Slashdot Mirror


Comcast the Latest ISP To Try DNS Hijacking

A semi-anonymous reader writes "In the latest blow to DNS neutrality, Comcast is starting to redirect users to an ad-laden holding page when they try to connect to nonexistent domains. I have just received an email from them to that effect, tried it, and lo and behold, indeed there is the ugly DNS hijack page. The good news is that the opt-out is a more sensible registration based on cable modem MAC, rather than the deplorable 'cookie method' we just saw from Bell Canada. All you Comcast customers and friends of Comcast customers who want to get out of this, go here to opt out. Is there anything that can be done to stop (and reverse) this DNS breakage trend that the ISPs seem to be latching onto lately? Maybe the latest net neutrality bill will help." Update: 08/05 20:03 GMT by T : Here's a page from Comcast with (scant) details on the web-jacking program, which says that yesterday marked the national rollout.

72 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Serious question by jabithew · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not an expert on DNS. Can someone explain to me, as simply as possible, why this is a bad thing? I understand that it's a pain to be redirected to some random ad-laden piss-poor search page, but what will this break?

    This is not a troll or flamebait, I genuinely want some education.

    --
    All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    1. Re:Serious question by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're IT for a business. You have employees who check their e-mail from home, accessing your stuff via a split tunnel VPN.

      The computer tries to resolve internalmail.company.com, and normally this should fail, causing the computer to try the VPN's DNS server.

      Instead, your employee's computer gets Comcast's search page server. Their mail client times out.

      You get inundated with tech support calls.

    2. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      All sorts of stuff. There's many systems that assume a certain behavior - that when a domain doesn't exist, you get an NXDOMAIN response rather than some other record.

      For example, many VPN setups use this to decide which interface to chuck data down. When you try to access 'google.com' that gets a resopnse on the first try, so do that on the public side. When you try 'machine.company' that fails, so go try internal DNS and do it on the internal side.

      I'm sure others can come up with more examples.

    3. Re:Serious question by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not being redirected to some search page that's the major problem. DNS is a lower-level function that the Web. Really what it's doing is replacing DNS responses indicating that a host or domain doesn't exist with a DNS response indicating that the host/domain is located at X IP address (the address of the search page). It doesn't know when it sends this response what the response will be used for. If it's for the web, you get the search page. Non-web applications will instead behave incorrectly or, at least, produce an incorrect error message.

    4. Re:Serious question by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're IT for a business. You have employees who check their e-mail from home, accessing your stuff via a split tunnel VPN.

      The computer tries to resolve internalmail.company.com, and normally this should fail, causing the computer to try the VPN's DNS server.

      Instead, your employee's computer gets Comcast's search page server. Their mail client times out.

      You get inundated with tech support calls.

      I fail to see, using your scenario, why Comcast's DNS server would effect the company's internal DNS server, thus creating the conflict you alluded to. Since I'm not sure why Comcast would know anything about the company's internal network... If you meant:

      The computer tries to resolve webmail.company.com , and normally this should fail, causing the computer to try the VPN's DNS server.

      ... then it almost makes sense... but only if you have a poorly constructed hosts file and route.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    5. Re:Serious question by MaerD · · Score: 3, Informative

      If all you ever use is the web, that's the extent of your issue.
      Now, say your im program is set to try several different dns addresses to connect. If one has been decommissioned (but the client not updated) and your IM will try to connect, possibly passing the username and password to the server that is returned by dns for "login2.whatever.com".

      Even with the web, say you have a login for a store/bank/whatever, but the latest version of there page some web developer made a typo and instead of "placeyouwanttogo.com they put "placeyouwantogo.com" (notice the number of t's). Instead of giving you a "site not found" message, you've been redirected to an ISP page that gets all of the information you were trying to pass.

      Now in my example, it's possible they could push you to a typo domain as well, but the point is dns is supposed to return "Hey this doesn't exist" to your client, which then should display an error message, determined by the application doing the dns request. If it's not http, it will look like you're trying to connect to a host and it will either be A) "Connection refused" B) Answer and confuse whatever application you are running or C) appear like a black hole and never connect.

      --
      I put on my robe and wizard hat..
    6. Re:Serious question by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 4, Informative

      My ISP does this. They also have an 'opt-out' option, but you know what that does? It still doesn't send an NXDOMAIN response like it should. Instead it redirects me to a site that is serving the standard windows site-not-found page. A horrifying experience for this mac/linux user.

      So I set up my own DNS server, which fixed the problem and sped up my internet connection since the ISP's DNS server was really slow.

    7. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a split tunnel VPN...

      That means first it tries to use the internet, then it tries the VPN. If I lookup foo.bar, and foo.bar doesn't resolve, it then tries on the VPN's DNS. That helps keep external traffic off the VPN. Internal traffic is still safe.

      Of course, if foo.bar instead of not resolving--points to comcast--then I never do the lookup...and the VPN ...is broken.

    8. Re:Serious question by dirk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To use an example from my company, we have many users with laptops. We have set up MS Outlook on these systems to use Outlook Anywhere. The way Outlook Anywhere works is that is first tries to connect to the internal mail server (mail.company.inside) and if it can't connect to that then tries the external mail sever for an Outlook Anywhere connection (mail.company.com). With a properly set up and unmunged DNS, when they are at home it tries to connect to the internal server and gets a DNS not found response and then tries the external server. With this new bothced DNS setup, it tries the internal server and gets an IP address response, so it tries to connect to that server to retrieve it's email. Unfortunately, the DNS sends the IP address of the web server that serves up it's ad page, so Outlook sits and times out waiting for a response, meaning these people can't get their email from home.

      Yes, this could be worked around by host files, but we are 1000 person company. Why would we want to try setting up local host files on these systems that then have to be updated whenever we change servers just because an ISP doesn't want to set up DNS based on the proper specs?

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    9. Re:Serious question by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Informative

      The name of the box is, of course, irrelevant. But you still have it wrong: Comcast's DNS server isn't affecting the company's internal DNS server, it is affecting their customer's box, who is your employee, making it so that they never query your internal DNS server.

      This happens precisely because they don't know anything about the internal network, and yet they are telling your employee they do.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    10. Re:Serious question by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      I fail to see, using your scenario, why Comcast's DNS server would effect the company's internal DNS server, thus creating the conflict you alluded to. Since I'm not sure why Comcast would know anything about the company's internal network...

      That's because you didn't pay attention to the scenario. We're talking about a split tunnel VPN. DNS resolution uses the following rules:

      1) try the usual (external) DNS server first. If it resolves, use that IP address for the communication.
      2) try the internal DNS (via the VPN) if step 1 returned NXDOMAIN, and if that resolves, use that IP address for the communication.
      3) otherwise, return NXDOMAIN.

      So if Comcast's external server returns a valid IP for the internal server, instead of NXDOMAIN, then your internal mail server will never be accessible to anyone using your company's VPN from a Comcast connection.

    11. Re:Serious question by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Using DNS lookups to tarpit certain kinds of spam. If everything resolves, then such methods simply fail.

      Besides, interfering with DNS resolution is just plain bad. Quite frankly, I wish we had an organization controlling the root servers that had a backbone, and would simply stop answering queries from any network that decided to interfere with DNS resolution.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Serious question by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interfering with established web protocols could be, for a private citizen, prosecuted as a criminal act.

      *sigh*, don't you think that's just a tad extreme?

      Obviously you might enjoy it if they cleaned out all the trolls

      Are you kidding? I only come here for the trolls ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK, here's an example:

      vpn client>> resolve internal.company.com
      correct DNS server<< NXDOMAIN
      vpn client routes VPN connection>> resolve internal.company.com
      company's DNS service<< 10.1.99.12
      result: VPN client knows to use the VPN connection for this route.

      vpn client>> resolve internal.company.com
      ass-backwards DNS server<< address of trojan-ridden.adserve.com
      result: VPN client didn't receive NXDOMAIN, so it won't use the VPN tunnel for this route.
      result 2: any connections attempted to this server will timeout, or (worse) will result in your company's documents scattered to a random server on the Internet
      result 3: corporate helpdesk gets blamed
      result 4: liability lawsuits

      your example about webmail.company.com is exactly the wrong way around; you aren't trying to access a public service offered by company.com, you are trying to access an internal server. Asking this to any public, standards-conforming dns server, should result in a respone that says I don't know. Anything else will break the Internet.

    14. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You did notice that the page at http://networkmanagement.comcast.net/DomainHelperLogic.htm says it must be preceded by "www." right? That would seem to invalidate your example...

    15. Re:Serious question by michaelhood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Arguably this is less of a problem for an organisation like yours that [ostensibly] has some sort of deployment mechanism. You can probably easily configure your employees' laptops to use RFC-compliant DNS servers, whether yours or "public" ones.

      That certainly doesn't make it any less evil on Comcast's part, though.

    16. Re:Serious question by dirk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which seems like a good idea until they come in house. While they are at home and pointing to a RFC-compliant DNS server, it's great, but when they come in-house, they then can't see any of the internal servers because they are still looking at the external DNS server instead of the internal ones given by DHCP. It really is a no win situation.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    17. Re:Serious question by scrib · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This may be "how it's done" but relying on something Not Being There is just a terrible idea.

      Instead of having two different things to look up (mail.company.inside and mail.company.com) just use the one visible from the outside - mail.company.com. Surely the routers inside the company can catch that request and recognize it as coming from within the company. Relying on failure is bad, bad idea - even if Microsoft does it.

      Also, you don't have to use Comcast DNS even if you are using Comcast. If it's a company laptop, configure it. If it's not a company laptop, it shouldn't have unfettered access to your internal network anyway. A non-company laptop should always use the "external" connection.

      And whatever happened to 404 pages? ISPs (webhosts) started hijacking them long ago and the world didn't stop. Face it, with connections at airports, coffee shops, hotels and everywhere else adding their own bits to internet connections, you're lucky to get a clean response from a domain that DOES exist. Here's an idea: when one makes a request on the internet you MIGHT get a response that looks like it is from your site, but it isn't. Handle it.

      --
      Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
    18. Re:Serious question by Stauken · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you fail to see is that the VPN Layer would only be called upon after the 'failed resolution' of the domain by the primary dns resolution, which will NEVER fail in this scenario because comcast will dns hijack and return a valid record.

    19. Re:Serious question by agbinfo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had the same thing happen to me with Bell's DNS hijacking but then I checked with nslookup and looked at the redirect page.
      I believe that Firefox (and your browser may do this as well) tries www.domainname.com if domainname.com doesn't exist.
      This would explain why the invaliddomain135.net redirected to that page.

    20. Re:Serious question by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 3, Informative

      A hard-coded IP address in the hosts file is often a bad idea. A simple example: when I'm on-site, company.com resolves to the internal (10.x.x.x) address, but when I'm off-site, company.com resolves to the public address. When employees are on-site, you want traffic to stay on the network, and using the external IP could cause your internal traffic to be routed out of your network and right back in.

    21. Re:Serious question by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Any reasonable split tunnel VPN program does exactly the opposite - prioritises the VPN DNS settings over the internet.

      Not saying the setup Comcast has is good, just saying.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    22. Re:Serious question by MooUK · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to comcast's own pages, their "service" only applies to www.INVALID.tld, and possibly in the future www.INVALID.tdl and www.INVALID - meaning that in all cases it requires www. at the start, only accepts valid tlds at the end at present, and may also intercept invalid or blank tlds at some point in the future.

      To be honest, given that they're doing it anyway, they seem to have chosen a fairly inobtrusive way of doing it.

    23. Re:Serious question by RegularFry · · Score: 3, Funny

      Allegedly the Cisco client behaves in exactly the way the GP describes.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    24. Re:Serious question by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that's (relatively) easy to fix. Just route your traffic to your DNS IP differently depending on whether it comes from the internal or external network.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:Serious question by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Informative

      We're talking about the DNS search, not actual routing. First you check the internet and then you search the VPN DNS. This is so that if $work is doing the same type of redirection (which is fine - it's their resources that they're serving, so if they don't want you going to playboy.com, that's their business) you can still reach the external network without using $work's resources. There's no reason why your employer's computer-use policies should interact with your home use, even when connected to the office over VPN.

      This requires that your DNS is resolved via the internet before VPN. And requires that the internet DNS behaves properly.

    26. Re:Serious question by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sounds weird every time I see it. It puts a lot of the company's security interests (their internal servers) in the hands of a third party (whomever is the "default DNS" for the client). It should check the VPN's DNS first, which perhaps could be an abbreviated "local only" DNS, and only when that fails should it fall over to the "default DNS."

      Or better yet, important servers should be in the hosts file on the client's machine, so that there never is an issue of whether a third party DNS would get checked.

      Or something less brain-dead than hoping that a third party won't mess with your clients' lookups for fun and profit. Relying on a failure and fail-over seems like poor design to me.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    27. Re:Serious question by psm321 · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's with all the funny mods in this thread?

  2. Repeat? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just me or was this story on slashdot like three weeks ago? And I complained then? And we all opted out?

    1. Re:Repeat? by Itninja · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a national rollout. Basically the program is out of beta and being delivered as a cram-down to all their customers now.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  3. I noticed this yesterday by lothos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I noticed this yesterday, and they only seem to hijack www.example.com, and not example.com or ftp.example.com.

    Still a pain in the ass, and I'm in the process of opting-out. The opt-out is pretty easy, and I've also sent an email to comcast regarding this.

    1. Re:I noticed this yesterday by dyingtolive · · Score: 2, Funny

      The opt-out is pretty easy, and I've also sent an email to comcast regarding this.

      Hello lothos,
      We received your email regarding the easy opt-out, and we would like to take the time to assure you that we are doing everything in our power to make this much more difficult. We apologize for any conveniance you may have encountered, and thank you for being a valued Comcast customer!

      Best Regards,
      Comcast Support

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
  4. Re:Opt-out page down already? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which, if true, makes the opt-out process even more ludicrous. If I'm at home opting out, shouldn't they just DETECT my mac address, and do the opt-out automatically?

    Instead, I had to enter my mac address manually (along with my e-mail address) - and then they told me it would take two business days to go through. (Granted, I got a confirmation e-mail the next day saying it was done, but why isn't this automated?)

  5. Not OpenDNS by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    4.2.2.1
    4.2.2.2
    4.2.2.3
    4.2.2.4
    4.2.2.5
    4.2.2.6

    At least this story doesn't have OpenDNS in the "from the X department" this time.
    OpenDNS does exactly the same thing, so you might as well stick with your comcast servers.

  6. fucking idiots.....at least I have BIND by Indy1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've always used a linux box as my firewall /router box at home, and I've been running BIND as a caching DNS server. Fortunately this won't affect me, as I totally bypass spamcast's bullshit.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
  7. The flip side of net neutrality by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No new legislation is needed. Just get the courts involved. Let content providers sue the heck out of Comcast for making a dime off of abusing their domain names. The ISPs think that Google, etc. are "using their pipes to make money," well this is using the content provider's domain and brand to make money. Technical details aside, the effect on the relationship between the content provider and their users is the same whether it is literally hijacking control over the subdomains or creating the perception to user that that is happening. No matter what Comcast may claim, they are altering the relationship between the domain holders and their users.

    1. Re:The flip side of net neutrality by dissy · · Score: 3, Informative

      No new legislation is needed. Just get the courts involved.

      Exactly. This act is already illegal. It is called typo-squatting.

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.1255.IS:=
      Specifically, see section 3, (2)(a), and probably (2)(b) as well.

      Now we just need as many people as we can get, whom have a domain name which is trademarked, to press charges against comcast under this law for your own domain.

      `(i) an award of statutory damages in the amount of--

            `(I) not less than $1,000 or more than $100,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; or
            `(II) if the court finds that the registration or use of the registered trademark as an identifier was willful, not less than $3,000 or more than $300,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; and
            `(ii) full costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

      Chances are since the main purpose of this change is for ad revenue, and not a willful infringement, only line (I) will apply.
      Additionally, you probably can't get the 'bad faith' additions applied, unless you can somehow prove the ads served on their 'page not found' fake-page happen to be ads for your competition.

      But a minimum of $1000 plus attorney fee's is pretty decent if you have nothing better to do...

  8. Re:Treewalk or OpenDNS by jaygridley · · Score: 2, Informative

    OpenDNS is not a solution. They do the same thing.

  9. Re:Treewalk or OpenDNS by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    They do the same thing.... unless you register an account. Why do people always leave that part out?

  10. "Accidently" Hacking their Server by blueskies · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if you are trying to pen test some machines you own and Comcast points you to their server who is to blame? Are you really responsible if Comcast hijacks your DNS requests and sends you to their server?

    I was testing against a known invalid DNS entry (ie: personally owned but not parked domain name). How are you responsible when they hijack your connection?

    Even better is when someone pwns Comcast's server and and exploits all of Comcast's customers with a browser exploit hosted there.

  11. Very Simple Answer by IBitOBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DNS is supposed to tell you (essentially) "no such domain name registered" when you try to find a domain name.

    IFF (e.g. if and only if) DNS _only_ serviced web browsers, then one noise-page (my adverts here) is no different than any other noise page (no such name) because a human is going to go "oh, that's not what I was looking for".

    But there is a heck of a lot more going on out here in the internet than just web browsing, and significant portions of it hinge on getting true and correct answers from the DNS system.

    With DNS boned-up to return false positives on all names, then money can be stolen from you, the causal web browser. For instance, I send you an email from support@bankofamercia.com; you don't notice the transposition of letters, your spam filter looks up bankofamercia.com and the DNS service return as IP address instead of no such address, that address is the same one as I spoofed in the email, the spam filter says its a good email, you get owned.

    Okay, that _is_ contrived, so try this instead...

    It's 1964. You are at a pay phone. Your car has broken down. It's your last dime. You call home, but mis-dial a number that doesn't exist and you get a busy signal, and you get your dime back. You call home again and get help. The system worked.

    It's 1964. You are at a pay phone. Your car is broken down. It's your last dime. You call home, but mis-dial a number that doesn't exist and some random person answers and proceeds to try to sell you car wax. Your dime is gone. You are still stuck. The system has failed.

    Imagine your life if you _never_ got a busy signal. You call any extension in any company and you get to leave a voice mail but nobody will ever get that message. It would be living hell.

    Worse yet, you run a small company, you may a small number of sales each month that are vital to your companies survival. You invest in an expensive advertisement on the superbowl and everything goes great. Then your DNS server dies. Now there is nobody to answer the proper DNS queries. The DNS squatter wakes up and since mylittlecompany.com no longer resolves, all that traffic goes to the Comcast Advertisement Shill page. In just a few minutes you get your DNS server working again, but everyone who got the bogus page thinks your company is trying to sell comcast telephone service and web search services and you never go that business. You are out big cash and your name is ruined. IF the spamvertisement page hadn't been there, those people might instead be thinking "wow, this service is so popular I cannot get in, maybe I'll try back in a bit" instead of "why did comcast decide to take out a superbowl ad that made it look like they sold that interesting little product?"

    In short, what if every time your cell phone couldn't be found (because it was off or the battery died etc) the people trying to call you got silently redirected to a random "service" of the type one sees on late night television, offering jokes or sex chat, ostensibly in your good name?

    That's what is wrong with doing that.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Very Simple Answer by cromar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to be a pedant: e.g. vs i.e.

    2. Re:Very Simple Answer by HipToday · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd hate to see your complicated answer.

    3. Re:Very Simple Answer by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The page you get from Comcast (or whoever) is the same as getting the busy signal/number not found.

      A busy signal doesn't try to sell you ads, so it makes sense. Also, we already have something that is the same as a busy signal -- it's called NXDOMAIN.

      They're also irrelevant for mail delivery, as last time I checked, mail wasn't sent via HTTP.

      Which is one of the main points here -- if it's HTTP, especially if it's HTML over HTTP to a web browser, then getting Comcast's page probably wouldn't bother you any more than getting Firefox's "not found" page. It might use slightly more bandwidth, but it wouldn't really be an issue.

      The problem comes when you start doing things like mail delivery, or any number of other applications, which expect nonexistent domains to be, well, nonexistent. Many of them will never fire an HTTP request, and so could not even theoretically figure out WTF is going on -- they get a "connection refused", at best, and maybe they have to wait for a timeout, instead of an immediate domain-not-found error.

      It's especially harmful for various applications which depend on actual domain-not-found results, such as various VPN setups. This is more or less exactly like the analogy given -- the payphone giving you your dime back depends on getting an actual, real busy signal and/or "not in service" result. Anything else, and it assumes you were successful, and does the wrong thing -- in this case, it eats your dime.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Very Simple Answer by IBitOBear · · Score: 2, Informative

      My email example never mentioned, nor does it pivot on, HTTP.

      Comcast doesn't "send you an http page" they send you a FALSE ADDRESS RESOLUTION RECORD where your browser then goes to retrieve the bogus page via HTTP. See how the DNS protocol is completely different than the HTTP protocol?

      SPAM Filters check to make sure that senders exist (among other things), one of the ways they do this is to look up the domain name to make sure that the sender domain ACTUALLY EXISTS as a first tier check. This is why you don't see successful spam from arbitrarily complex senders any more. That is, while the subject lines will extol you to enlarge your penis, the emails are no longer from "great_deals@my.giant.penis.com" any more (unless someone actually registers at least the top level domain.

      It's not the only filter of course, but it is near the top of the list because it does a heck of a lot of heavy lifting quite cheaply.

      And as another element you clearly missed. Here you are confusing HTTP and DNS and you are at least well educated enough to know that HTTP is what runs the web. Yet your education fails you when you don't _get_ that this is a poisoning of DNS not "the web" simply because that poison is designed to primarily dupe web users. Your response is a one-person proof of why this is so dangerous. The total number of people using protocols they don't fully understand is legion. When anybody starts mucking around with the underlying assumptions that make the "the web" and indeed the entire internet work, they are trampling barefoot through a sea of broken glass and dragging us all behind them through the unintended consequences.

      When those who know how all this stuff works tell you that you are breaking something, perhaps you should at least study the declaration before airing dissent.

      (not to be all grumpy 8-)

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  12. comcast sponsors standards work on this topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00

    note where author works.

  13. Your point is correct, your example is flawed. by IBitOBear · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your example fails because internalmail.company.com will resolve through company.com, not dnsshill.comcast.com. That is "company.com" is authoritative for "internalmail.company.com" in the hierarchical name service system. The questions of what happens in this case is questionable. Especially since in your split tunnel you probably have prepended company.com's internal DNS resolvers in the name search space so that the VPN user sees the internal sites in preference to the external ones.

    Your point is correct, your example is flawed.

    IMHO, of course 8-)

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Your point is correct, your example is flawed. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      Your example fails because internalmail.company.com will resolve through company.com

      Maybe he's using the cisco client - it looks at external DNS first, then tries the VPN DNS. Most companies don't publish their internal DNS to the world, just within the company network.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  14. Re:Opt-out page down already? by snowraver1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It depends how integrated the system is. Your mac is only visible in the IP header until your packet hits a router. At that point your MAC gets stripped off and the router's MAC replaces it. I am assuming that your packet would pass through a router before hitting the web page, so it isn't as easy as reading the source address of the packet.

    I guessing that when you opt-out, you give them your MAC so that they can assign you to a different IP address pool. Then they just decide if you get hijacked or not based on the source IP address.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
  15. Intentional and Malicious Obfuscation by __aauygf7127 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I had to jump through hoops to get the hijacking removed from FIOS. There's no way an average user would be able to do it. Verizon's instructions weren't even even accurate, I had to Google to get the right directions that were put up by some bloggers. I'm sure it was all Verizon's intention to keep the direction so cryptic and flat out wrong. Fuck the phone and cable companies and the fuckwad senators and congresspeople that let these sleazebags get away with this shit. I'm so fucking tired of having everything be a battle all the fucking time with these "services". What the fuck ever happened to competition in the US? There's like only 3 companies for any industry. Too big to fail my ass.

  16. Optimum Online in NY also started recently by PingXao · · Score: 2, Informative

    They've got about 3 million subscribers in the NY metro area (CT, NJ and NY excluding Manhattan). They just started doing this a couple of months ago. I noticed it when my DNS queries started failing completely. Seems I had changed my DNS servers to ones not owned by Optimum (aka Cablevision) because of speed issues, and with their most recent change they're also blocking DNS queries directed to servers other than their own.

    Don't look for the latest net neutrality bill to fix this. All that is is the ISPs making the bag of bribes bigger until the greed of Congress can no longer resist.

  17. It still takes 2 days to opt-out. by WarJolt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your opt-out request has been confirmed. We will complete processing of this request within 2 business days.

    I wonder if /.ing the Comcast request page makes it take longer. ;-)

    1. Re:It still takes 2 days to opt-out. by nweaver · · Score: 3, Informative

      The latency comes from two factors.

      The biggest is because Comcast gives very long DHCP leases, and the change doesn't propagate to your system until your access device gets a new DHCP lease.

      The second is they probably batch updates to the DHCP server to say who's opted-out.

      If you want to have it go faster, after going to the opt-out site, reset your cable modem and your NAT box and it will probably take effect right away. If that doesn't work, wait an hour and try again.

      --
      Test your net with Netalyzr
  18. 1-800-comcast by Alien+Being · · Score: 2

    If you have about ten minutes be sure to give them a call. Explain to them that they're breaking basic internet functionality, the very service you're paying for.

    No ISP should ever supply bogus dns info for domains they don't own.

  19. Re:Treewalk or OpenDNS by jaygridley · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everything that I've seen on the OpenDNS website is to the contrary, (and I have an account.) Care to share the secret?

  20. WTF? by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There shouldn't be any hijack page, simple as that.
    And yes, you can register an account for OpenDNS. But why would anybody here be advocating standards-breaking, overcomplicated, web-based nonsense?

    There is nothing wrong with Treewalk, which is why I didn't mention it.

  21. Re:Treewalk or OpenDNS by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Informative

    HOLY FUCKING SHIT

    STOP SUGGESTING OPENDNS, THEY DO THIS SHIT TOO.

    Excuse my while I go blow a bloodvessel. Every single time a story like this comes up some idiot suggests OpenDNS and idiot mods initially mod them up.

    I'd link where this happened last time but for the life of me I can't figure out how to view more than my several dozen posts.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  22. Cox opt out by cprocjr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My ISP Cox did this and to opt out of it all you had to do was change your DNS server to another one that they provided. In my opinion this is much better than cookies and router MAC addresses because you can do it on a computer by computer basis.

  23. Re:Treewalk or OpenDNS by horatio · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Because after all, if I don't use their DNS, why should I care where they are directing non-existant domain traffic to?

    Using OpenDNS, Treewalk, ns1.sprintlink.net, etc doesn't matter because a) Returning the A record when the domain does not exist blatantly violates the RFCs: the established commonly agreed upon standards without which the internet would cease to function and b) some ISPs redirect your DNS traffic to their servers whether you like it or not. Some outright block DNS servers that don't belong to them, and others silently redirect your requests. c) In the README file of your latest application, you shouldn't have to tell everyone that they need to use your DNS servers just to get a *correct* response.

    It isn't just you at home with your pr0n that has to deal with this BS. I have to deal with it where I work, because my company's ISP is a cable provider who does this redirect crap. So when I go to write an app that *might* use DNS, I have to screw with this nonsense because the cableco can't be bothered to return an NX - but instead always returns an A record for their server - subject to change without notification. So when they change to redirect to another server, wtf am I supposed to do then? The only way my app could possibly tell there was a problem is to see if the response matches this redirect server. And no, it isn't an option for my application to just willy nilly pick a DNS server of its choice to use. My application requests a lookup from the OS's network layer, but has no particular knowledge of the DNS servers - exactly how it is supposed to be.

    If I give my app to other people, are they supposed to put into the app's configuration the A record information that would correspond to their particular ISP's "redirect" host? My app needs to know when the DNS lookup failed. I have no way to tell when every damn name returns an A record. I count on the DNS server to respond in the way the RFCs set out. Comcast and the other ISPs are saying "fuck your rules"

    As has been said until we're blue in the face:The internet is not the web. If the ISPs and the browser folks want to sit down and see what the RFC permits and figure out how to return a url in the NX that the browser would recognize and could handle, then I have no problem with that. As long as it doesn't interfere with the normal operation of an NX response. As I'm sitting here thinking about it, the place for this information seems to be either in the DHCP lease, or in the wpad.dat auto-proxy configuration file. But Comcast and the others like them have decided they don't have to play well with others.

    --
    There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
  24. Comcast's version is orders of magitude better... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comcast's version is an order of magnitude better than everybody else's.

    a: There is a REAL opt-out, that puts your DHCP lease to point to a DNS resolver that doesn't do this. I'll have to do this when I get home. Compare this with, eg, Verizon's pitiful opt-out instructions involving manually changing DNS settings.

    b: IF you had manually set your DNS resolver to a Comcast server, you are unaffected (they added new resolver addresses to do this), per previous discussions by the Comcast folks over at Broadband Reports.

    c: It does NOT get *.whatever, only www.*.(TLD), thus even when you don't opt out, it is at least limited to web-related typos. This is actually a big deal, as I think Comcast is the first one NOT to do it for everything.

    I don't like NXDOMAIN wildcarding (it was one of the motivations behind building the ICSI Netalyzr), but if an ISP is going to do it, Comcast's is actually well constructed to both limit collateral damage (it only gets www.*) and be able to be bypassed with a real opt-out.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  25. Re:Method? by jlivingood · · Score: 3, Informative

    First off, port 53 is NOT being redirected. Use your choice of port 53 provider - whether your own DNS, Level 3, OpenDNS, whatever. As for how it works, check out http://networkmanagement.comcast.net/DomainHelperLogic.htm and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00 for the precise details. The second document is a complete technical description.

  26. Re:Treewalk or OpenDNS by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DNS hijacking isn't evil because the companies that do it is evil. It's evil because it breaks standards, and therefore breaks all sorts of other crap.

    It doesn't matter what company does it, it's still fucked up. To suggest that OpenDNS breaking standards is any better than Comcast breaking standards is just plain stupid and clearly missing the point entirely.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  27. Re:Err just which of the cablemodem MACs do they w by michaelhood · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just looked at my cablemodem and it has 4 MAC addresses associated with it:

    HFC MAC Address
    Ethernet MAC Address (probably not?!)
    CM USB MAC Address
    CPE USB MAC Address

    I suspect that it is the first?

    No sense entering it until I know if it makes a difference or just allows the scam to go on.

    Thanks!

    HFC is the one associated in DOCSIS, so 99% sure it's that one. And you're welcome.

  28. Re:Opt-out page down already? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    They know which MAC address currently has the lease for which IP address, and they know which customer owns which MAC address. They also know which IP addresses belong to them, so they can separate "people opting out from home" from "people trying to opt out from work".

    Therefore, it could (in theory) be automated.

  29. Re:Comcast's version is orders of magitude better. by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    c: It does NOT get *.whatever, only www.*.(TLD), thus even when you don't opt out, it is at least limited to web-related typos. This is actually a big deal, as I think Comcast is the first one NOT to do it for everything.

    You can run more than just web sites on a www. domain.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  30. Re:Comcast's version is orders of magitude better. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, but it's poor practice to advertise anything but a webserver through a www.* IP name. If the host is doing something else, it should have another IP name for people accessing that function. Among other things, it makes it much easier to move that function off that machine without touching the webserver. www.* could affect things other than webservers, but it shouldn't, and mostly, it won't. That doesn't make what Comcast is doing *right*, but it does make it slightly less horribly awful. Slightly.

  31. dnsmasq bogus-nxdomain fix by __1200333 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dnsmasq has an option to "fix" this kind of dns redirection called bogus-nxdomain. The bogus ip address to block is 208.68.139.38. I wonder if comcast uses multiple addresses or will ever change it...

    Maybe I'll just switch to using 4.2.2.[1-6] as many other people have mentioned.

  32. there are two sides to this coin by not_anne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The other side of the coin is the customer experience. Think about the average internet user. They cannot tell the difference between a 404 error and a 504 error.

    People often unknowingly mistype URLs and automatically believe that their internet is broken and they need to call their ISP in order to get it working again. My personal experience working tech support for a large ISP is that mistyping domain names is a huge call driver, and this service is meant to address that.

    That's the other side, now flame on.

    --
    My comments here are my own; I do not speak for my employer.
  33. Hold the phone - it's bad, but not that bad by jroysdon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Look at the DomainHelperLogic and the only thing it hijacks are DNS lookups that begin with www and end with a valid TLD (.com, a ccTLD like .us, etc.).

    While I think this still stinks that they are hijacking DNS at all, and as a Comcast customer I will complain and opt-out, I think they're doing it in a fairly logical way.

    But it's not that bad. If you do a DNS lookup for any domain (say for an MX or NS record) you're never going to see this. Your lookups will only be affected if the query starts with www, followed by a domain, ending with a valid TLD (.com, a CC, etc.).

    If your internal office uses something such as mycompany.internal, then even a www.mycompany.internal query isn't going to get hijacked since .internal isn't a valid TLD. If you are using mycompany.com for internal use, you should own mycompany.com externally, and negative replies will still work and not get hijacked.

    Again, while I oppose monkeying with DNS, this appears to be fairly well thought out and not anywhere near as bad as most other implementations.

  34. DNS is for IP Layer, not Browser Layer by billstewart · · Score: 2, Informative

    The misappropriation is technically bad because it's done at the wrong protocol layer, and even when it works it's bad because it'll cause your browser to do something you didn't want.

    Here's how DNS is supposed to work when it works, and how it's supposed to work when the lookup fails.

    • You have some application that wants to set up a connection to example.com using some protocol.
    • The application sends a query to the DNS servers to find out where example.com lives, gets told "192.9.200.1".
    • The application sets up a TCP session or UDP query/response to 192.9.200.1, yay!
    • But if the query fails, because you typed exampel.com instead, or because the site no longer exists, DNS tells your application "Not Found".
    • The application does something application-appropriate in response -
      • If your application was sending email, your mail server can tell your mail client that it couldn't deliver the mail.
      • If your application was receiving email, it might have been doing the lookup to see if the alleged sender existed; failure says it's a spammer.
      • If you were doing ssh, it tells you it couldn't set up a connection.
      • If your application was an Instant Messaging client, it's unlikely that they'll do anything good for you.
      • If it was a modern browser looking up Port 80, it tries tricks like adding a www or a .com, and if those also fail it may feed your query into your favorite search engine.
      • If it was a browser looking up Port 443 https:, it tells you that your connection failed but doesn't try feeding your possibly sensitive information to a random search engine.

    Now look at what happens if your DNS server lies to your application by giving it some other IP address instead of the correct failure message, like 68.87.60.144.

    • If you're doing ssh, your ssh client will try to set up a connection to a server you have no ability to log in to. If you're lucky, the server won't be running an ssh server application; if you're unlucky, it'll maliciously try to steal your login information.
    • If you're sending email, and that system has an email server on it, it might reject your email with a confusing error message (unknown user fred@exampel.com), or it might pretend to accept your message but discard it silently with the rest of the spam, so you don't know it got lost.
    • If you're validating received email, it tells you that example.com was an existing mail server, so you're more likely to accept that spamgram.
    • If you're trying to make a secure connection to https://example.com/ and Comcast is listening on port 443, you might pass it sensitive information, and at best there's nothing good that can happen from attempting the connection vs. many bad things.
    • ... don't profit ...
    • Finally, when we get to the one case Comcast and its ilk _were_ thinking of, instead of your browser sending your incorrect URL to the search engine you like or generating a failure message if that's what you prefer, Comcast sends your URL to _its_ search engine in hopes of making a PROFIT on advertising to you.
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  35. Re:Comcast's version is orders of magitude better. by jroysdon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here are my tests:

    www.blahblahblahblahblah.com
    Bogus redirect page.
    www.blahblahblahblahblah
    NX
    blahblahblahblahblah.com
    NX
    www.blahblahblahblahblah.ner
    NX

    Eventually all failed non-existant domains that are queried through Comcast's servers, where the query begins with www., will get redirected. They just haven't phased that in, yet: DomainHelperLogic:

    We will eventually phase in the following pattern matches to enhance this service in the future:

    (1) www.SOME-INVALID-NAME.cmm or

    (2) www.SOME-INVALID-NAME

    - The entry must include "www" followed by a dot ("www.")

    ...

  36. Does Comcast intercept all DNS requests? by jc42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My main question would be: Does Comcast intercept and answer all DNS requests on its wires?

    My reason for asking is that I've generally found that it's not a very good idea to use the ISP's nameservers. They never work very well, in my experience. When I've been responsible for such things, I've generally looked for a few good nameservers that are (electronically) nearby, and tell my machines to use them. I usually get faster and more accurate DNS resolution that way.

    But if the ISP is looking specifically for any DNS requests, ignoring their destination address, and forging an answer that points to their own machine, then the above strategy won't work.

    Yes, forging replies to packets not addressed to you is a nasty thing to do. Comcast has been caught red-handed doing this, e.g. to tell both ends of a P2P connection that the other has closed the connection. So it seems likely that they may be doing the same thing here. But I can't quite tell from what I've read.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.