Slashdot Mirror
Verisign To Sell DNS Root Server Lookup Data?
An anonymous reader writes "According to an editorial at Domain Name News, Verisign is considering selling partial access to DNS root server lookup data. The data would be made available to registrars, who in turn could use it for 'traffic-tasting' non-existent domains entered by any internet user. This would give them a better idea about what bogus domains to put up sites on to capture eyeballs." Haven't seen this story elsewhere and it's based on an anonymous source; YMMV.
Most residential and business users will be behind a local DNS server, which probably caches the nameservers for individual TLDs. Since those NS entries on the root servers generally have a 48-hour cache time (and many ISPs DNS servers are probably (mis)configured to hold the data for longer), it doesn't seem like many requests would actually be getting through to Verizon's root servers, especially not enough to make a service like this viable.
Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
I remember when registration of domains was free, all you had to do was figure out how to fill out the paperwork.
So they sell the data, new domains are registered, and the sites that go up on these domains will be loaded with pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-offs, and pop-up-ur-as* windows.
Sounds like enabling spam to me!
I personally am very against something like this. I've heard of several people just typing a domain name into Internet Explorer, seeing that it didn't exist, and then moments later trying to register the domain only to find that it was just barely registered by some registrar. Of course in these cases, Microsoft or possibly some spyware company was the culprit, but I'd hate for this information to be more quickly and widely available. I can't see how anyone would be OK with this.
$ dig a.com
$ dig b.com
. . .
$ dig aaaaaaaaa.com
$ dig aaaaaaaab.com
. . .
$ dig zzzzzzzzz.com
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
> it doesn't seem like many requests would actually be getting through
When the caching server misses on a request, it forwards the request upstream...ultimately ending up at one of the root servers.
This sig intentionally left blank.
I'm guessing you don't know much of the history of Network Solutions/Verisign if you can phrase the question using the word "anymore".
Great. Not only are whois queries bugged by domain prospectors, a.k.a. squatspecting (don't check for the availability of a domain unless you intend to buy it immediately, because someone else is watching and will do so instead), but now just trying them in your browser will tip off others who will buy your ideas for domains out from under you.
Now after you try a URL in your browser and get an error saying the domain doesn't exist, you can just wait one minute and try again and someone will have it up and ready to serve you porn.
This is "Do More Evil".
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
This is basically done already. Squatters can buy a domain, and due to the rules that ICANN setup (I think it's ICANN), they can return the domain for free within something like five days. During those five days, they put up a squatting page and keep track of all the hits their site gets, if it gets X number of hits, they keep the domain, otherwise they drop it. All for free.
I recently did a search for a domain on GoDaddy, the domain was available. Three days later when I went to buy it, it was not available and had been recently bought by a squatter or reseller or something. This is a whole different problem altogether and another flaw in the system. Anyways, I made it a point not to go to that site to make sure I didn't give them any hits that would encourage them to keep it.
Either way, I just bought another available domain and use that. Can't be too picky these days.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
Doesn't matter. Verisign is the authority for .com and .net, any request for domains ending in one of those suffixes needs to be queried against Verisign at some point.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
It was probably this one:
Putting the lower-case 'r' and 'n' side by side looks just like an m.
http://bankofarnerica.com/ A-R-N-erica == evil phishing site!
http://bankofamerica.com/ A-M-erica == real bank site.
mouse over them both, and see how easy it is to misread the url in the status bar.
Kevin Smith on Prince