ICANN Domain Expansion Could Increase Phishing

Orome1 writes "The ICANN board gave final approval to what some are calling 'the most dramatic change to the Internet in four decades,' allowing the expansion of new TLDs. Some argue this ICANN initiative could force a land grab of domains by businesses to protect their company reputation. However, they aren't the only ones who are likely to try to snag these new top level domains. There's a very legitimate concern that cybercriminals could also seek these new domains to create legitimate looking websites using well-known brand names. These can then be used for phishing attacks or delivery of Trojan malware to unsuspecting visitors."

Comments

As stated in the original story:

[Luniz]

"It will cost $185,000 to apply, and individuals or organizations will have to show a legitimate claim to the name they are buying." I do not think that Peggy will be able to set up .discovercard :p

Re:As stated in the original story:

[Xest]

Out of interest, does anyone know at $185k a pop what exactly ICANN will be doing with it's new found millions?

Re:As stated in the original story:

[Inda]

Coke and hookers, my friend. Coke and hookers.

Re:As stated in the original story:

[Rary]

The article may be FUD, but the whole idea is pointless. What value would a new TLD add to the Internet anyway? For that matter, what value do the existing TLDs add to the Internet? If they were actually used properly, and therefore had any meaning, then they would add value. But they aren't used properly, and hence have absolutely no meaning. They should be abolished completely. Why do I need to type "slashdot.org" (or "slashdot.com", or "slashdot.net", which all take me to the same place). Why not just type "slashdot"? What value does having ".org" (and ".com" and ".net") introduce, other than generating more revenue for the domain registrar?

This was introduced for one reason: to put $185,000 per TLD into ICANN's pocket, and generate additional revenue for domain registrars.

Oooh, phear the phishing

[s.d.]

Yes, any change to how the internet works could increase phishing. But at $185,000 per application for a new TLD, as well as having each application reviewed by a human or committee, this isn't going to be like automating the registration of .com addresses so that in an afternoon, you can register every misspelling of bankofamerica. By no means do I have blind faith in them, but I feel like ICANN will be pretty sure to not allow some random dude in eastern Europe to register .bank.

Yes, yes, everything can increase the risk of cancer in lab rats, and everything increases the risk of phishing, but the barrier for entry is set relatively high here.

Re:First TLD to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously phishing sites should be using the .con TLD: citibank.con, barclays.con etc. Truth in advertising and cunning typo-squatting at the same time!

Cash grab

[Tridus]

This scheme is nothing more then a cash grab. It does nothing useful for domain names. The cost of one of these is sky high ($185,000). There's no need being filled. It's just ICANN trying to get people who already have big websites to pay for another domain for the same site to keep someone else from registering it.

This stuff should not be run on a "how do we extort more money out of DNS" methadology.