Slashdot Mirror


Blocking SiteFinder Service

apankrat writes "Given VeriSign's position on wildcard redirection service, it looks like it's time for a simplier and more efficient ways of bringing things back to where they were. For those running BIND there is a patch; for those on the client side - there is a dnsfix for Windows and the usual iptables hackery under Linux. Aware of any other clean and easy ways to block wildcarding ? Post below."

38 comments

  1. Blocked with PF by nocomment · · Score: 1

    I blocked the sitefinder with PF on my firewall. Not very elegant but it worked. Wildcard domains still resolve, but I don't get that stupid sitefinder thing anymore.

    I will be doing the BIND patch later when I have more time.

    ps: go vote at the new site as the petitiononline site was killed by the previous /.ing: http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    1. Re:Blocked with PF by robochan · · Score: 0

      I don't run bind, but just about everyone has a hosts file...

      $ cat /etc/hosts |grep verisign
      216.239.37.99 sitefinder.verisign.com
      216.239.37.99 sitefinder-idn.verisign.com

      I decided to give google the hits.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  2. dnsmasq has a fix by hummassa · · Score: 4, Informative

    here.
    version 1.16 is ok.
    others have fixes, too, you can find them in this place.

    hope I have helped,

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  3. I agree! by orthogonal · · Score: 2, Funny

    it looks like it's time for a simplier and more efficient ways

    And it looks like it's time for a simplier and more efficient way to spell-check submitted articles.

  4. As just one customer... by lightspawn · · Score: 2, Informative

    how do I go about explaining to my ISP that this needs to be blocked?

    1. Re:As just one customer... by CptChipJew · · Score: 2, Funny

      Call customer service. I'm sure they can direct you to a feedback voice mailbox that they'll never listen to ;)

      --
      Vonal Declosion
    2. Re:As just one customer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run a small town ISP, I had the Bind patch installed the morning after it was released, which was the day after Verisign broke the Internet.

      It wasn't so much for the customers, at least not in the respect of keeping them from seeing the Sitefinder site, but more so because of the problems it created for e-mail.

      I don't think any of our customers knows one way or the other about the damage or our correction. Everything just still works like it always has.

    3. Re:As just one customer... by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, setup your own DNS server? I know that BIND 8 had releases and builds for Win32, I haven't played with DNS on Win32 since BIND 9 came out. If you are run anything that even approximates a UNIX-like OS, BIND should run on it without problems. I have a Cox Cable modem, and there DNS servers used to be pathetic, so I just setup my own caching only nameserver, and have never been happier about it.

      Thanks,

      Kirby

    4. Re:As just one customer... by lightspawn · · Score: 1

      Setting up my own DNS server would only solve the problem for me, not for other Cox Cable customers.

    5. Re:As just one customer... by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but in the end, I'm really only worried about getting it fixed for me. I figure they know about it, and they will solve it if they want to (I fixed my own DNS a year ago, just because Cox's DNS was constantly giving me problems)... :-)

      I see your point. Call their support line, e-mail their abuse, or customer support address. Switch up providers if you can, saying that one of the reasons is you don't appreciate them not being receptive to solving this problem for their customers.

      Kirby

  5. This is working for me in my Firewall by southern · · Score: 3, Informative

    I added this to my FORWARD rule on the Firewall:

    iptables -A blocked_sites -p TCP -d 64.94.110.11 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-unreachable

    Will be doing the DNS patch soon. But this works for now.

    --
    Chris Southern
  6. Block it? by MarkusQ · · Score: 2, Funny
    Block it? I'm looking for clever ways to jape it! I mean, it seems reasonable to assume they will be mining the data at some point...

    -- MarkusQ

    1. Re:Block it? by geggibus · · Score: 1

      Here's some data to mine...

    2. Re:Block it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the meantime, just packet the fuck out of it. I've been pingflooding them for a week now, and I'm trying to find the most obnoxious, aggressive settings to throw at wget.

  7. or just add a line to etc hosts by coyote4til7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The way I've dealt with it under both XP & OS X is to modify etc/hosts.

    Under OS X, Solaris, Linux, etc., it's "/etc/hosts". Under Windows XP, it's "C:\Windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts"

    In either case, add this to the end of the file:
    0.0.0.0 sitefinder.verisign.com

    Wah-lah!

    --

    the clock on the wall says 4 til 7
    1. Re:or just add a line to etc hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is Wah-lah?

      Perhaps you mean "Voila", which roughly means "there it is" when translated from it's original French, er sorry, I mean, Freedom.

    2. Re:or just add a line to etc hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This doesn't work. Verisign doesn't redirect by returning sitefinder.verisign.com as CNAME.

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

    Why is this story filed under "Your Rights Online?"

  9. do NOT blackhole/block 64.94.110.11! by graf0z · · Score: 5, Informative
    ... because then mails to mistyped domains will end up waiting in MTA-queues instead of being bounced immediately (some other protocols may have weird behaviour, too). Instead:
    • Read this and this before you panic
    • ask your ISP for patching bind (or whatever ns-software they use)
    • install a patched bind (djbdns, ...) locally as a caching dns
    • if you have no chance of using a patched nameserver (why that?), you may reject (not: drop) 64.94.110.11:80/tcp only and install one of those patches to your MTA (postfix, sendmail, ...)
    • if you are customer of verisign, ask them for suspending their new "service"
    /graf0z.
    1. Re:do NOT blackhole/block 64.94.110.11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Err .. blocking is not exactly what BIND patch and dnsfix do. They actually let DNS packets through, but mangle them in transition, which makes it look as if there were no SiteFinder at the backend .. just a regular DNS server, which all my spam filters like so much :)

    2. Re:do NOT blackhole/block 64.94.110.11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all connections to 64.94.110.11 should be redirected to a local system with a similar facade MTA. We don't know what VeriSign does with the data sent to them, so we should not be trading it for reduced time-to-error delays.

  10. mail rejector switched to postfix by graf0z · · Score: 2, Informative

    Verisign switched from their buggy, not SMTP-compliant mailrejector "Snubby Mail Rejector Daemon v1.3" on 64.94.110.11 towards postfix (according to the banner)?

    $ telnet oauwnxtrgqoiezrfgnxocrzq.net 25
    Trying 64.94.110.11...
    Connected to oauwnxtrgqoiezrfgnxocrzq.net.
    Escape character is '^]'.
    220 sitefinder.verisign.com VeriSign mail rejector (Postfix)

    At least, they are now able to bounce properly ...

    /graf0z.

  11. Evil, evil, evil by blate · · Score: 1

    Boy, that article really sticks it to Verisign. What the fuck were they thinking? You don't go and mess with a fundamental error behavior in something as critical as DNS. I've heard of corporate greed, but this is just unacceptible.

    The only concern I have with ISC's fix to BIND is that they just filter for that one IP address (64.94.110.11)... all Verisign has to do is change the IP in their wildcard A-record and we'll be back to square one.

    I hope more people bring lawsuits against Verisign and that Verisign gets their proverbial ticket yanked, i.e., that they are no longer allowed to be the top-level registrar. Fuck them... they blew it.

    1. Re:Evil, evil, evil by graf0z · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The only concern I have with ISC's fix to BIND is that they just filter for that one IP address (64.94.110.11)... all Verisign has to do is change the IP in their wildcard A-record and we'll be back to square one.

      wrong

      You are talking about one of those on-the-fly patches released by some pissed-of admin on the same day. The ISC-patch allows you to say "the following zone are only allowed to have delegations" (like NS-records), all other data (like A-records) are ignored. That's exactly the behaviour You expect from a TLD.

      Of course verisign could get around that (by putting a windcard NS-record into their TLDs), but that would be really offensive. Let's see if they will go that far ...

      /graf0z.

    2. Re:Evil, evil, evil by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the technical error (IP vs. delegation), which has already been addressed, I'll skip to
      "I hope more people bring lawsuits against Verisign"

      Boycott google.

      Yup, you heard what I said - boycott google.

      Why? Because then google might do their best to sit on this new "getting people to the right web-pages" service over which they used to probably have the de-facto monopoly.

      Google are a business, they're in it for profit, and they're big. Make verisign hurt them, see them lash back.

      YAW.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    3. Re:Evil, evil, evil by gothicpoet · · Score: 1
      They've already changed it, or so it appears to me... NOW when I ping sitefinder.verisign.com I get 12.158.80.10.

      Bastards.

      --
      Quoth he ::
      "It's all academic anyway..."
  12. the way I block sites. by xiopher · · Score: 0

    If you want to block sites just use a local proxy config. As fas As I know it works under ALL O.S. http://www.schooner.com/~loverso/no-ads/

  13. djbdns (dnscache) patch by asackett · · Score: 3, Informative
    Here is a site linking to a patch for dnscache users. I'd prefer a hack along the lines of what [groan] ISC has implemented, but if verislime were to delegate and then spoof, ISC's hack would stop working, while the dnscache patch would simply require a bit of administwiddling and then keep right on working.

    Patch 'em up and move 'em out...

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

  14. Block via Squid by fallacy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which should mean that mail etc. will be unaffected.

    acl verisign dst 64.94.110.11
    http_access deny verisign

  15. ipfw by mapinguari · · Score: 2, Informative
    For those of us with ipfw:
    ipfw add reject ip from any to 64.94.110.11
    That turns expected 404's into 503's.
  16. My Simple Solution by Dj-Zer0 · · Score: 1

    i am totaly against this site finder &#@*&# here is what i did.. i added a static route for ip 12.158.80.10 with my PC IP address as the gateway. this will simply create a timeout when ever your pc tries to access 12.158.80.10 .. might not be the best solution for the problem but since i have no control over my dns this was a simply and easy trick.

    --
    http://iesucks.org
    1. Re:My Simple Solution by Dj-Zer0 · · Score: 1

      continue... in WINdows you can simply do a route add 12.158.80.10 YOUR_PC_IP METRIC n IF n you wont be able to put a gateway to a differnt metric or controler but there is always a route that sets your ip address pointing to your IP address which is the same Metric and IF for route 0.0.0.0 so use that Metric and IF when you add this route.

      --
      http://iesucks.org
  17. Flawed theory by macdaddy · · Score: 1
    In theory you're blocking packets to Verisign to prevent them from getting advertising revenue from you or your customers if you're a provider. While you do this with good intentions, your actions actually create more serious problems. What this actually does is cause mail to pile up in your mail queue. The domains still resolve to 64.94.110.11 and your MTA still tries to send mail to that address. If you REJECT the packets your MTA will queue the message and retry. If you DROP the MTA will have to wait for the connection(s) to timeout at which the mail will again be dropped back in the queue. The mail will sit there a predetermined number of days (4-5 usually) until such time that your MTA finally gives up and sends a bounce to the sender. This is one of many problems involved in "blocking" packets to/from 64.94.110.11.

    The best solution short of carpet-bombin Verisign corporate headquarters is to use one of the actual "fixes" for the problem like the Bind 9.2.2rc3 patches. This patched version of Bind and the appropriate config lines causes bind to ignore all lookups in the GTLD servers that return something other than a delegation. This prevents the lookups from returning 64.94.110.11 and ensures that the proper NXDOMAIN value is returned instead.

  18. Are Verisign Harvesting passwords? by baadfood · · Score: 1

    On my windows network I mistyped a name to a network share, and got a username/password required to access this resource prompt. Now I find that Verisign can intercept all traffic to mistypedhost.mycompany.com, they must be intercepting a godawful lot of awfully tasty traffic.

  19. I was told "Register mis-spelled variants" ! by 2ears · · Score: 2, Informative

    Interesting discussion tonight with Verisign/Network solution supprot line (Worldwide: +1-703-742-0914 then 2 then 7). I was complaining that while trying to reach my own mydomain.com (true name replaced here) I did a mistake and was drag to sitefinder.verisign.com and that i didn'' agree with that. The man then went straight to tell me that I should buy misplling variants of my domain name !!! I couldn't believe my ears ! I regret I hadn't a lawer to record the conversation ... The man just agreed finaly it was not possible to buy all possible mistyppings in all languages keyboards lay-outs. After a few minutes of exchanges (the total communication lasted for 12 minutes) the man finally failed to understand that I just wanted my IP to be excluded from siteFinder system, which I was telling him from the begining. Anymay, he then asked if I was the owner of the mis-typed name and I had to admit I was not. His point was that since I was not the owner of the mis-typed domain I had no right on it. True. Now I reversed the charge and asked him if Verisign was the owner of the mis-typed domain and he was forced to admit that the answer was "no". As we reached a dead end by this way we finally courtesy closed the conversation that is very interesting in my point of view. The summary of this conversation is that : - Network Solution is actively trying to use sitefinder mess to sell mis-typed domains, which may be reprehensive in some way (I am not a lawer, but if you bring somebody to some place against his will in order to solicitate him to buy something it may be illegal) ; - Verisign must admit that it doesn't own the mis-typed domains. I don't know if there is an implication of that, through.

  20. Changing IP address by gothicpoet · · Score: 1
    I had blocked the Sitefinder service on my firewall by IP address for good measure, but it appeared that ComCast had already blocked it for me too...

    Until yesterday that is. I typoed a domain name and was suddenly looking at the damned Sitefinder page again.

    I pinged the web address of the Sitefinder page and I was getting a different IP address than before. They either moved the damnable thing or they've started playing musical chairs to try to force it past people's barricades. I'm now seeing it at 12.158.80.10

    How's that for a "service"?

    --
    Quoth he ::
    "It's all academic anyway..."
  21. My GOD! by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

    These people aren't just redirecting domains.
    I leave the . in the .com out of my domain and get to sitefinder! they have stolen my domain!

    yea, that
    "Copyright(C) 2003 VeriSign, Inc. All Rights Reserved"
    they have at the bottom of the sitefinder page.
    No, im not respecting their copyright. Gonna download that page, then mirror it on my page, then distribute it all over kazaa and overnet...

    Oh yes, does anyone here mind if we /. them too?
    DDoS verisign?
    Make it a sign of protest.
    Hopefully they will learn to stop when their bandwidth gets choked.

    -Grumpy sitefinder user.

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.