Slashdot Mirror
Verisign Implementing SiteFinder On .cc
An anonymous reader writes "Community outrage forced VeriSign to kill SiteFinder, but they vowed to bring it back. Looks like SiteFinder is alive and well in the .cc TLD. Just enter your own favorite unregistered name to check it out."
I suppose that's why the words "A Verisign company" appear under the eNIC logo?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Isn't this the equivalent of what any spyware would do to someone's computer? How does this kind of advertisement differ at all?
Prontab.net - Porn for geeks. (nsfw)
so how long before someone throws up a goatse mirror at http://an-unregistered-name.cc/
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Maybe it doesn't work anymore, or my ISP blocks it, but I'm not getting any site-finder like results in the .cc TLD:
$ host an-unregistered-name.cc
Host an-unregistered-name.cc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
$ host alskdfjsldkafjdsalkjskld.cc
Host alskdfjsldkafjdsalkjskld.cc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Though run by a Verisign subsidiary, this is NOT SiteFinder. SiteFinder is a search engine meant to hijack the type in location-bar -> autocomplete .com process. This is an advertisement for a dot-cc domain, which you couldn't reach accidentally anyway.
Besides, dot WS, dot TK, etc. have this service. Where's the outcry?
YABT. YHL. HAND.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Moderators, at least CTFL (click the fscking links), even if you don't RTFA. eNIC is a VeriSign Corporation (see http://www.enic.cc/).
As far as I can tell, they are justing grabbing free business off of this service, and deserve to be shamed. How is this different from SiteFinder?
So eNIC is owned by Verisign. I got that wrong. But it's still not Sitefinder.
Oh god! it hurts to look at goat.cc
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
http://.cc/ works! They must not bother to escape things at all!
I though the dollar sign was invalid in domain names...
http://VeriSignAreA$$Holes.cc/ goes to their little page with the $s intact.
Slashdot seems to remove $s from URLs even when they are intentional.
I typed in sitefinderislame.cc and it gives me a page that says "Welcome to your new home on the web!"
No sig for you!!
A subsidiary of a company is not the actual company itself, it's just a peon with which to attribute blame.
well you could have a serious problem as it seems that anything goes and pulls up the .cc page, html works fine as posted and tested...could this lead to verisign themselves being vulnerable being as this is a subsidiary of them??
Free Google Secrets
Over the past few years, I have helped clients register .cc domains by typing in domain.cc and if that page came up, I knew it wasn't registered. ENIC has been using this blank page service for a while. The page has been changed a few times, but, it has always been pretty much the same "Welcome to Your Future Home", or "Buy this unredistered domain" pitch. Why is it that someone just now noticed? Then, just because by change ENIC happens to be a subsidiary (or however you spell it) of Verisign, this service is automatically dubbed "SiteFinder". I find this very sad.
(Get out the fire extinguishers, tin foil hats, and flame throwers. This one might catch on fire and explode in contempt.)
Password Authentication Bypassed for Root
A subsidiary of a company is not the actual company itself, it's just a [front the company can use to make the public think it's] a peon with which to attribute blame.
Stop Returning Wildcards
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
The cc TLD has had that service running for as long as I can remember. It's just a way to buy an unregistered name, not a search engine like SiteFinder. Even though I highly dislike these kinds of unstandard solutions, it's much better than SiteFinder was.
Why is my 'zone "cc" { type delegation-only; };' not doing it's job?
Well, you are right that it is not Sitefinder, but it is VeriSign. All the VeriSign staff treat it as their own, and it is operated by VGRS staff (the division inside VeriSign that runs .net and .com too)
Why the article is completely stupid is this domain has had a wildcard for years. This is nothing new or noteworthy.
One quick way around this is to treat the sitefinder A records the same as if no results were found.
You can't block .com, because there are too many valid domains there, but .cc? .cc domains .com
.cc that it would .com or .net or .org or .edu or .us or cetera.
Nothing legitimately worthwhile has ever been hosted there; if the spammers
or whoever abuse this, you just instruct your software that all
are invalid, and your dad is Robert's brother. It's an ugly hack, but it
would work; no such thing is possible for
I'm not saying that it's right for nameservers to return wildcard results for
unregistered domains, but this isn't nearly the problem in
be in a major TLD such as
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
1. The Lanham Act - specifically the Anti-Cybersqatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). VeriSign is essentially registering and profiting off of the protected trademarks of others.
2. Antitrust. Verisign could be guilty of violating the Sherman Act - most interestingly as the controller of the DNS "essential facility." Similar actions caused AT&T (back when it controlled the local phone switches) to allow long distance competitors access to the local switches - so they could effectively compete. If the DNS registry is an essential facility - Verisign cannot use it to block out downstream competition (other registrars, web portals, etc.).
3. State Action - Takings violation. This one is a little wacky - but interesting none the less. Network Solutions (when they ran the DNS) was always let off the hook for AntiTrust via the Parker doctrine - which permits companies who are closely tied to the government (and the government itself) to be excused from antitrust laws - because of their close tie to the Federal Government. The same close ties could result in a "state action" under either a government function (not often used by the courts) or a symbiotic relationship test (rarely used by courts). Essentially - the private company acts like the government - and should be treated as such, which means having to follow the rigors of the Constitution. Specifically, when the capture the intellectual property of others (the names of the unregistered domain names that are now pointing to verisign's page), they are violating the "takings clause" - which requires compensation.
BTW - IANAL - but, I think the points are quite interesting. I really didn't do them justice by quickly summarizing them here, but what the heck - that's what slashdot is for.
Ryan Kennedy opposes comm