Slashdot Mirror
New Rules Make Domain Hijacking Easier
Tanktalus writes "Netcraft seems to have a little ditty about new rules from ICANN that take effect on Friday making it easier to hijack domain names. Essentially, if someone tries to take your domain, and you don't answer within 5 days, they now assume you are okay with the transfer. Previously, the default answer was no, and you had to explicitly state your acceptance of the domain transfer. Owners of small domains, beware: no more computerless vacations that last more than 4 days at a time!"
As they point out in the article, GoDaddy (and others) have a domain locking feature that will still prevent these transfers.
*waits for the slashdot editors to take a week's vacation*
someone give me a sample of the email notice and I'll whip up 4 lines of perl to take care of that.
Owners of small domains, beware: no more computerless vacations that last more than 4 days at a time!
This advice is a bit extreme... you can rest easy so long as you turn on domain locking at your registrar. That'll default all requests for transfer to a fail until it's removed... so all you need to do is keep your password to your domain registrar accout from falling into enemy hands.
Maybe this is a good time to educate the casual website operator about the domain locking feature, and what it's useful for. The new system's assumption is if your domain is unlocked, you're sending out a signal that you're intending for a transfer to happen soon. Maybe the rules should have locking as a default-on thing, but they don't so it's buyer beware for now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The upside is this will all end after the first lawsuit against ICANN.
Which should be in about 7 days.
You never know who could go down...someone could steal their name!
Cache
I realize that the primary use of tracking graphics is for spam, but wouldn't something like that be useful here?
If someone is unable to read the email in a way that loads the tracking image, then the server can just assume that the email was never received. Once the image has been downloaded, the request countdown can begin at T-minus 5 days.
This wouldn't even affect pico mail users because the image wouldn't load in the first place, thus the countdown would never begin. If they receive the email, they can always respond, even if the tracking image does not get loaded and the countdown does not get started.
Can you imagine waking up one day and finding Slashdot full of articles praising Bush and promoting school prayer?
Nothing has changed really. This has ALWAYS been the way the system ran, only some registrars choose to ignore it, and setup abusive transfer blocking mechanisms, and called them "Safety" measures for their customers instead of the lock-in attempts they really were. The problem with the old way was that some unscrupulous registrars (NetSol for instance)made it harder to get your domains away from them, forcing you to jump through hoops, and making them harder and harder to accomplish, and then deny them for wrong reasons. The new policy only sets out EXPLICIT rules about what are allowed reasons for a domain transfer to be rejected by the current registrar, and a process by which disputes over transfers will be handled. Other than that, nothing has changed really at all, and any news articles saying otherwise are less than properly informed, and listening to alarmist rhetoric instead of understanding how the system worked until now, and how it will work in the future. As a previous poster pointed out, the best thing to do is to lock your domains with your current registrar, just make sure that they provide an easy means to unlock them when you need to make changes, or when you really do want to go to a new registrar.
I swear to god, as soon as some huge website run by billionaires gets its domain transferred out from under them, heads will roll and this assinine "rule" will get changed.
Or perhaps someone at icann.org is asleep at the switch themselves? (hint hint)
Of course, I just doublechecked that warrenernst.com has the correct contact info. ;-)
I was thinking more Passport.com and Hotmail.co.uk
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Joker.com is my registrar and they emailed me 3 days ago about the changes, and declared all domains under their service were auto-locked by default!
:) Now if only I could get this kind of service from my credit card.
I had no idea about the regulations until they emailed me first. First they helped me transfer my domain away from a bad registrar, now they help me through new regulations without me lifting a finger.
Buyer beware of other services, but that's why you sign up with a reliable service with good references!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
How about just hijacking icann.org?
Suppose we sent a transfer request every minute, on the minute.
If we submitted ENOUGH of them, surely they'll forget to reply to ONE of them. And we'll have the domain name, cleanly by their own policies. They'd have no means of recourse.
1. Use a DDOS on the ICANN's website so they can't respond for 5 days. :D
2. Ask to buy their domain
3. Wait 'till they can't answer....
4. You're done!
Subject: From the Honorable Janissary Robert M. Jacobson
Hello sirs,
Writing this letter comes at a times of great anguishes to my community. We have obtained funds in the amount of US$3,000,000 from the Nigerian government, after the passing of Prince Montebu Wilson, to whom we are the singlest heirs. However, due to political difficulties we are unable to secure the actual cash moneys ourselves. We require your assistance, for which we would thankfully provide a commission of $500,000 for your troubles. In order for this transaction to be completed, we hereby requests that your domain, www.coolinternetstuffthatisgreatandfun.com, be transferred to us immediately. Lack of action will be assumed as an affirmative response after five days.
Do YOU ever read more than a few words into those?
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
...would "Didn't RTFA" = "Insightful"
From the usual shitfights I've gone through trying to get a domain transferred even though I own it.
Network solutions has an outdated email address listed for the admin and technical contact, and in order for you to change it the require faxed copies of a passport, credit card, finger prints, a 500ml sample of your blood and any children or pets you might have as hostages.
2 years and several attempts later and, although they occassionally manage to transfer the domain OK, the email address is still fricken wrong. These new ICANN rules could make my life much easier next time we change ISPs.
:wq
Might it be that ICANN is trying to force people to keep their WHOIS information current (or at the very least have a correct contact email address)?
OK, you missed my penis joke.
I did too, until I returned with a small reading light and a magnifying glass.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
If anyone registers www.microsoft.com
I would recommend having your lawyers ready...
12 billion in lawyers is a good start...
The truth shall set you free!
I had a situation a while back with a hosting company. A client I maintain a website for decided to host their website through 1dollarhosting.com
The sign-up form very cleverly asks you for the information to transfer your domain name TO them.
When trying to renew the domain name, I was told by their employees that it is against their policy to release domain names. They let people transfer them in, but they will not release them to other registrars.
After digging a little deeper, they are a partner of Register.com. It took hours (literally) to get someone with enough authority on the phone (at register.com) to release the lock that they had on the account so a transfer would work.
Thankfully, the domain name was finally transferred and the guy at Register.com agreed that what they were doing was unethical....though that didn't stop them from making it a complete PITA.
Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
It would seem that this time, Netcraft really did confirm it.
Bravo.
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
Note that this isn't about transferring a domain from one owner to another. It's about transferring a domain from one registrar to another while keeping the same owner. Transfers of ownership come under different rules.
It would require all the operators take a 5 day COMPURTERLESS vacation!
You know this is slashdot and chance of that happening is ZERO.
[for mathematicians, it is zero, not a near zero but a real zero.]
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
oh, you mean like when microsoft.co.uk was not renewed and someone registered it in their name?
The scary thing isn't for people who don't notice the letter - it's for people who don't have the correct contact information to begin with. If you gave incorrect details when you registered the domain, it can be taken by anyone that puts their mind to it.
I don't think for a minute that they haven't considered this - it looks like a deliberate move against people who don't want to tell the world who they are. ICANN would love to force these people to list their details.
Damn, probably 90% of the posts in here need to be modded to -1. These rules relate to the transfer of a domain by the domain owner of that domain from one registrar to another. It is not about claiming (or hijacking) someone else's domain as the headline improperly entices you to think.
This is a good thing people! It helps to ensure that domain owners can transfer their registrations when they so wish. In fact, the domain owner has to first request the transfer before it even gets this far.
Sheesh.
- The registrant or domain owner;
- The losing registrar;
- The gaining registrar.
- The central registry - central repository of records.
Got that?Okay, the way a transfer was supposed to work was as follows:
- The domain owner submits a transfer request to the gaining registrar
- The gaining registrar was to seek confirmation of the transfer from the domain owner, based on existing whois information, and independent of the request.
- Having received such confirmation, they notify the central registry that the transfer is valid.
- The central registry notifies the losing registrar of the imminent move, to give them a chance to block it should there be unresolved billing issues or other disputes. Only in such a case was the losing registrar meant to block the transfer.
- If the losing registrar does not object, the transfer is executed.
(Steps 2 and 4 actually run in parallel, but that's irrelevant.)The Problem
However, a number of losing registrars put in a policy some time ago that they would also seek confirmation from the domain owner, despite the gaining registrar having already done so in step 2. They would object to all transfers unless they received authorisation to their liking from the domain owner.
One registrar in particular required a copy of an Australian driving licence or passport, or a notarised letter for non-aussies. In this case it made the administrative cost of a transfer prohibitively high. The did not require this level of identification when a domain was being transferred to them. (Before you ask, yes the admin details were correct. They were just being berks.)
Invariably this policy was put in by registrars to try to prevent customers moving to other registrars, by adding additional hoops. The 'excuse' put forward was to reduce exposure to legal actions.
When one tries to cover ones ass too much, one's hands end up covered in shit.
Not all registrars did this - the nicer ones honored the word of the gaining registrar and only interfered if there were billing issues etc.
The Solution
The new ICANN rules is a compromise - it now explicitly allows the losing registrar to seek the double confirmation, but they can no longer block the move just because the customer didn't jump through enough hoops for them
It does not require the losing registrar to do so, so this is business as usual for the nice registrars.
The important point is that the gaining registrar still has to verify the transfer in the first place, as it should be. The customer confirms their identity once, and no more.
What's to stop a registrar faking authorisation? The loss of their ICANN accredidation, and hence their business.
Final point: although this is a non-story, it *is* important to make sure your admin details, especially your email address, are correct and up to date. Just as you would check your entry in the phone book, check your whois data too.
"A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
How would you notice?
(this is meant as a lighthearted jest).
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
While acknowleding that this is a joke, I will point out that this doesn't affect .uk domains at all, or any other ccTLD for that matter.
"A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
Think transfer security is a problem ... there's a security problem far worse:
h readid=328696&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
... as of now, some registrars do little while others suspend domains within only a few days - so if one goes away on holiday, they could very likely come back and find their domains suspended/deleted.
...
(a post of mine reposted from ICANNWatch http://www.icannwatch.org/ - slashdot.org rejected it, but I'm used to that LOL!)
-----
Bogus "Whois Problem Reports" are increasingly going from being an annoyance to being a real security risk. Some recent incidents I've experienced due to Whois Problem Reports *merely* being filed:
* Dotster, about two weeks ago, threatened to delete a domain if I didn't respond.
* BulkRegister, just yesterday, threatened to suspend a domain if I didn't respond within 5 calendar days.
What good are Whois Problem Reports when anyone can file one and there is virtually no screening performed to ensure such reports have any validitity to them; reports filed on some of my domains claimed everything was wrong, including the expiration date - what!? Talk about pure nonsense!
As of now, if one wants to cause a registrant problems, all they need to do is file bogus reports at the Internic link below (it's so easy, it's frightening!) - heck, if someone really wanted to be deviant, they could spread a virus that sends bogus Whois Problem Reports from hijacked computers...
http://wdprs.internic.net/
In addition, some registrars, such as GoDaddy, charge a fee to the registrant for *merely* reviewing a Whois Problem Report for a particular domain, regardless of whether the report is valid - see links below for more details:
http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=67862
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&t
There is much talk about the transfer policy changes and security, yet bogus Whois Problem Reports is a security risk many times worse.
Some ICANN policy changes are needed pronto regarding Whois Problem Reports...
1. Requiring more than just a name and email for people making complaints - they should have to provide a postal address that's verifyable and/or some other information.
2. Screening of such reports - permit registrars, if they're not already, to toss out Whois Problem Reports that they feel are invalid without involving the registrant; stop wasting their time over this nonsense.
3. A standard on how registrars handle Whois Problem Reports
* including a reasonable time for the registrant to respond, such as 30 calendar days, before any action is taken
Something needs to be done before bogus Whois Problem Reports get any further out of hand
Ron Bennett
now I'll be able to get that domain I've been waiting for!
Everyone RTFA. This is not domain hijacking. This is a rule that allows a registrar to transfer your domain to another registrar. So you don't have to worry about someone "stealing" control of your domain or replacing your website or engage in fantasies about gaining control of microsoft.com cause that's not gonna happen. Microsoft will still control the domain, but if the rule is invoked, it may be at a different registrar.
Stupid rule if you ask me. All this does is put more pressure on Registrars to respond to frivolous requests by other (unethical) registrars phishing for business.
"And then I visited Wikipedia
Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars, I don't find the part that states that the transfer is approved if the domain owner (i.e. the administrative contact) does not respond in time.
I do find language that states the transfer will be approved if the Registrar of Record does not respond within 5 days. This, however, is a Good Thing, as it makes it harder for the losing registrar to prevent you from transfering your domain. Of course, they can still just deny your request and hope they get away with it.
The way I see it, this gives domain owners (a little) more control over their domains. I don't see what's wrong with that. I never understood why transfers need to be approved by the losing registrar anyway - why would they ever approve losing a customer?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
First, the current registrar must approve a transfer of domain without obtaining the registrant's approval. This is contrary to common sense. If the purpose is to stop registrars from unreasonably holding domain names, then the appropriate response is to require the current registrar to approve a transfer request when the registrant has approved it. If the registrant approves, and the current registrar rejects, that's an appropriate cause for complaint.
After all, isn't it more important to protect existing domains from unscrupulous transfers, than to prevent rogue registrars from accepting legitimate transfers? I may have one legitimate reason to move my domain from one registrar to another but there are a large number of scammers who would gladly capture my domain for fraud or other purposes.
It's a bit ridiculous that every registrar should be forced to implement a locking function, and every domain holder should be forced to lock every domain, all at once, in order to protect themselves from fraud.
Secondly, the "unlock" action required prior to a legitimate transfer opens a window of time in which a domain can be stolen - in programming parlance, a race condition. It's a problem with the protocol.
Just the other day I transferred several domains from Joker to GoDaddy. Joker isn't very easy to deal with, and GoDaddy is cheaper, so I decided to move the Joker ones to GoDaddy.
When I jumped through the Joker hoops to tell them that I wanted to transfer my domain name, they opened a "transfer window". I was shocked when they said that, during the transfer window, _any_ registrar could grab my domain. Not just GoDaddy. Not just me. Any user of any other registrar could have issued a transfer request for my domain name, through their registrar to Joker, and Joker would have accepted it, if the request arrived before my legitimate request from GoDaddy. Indeed, any user of GoDaddy could have done the same thing, because there's nothing in the request itself to say that it was me who instigated that request.
What happened to the good old days when a request for a transfer resulted in an email from my registrar to me, asking for my approval. If I approve, the transfer will go through. If I'm not there or indisposed, overseas or not reading my email, then the transfer will not happen.
Flood Network Solutions with notices that icann.org ownership is being transferred to someone else.
If there are enough of them, then there got to be at least one which isn't answered within the 5 day timeout.
And whoever wins, wins control of the Internet! Whoot!
Get emailing, theres no bigger competition than this!
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
For .de domains, this has been the procedure ever since I've been in the domain business. The way that most registrars have implemented it is that they will send an automatic NACK (not acknowledged) to any incoming transfer request that their customer hasn't specifically asked them to authorize. Many registrars then send a notification to their customer after the transfer has been denied, giving them the opportunity to send a LATEACK, which overrides the previous NACK, but this way the rules are reversed again. If the registrar doesn't offer this LATEACK, it's "allow and try again" if you really want the domain to be transferred. What this does achieve is that if a registrar goes out of business silently, you can still get your domains transferred from them because there won't be anybody or anything sending NACKs anymore...
their little red wagon can be fixed easily.
time to have someone start jacking big domains like google, microsoft, ibm, etc...
I'm thinking that getting ICANN sued into a pile of dust by some big guns would solve this problem in a hurry.
This is the Litigation Age, Let's use it to our advantage.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What pisses me is the whole "opt-out" approach. Have spammers and CANSPAM proponents taken over ICANN?
ICANN screw you over unless you explicitly tell me no?
Jeez.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
You can fix their little red wagon easier than that. Just don't pay attention to them.
Nobody HAS to listen to ICANN or any of the lackeys they delegate their power to. They're not actually providing anything that anybody else with the motivation to take over the job and some big iron can't provide, they're just the default body everybody goes to because they're SUPPOSED to be a convenient place for centralized governance of the various things that make the internet tick.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
"Stacy" at the Register.com LivePerson chat just told me this:
I am sorry to inform you that the domain transfer request will be approved within 5 days if you fail to respond to the confirmation email. Register.com may provide the facility of locking domain names in the near future.
asking him if he would give me a billion $. If I haven't heard from him in 4 days, I'll tell the bank to assume he's OK with it and to give me the money. I like this new rule.
If you go read the ICANN Policy on Transfer of Registrations between Registrars http://www.icann.org/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm it's quite explicit regarding the circumstances in which a registrar (aka Network Solutions, Dotster, Tucows, GoDaddy, etc - not the Registrant, billing or technical contacts) could deny a move request as well as under what circumstances they could not deny such a request (Nonpayment, No response from the Registered Name Holder or Administrative Contact, etc).
I'm no rocket scientist but the policy clearly intends to prevent Registrars from hijacking the domains of their clients, as some have been wont to do, or simply refusing move requests by passively ignoring said requests.
Here is some of the verbiage of the policy that indicates its clear intention to anyone who is capable of reading above a 5th grade level.
"Registered Name Holders must be able to transfer their domain name registrations between Registrars..."
"The Administrative Contact and the Registered Name Holder, as listed in the Losing Registrar's or applicable Registry's (where available) publicly accessible WHOIS service are the only parties that have the authority to approve or deny a transfer request to the Gaining Registrar."
Failure by the Registrar of Record to respond within five (5) calendar days to a notification from the Registry regarding a transfer request will result in a default "approval" of the transfer.
In the event that a Transfer Contact listed in the Whois has not confirmed their request to transfer with the Registrar of Record and the Registrar of Record has not explicitly denied the transfer request, the default action will be that the Registrar of Record must allow the transfer to proceed.
Thus spake the SysGoddess