MelbourneIT Lapse Permitted Panix Hijack

McSpew writes "Netcraft reports MelbourneIT's CTO, Bruce Tonkin, has admitted the Panix domain hijacking occurred because of a loophole in MIT's domain transfer process. He doesn't go into detail about what that loophole was, or how it was closed. As a Panix user, I'd like more detail, and I'd like to know what can be done to stop this sort of nonsense happening to other domains."

Comments

But..

[obeythefist]

I was under the impression that the domain registration lapsed, Panix had changed addresses and not bothered to update the domain registry people, so they were uncontactable for the seven days after the domain expired and therefore it was put up in the open. That's what I read the first time this article was submitted to Slashdot anyway.

Why on earth is it a "hijack" (which makes it sound like a criminal offense) when a company doesn't care enough about it's domain name to keep the registry informed of how they can be contacted for administrative purposes, and then complains when they lose the domain? I understand the people who picked up the newly-unowned domain had no idea that it was in use and promptly returned it when they found out who previously owned it. Hardly a hijacking or a terrorist act to me.

Shouldn't this article be more like "Inept ISP forgets to reregister domain: Doesn't bother keeping it's address and phone number with registrar."

Anyone who is a Panix customer... maybe you should think about signing up with a more competent ISP, rather than one who blames it's own lack of dilligence on terrorists and hijackers.