How Do I Fight Russian Site Cloners?

An anonymous reader writes "I used to run a small web design service, the domain for which I allowed to expire after years of non-use. A few weeks ago, I noticed that my old site was back online at the old domain. The site-cloners are now using my old email addresses to gain access to old third-party web services accounts (invoicing tools, etc.) and are fraudulently billing my clients for years of services. I've contacted the Russian site host, PayPal, and the invoicing service. What more can I do? Can I fight back?"

Comments

contact your clients

[Pinhedd]

If you have a summary of your clients (and you should) you should send out a mass email and let them know what's going on

Re:contact your clients

[Cassini2]

Check that the problem is not closer to home. The problem could be either technical like a corrupt ISP or some spyware, or it could be an insider running the scam.

To make this scam work, the third party needs a great deal of inside information. That points to an insider. For instance, the third party would need access to invoicing forms to make everything look official.

Re:contact your clients

[mikael]

You would just have to send an "oops, I've forgotten my passpord" to the third-party service. With any such service, they will always send out regular circulars and notifications to whatever E-mail accounts are registered with them.

So all a web-site cloner has to do, is find a defunct web-page that is no-longer in use, get hold of the E-mail address, and wait to see what arrives. Maybe they got hold of an old server with disk drives that weren't erased properly.

Phishing filters

[ISurfTooMuch]

Just an off-the-wall idea here, but check to see how to report this site to Mozilla and Microsoft to get it into their blacklist of phishing/scam sites. If I got something from a site, and, upon trying to visit it, my browser's filter warned me about it, I might suspect something fishy is going on.

Doing this is by no means a complete solution, but it could get you part of the way there.

ICANN

[carp3_noct3m]

Check out Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution. It is often overturned in court, and isn't always effective, but taking back control of the domain in whatever way possible is more than likely the only way you will fully recover from this. Otherwise you are simply on a damage mitigation mission.

Re:ICANN

[darkmeridian]

That's not the case. Someone who legally obtains a domain name may be forced to surrender it if they use it to trade on the goodwill on another or if there is no valid reason for using that domain. Like if I bought applecomputers.com and sold laptops on it, Apple will almost certainly win a UDRP proceeding against me. If he can prove that clients are being scammed and the scammers are using the site to pretend to be him (and trade on his reputation) he would have a good case.

Re:ICANN

[dissy]

the problem I see with this though is it's not like the domain was stolen ... Now clearly they're being fraudulent WITH the domain, but they obtained it legally, so that makes it a lot harder to legally take away.

You should read the ICANN domain agreement you clicked OK to when registering a domain (All registrars for .com are required to pass that agreement on)

Registering a domain name in bad faith, and/or for the use of fraud, is grounds for domain revocation.

Being legally purchased, and not being stolen, do not factor into ICANNs rules. Those are more legal issues a court would need to address, and only after that happens would it be ICANNs concern.

ICANN can revoke any .com domain on the grounds it is registered in bad faith or used for fraud.
They HAVE done this in the past too.

If you register a domain that sounds similar to an existing business, and also use that website for business, odds are good they can have it revoked from you. If your business line is the same as the existing business, it is guaranteed to be revoked. Being local rules, that the end user agreed to, there is little recourse when ICANN chose to do so, even if they do abuse this vague rule.

http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm

Section 4, subsection A, paragraph III

4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding.

This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative-dispute-resolution service providers listed at www.icann.org/udrp/approved-providers.htm (each, a "Provider").

        a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that

                (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

                (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

                (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Re:ICANN

[blair1q]

Correct. Legally, he's not the one with a complaint. It's his old customers who are being defrauded. This is neither his fault nor his fight.

Re:Close your accounts!

[John Hasler]

Many sites do not allow accounts to be closed. Try to close your Slashdot account, for example.

Re:Try to have the DNS entry removed

[Archon-X]

There's a problem with these automated tools - and that is that they're the shotgun approach.

We run some mainstream sites, and we also allow affiliate promotion.
We have a zero-tolerance spam / mailing policy, but that doesn't stop people trying.

If or when complaints come through (SpamCop, SpamHaus, etc) - we deal with them, and nuke the affiliates - we're just as anti-spam & fraud as the BL guys.

The problem, however, is that with the use of this / these tools, when DNS, upstream and network providers are scatter-bombed with complaints, over, and over, you end up getting blacklisted. Even if you're not in the wrong, you get blacklisted.

If you've ever been on the end of a SpamCop / SpamHaus complaint, as much as they may have intended to setup a good service, their 'service' is incredibly partial.

For example, the latest email back from SH to our host, when we had banned a fraudulent affiliate:

Let's talk about removing the customer instead of offering up yet another affiliate excuse.
Regards,
-- The Spamhaus Project (SR22) http://www.spamhaus.org/

Their website 'evidence' archives are full of libel and blackmail - if you email SH with a fake complaint, and say that company X participates in money laundering, international fraud and spam - they'll publish it - without an ounce of fact checking.

Somewhat off topic, but these issues burn - who watches the 'watchers' / internet 'police'

Re:More To It?

[Nadaka]

It probably wasn't even that hard. Once they own the domain, they can park a standard email server on it and capture email sent to the domain, they don't even need to implement the specific addresses.

Re:Don't let valuable/vulnerable domains expire?

[Bourdain]

I completely appreciate your response -- my suggestion is clearly inappropriate in the poster's question but...

Even though the poster claims this domain was not used, merely the ownership of it (at nominal cost might I add) protected his business which he only realized in retrospect. That, I believe is the take home to readers of this forum in this situation -- not what to do if you make this blunder.

As little as a single lost sale as a result of this gaffe on the poster's part, could far exceed the cost of renewing the domain for a decade.

Re:Don't let valuable/vulnerable domains expire?

[nedlohs]

Because only answers solely for the original poster should be accepted. Answers to help other people from having the same problem in the future should be avoided.

In fact why do we bother posting to a public web site, just email your answers to the poster.

Re:If TV Has taught me anything...

[moranar]

"Say hello to my little friend" was Cuban.