Comments

Mail addresses

[Ratface]

I mailed this little lot earlier today:

authenticode-support@verisign.com, billing@verisign.com, channel-partners@verisign.com, clientpki@verisign.com, consultingsolutions@verisign.com, dbms-support@verisign.com, dcpolicy@verisign.com, digitalbranding@verisign.com, dnssales@verisign.com, enterprise-pkisupport@verisign.com, enterprise-sslsupport@verisign.com, info@verisign-grs.com, internetsales@verisign.com, IR@verisign.com, jobs@verisign.com, mss@verisign.com, objectsigning-support@verisign.com, paymentsales@verisign.com, practices@verisign.com, premiersupport@networksolutions.com, press@verisign.com, privacy@networksolutions.com, renewal@verisign.com, support@verisign.com, verisales@verisign.com, vps-support@verisign.com, vts-csrgroup@verisign.com, vts-mktginfo@verisign.com, webhelp@verisign.com, websitesales@verisign.com, websitesupport@verisign.com

And I got a bunch of replies back, including *gasp* two written by actual human beings!

Remember folks, if you're going to write and complain, try and keep it civil. The porr bugger who hsa to read your complaint isn't the same person who actually took the decision to introduce sitefinder!

where's the problem?

[erikdotla]

Hey, I'm outraged and mad too, like all of you.. but, I'm not seeing this. Maybe my ISPs have taken a stand with their DNS, but both my work and home ISPs? Unlikely. Why aren't I seeing this?

Squating?

[toupsie]

How is this any different from me buying mispelled domains to profit off other company's trademarks? I know the Federal Government just tossed a guy in jail for doing the same thing. There is something that stinks to high heaven about this. It looks like they are abusing their right to manage the USA TLDs along with violating RFCs.

Monetary damages

[jesterzog]

What sort of monetary damages is this action by Verisign incurring for people and businesses everywhere?

Verisign's action was most probably intended for web traffic, where it's at least an annoyance. But since the DNS is an independent system from the web that's used by all sorts of services, it's undoubtedly breaking all sorts of non-web things out there that rely on knowing accurately if a domain name exists... not to mention all of the additional maintenance time. Email and spam filters are the two that seem to've been brought up a lot.

So far I've seen a lot of people getting mad and I am too, but I haven't seen anyone actually state how much they're losing due to the sudden change and breaking of standards by Verisign. Is anyone confident to put an amount on this?

Can we sue?

[xchino]

Seriously, would it be possible for ISP's to file a class action suit? I have spent ALL day (so far) dealing with the repurcussions of this blatant misuse of authority. I know others out there are dealing with the same. I also had two customers get .ws websites rather than AVAILABLE .com sites because they use the method of putting the name in the browser and seeing if a site comes up. They figured verisign was squatting on the domain, and thought they would have to pay verisign for the use of the domain.

On a side note...

Our mail servers are filling up with spam, and with the recent loss of SPEWS, our spam filtering system is basically useless.. save for the few other blacklist sites still out there. Spammers must be rejoicing today.

Fuck you VeriSign, Fuck you very much.

Terms of Service

[Tom7]

Well, this is finally working for me now!

Man, did you check out their "terms of service"? That shit is hilarious!

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

HOW THE FUCK AM I SUPPOSED TO READ AND AGREE TO BE BOUND TO TERMS, when I arrived at the site by mis-typing a domain name????

From the privacy policy:

"Under no circumstances do we collect any personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health, or sex life."

No? What about when I go to any political site, sex site, health site, religious site, etc, and don't type the domain name correctly?

http://www.sitefinderreallyreallysucks.com/

For UK visitors

[slayer99]

Please help with keeping pressure on Verisign - instructions here.

Patched Nameserver Database Available

[fo0bar]

Somewhat off-topic, but relevant to the whole Verisign DNS idiocy... I have thrown up a database of patched nameservers here (don't worry about arouse.net, it's not a porn site), which currently allows you to check to see if a nameserver has been patched to block return of 'A' results for non-existent domains, and allows you to add to the database if it is a patched server.

The message matters as much as the medium

[gidds]

Of course, it depends on where you are. I'm in the UK, and when I faxed my MP last year (from the FaxYourMP web site), about the proposed amendment to the RIP bill, he responded with a letter (on 'House of Commons' headed paper) almost immediately, and another a month later when the amendment was withdrawn. (I don't like the man personally, and I don't agree with some of his politics, but as a constituency MP he does a good job.)

And it depends on the content as well as the medium. My fax was original, business-like, and carefully-argued, though partly based on stuff available online. I suspect that originality, literacy, clarity, conciseness, and focus all count well, just as obvious copying, rambling, pointless emotion, length, and lack of focus will make a communication less likely to be read or acted upon. You need to state carefully but briefly the problem, the cause, what you're asking your representative to do, and why; if you do that politely, it'd be an inconsiderate person who didn't at least reply, whatever the medium.

I suspect that the reason online petitions often don't seem to count is less that they're online, and more that they're petitions; without a direct, personal request for action, any communication will have less weight.