Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains
An anonymous reader writes For some reason that escapes me, a Judge has granted Microsoft permission to hijack NoIP's DNS. This is necessary according to Microsoft to thwart a "global cybercrime epidemic" being perpetrated by infected machines running Microsoft software.
No-IP is a provider of dynamic DNS services (among other things). Many legitimate users were affected by the takedown: "This morning, Microsoft served a federal court order and seized 22 of our most commonly used domains because they claimed that some of the subdomains have been abused by creators of malware. We were very surprised by this. We have a long history of proactively working with other companies when cases of alleged malicious activity have been reported to us. Unfortunately, Microsoft never contacted us or asked us to block any subdomains, even though we have an open line of communication with Microsoft corporate executives. ... We have been in contact with Microsoft today. They claim that their intent is to only filter out the known bad hostnames in each seized domain, while continuing to allow the good hostnames to resolve. However, this is not happening."
The best money could buy.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Does not seem legal.
It's legal if the law says it is. And when the lawmakers are in bed with Big Business, like they are in the US, anything goes.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
.
Now it appears that Microsoft is using their reputation for producing security-challenged software to badger companies for PR purposes. The headlines will all read, ~Microsoft takes down a company that is a security threat~. And Microsoft will look good in the headline.
But what has Microsoft really accomplished? Will Microsoft's reputation for software with abysmal security be changed? Or will a small company be crushed because a huge company is trying to look good?
Microsoft has way more money than whichever company that owns No-ip does. They can't sue and win. Microsoft wouldn't even need to bribe the judge, they can just use scorched earth tactics and let the lawyers suck more and more money until No-ip is dry.
Also, apparently No-ip didn't appear when summoned. Apparently, that's kinda of a big no-no. Maybe next time they will buy their domains somewhere with proper laws.
Bullshit.
April 2013: http://labs.opendns.com/2013/0...
Sept 2013: No-IP is a preferred choice for other similar attacks for command and control infrastructure: http://threatpost.com/njw0rm-a...
Feb 2014: Even Cisco said their domains were being abusive and they posted to complain that Cisco didn't contact them. http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/...
Looks to me like they should have contacted Microsoft and asked them for help. I guess they waited too long.
So, Microsoft's argument was that they needed to hijack thousands of computers, secretly redirect them and put people in financial strain... so that someone else couldn't hijack thousands of computers, secretly redirect them and put people in financial strain?
Great plan, fuckwits!
Sorry, I do blame the judge. He caused major harm and he should have known he would. I also blame the US justice system, because obvious, easily avoidable injustice is a perfectly acceptable outcome in it as long as just all the is were dotted. We all know that making sure things are done by the rules is the real purpose of the courts!
Honestly, stop making up excuses for your legal system, no it is not acceptable for it to not only allow but actively encourage injustice like yours does, all the time!
Security cameras is another common usage. A low cost installation has some IP cameras on a residential dynamic IP internet service, so you use no-ip for access. I can't access my vacation house feeds today. For all I know there might be gnomes partying around the premises right now. Thanks MS.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Not showing up should not result in a suspension of justice and free reign to dispense outrageous judgements.
Uhh, that's exactly what happens. It's called a default judgment. What exactly do you think the court should do if a party fails to appear in a civil case?
The court should consider the validity of the arguments against them and the facts of the case.
The problem with the US court system is that it is basically like a game show. There are a set of rules and two competitors, and the judge is the referee. If you have a game of jeopardy and only one contestant shows up, they should naturally win. The problem is that this is rarely a just outcome.
Add to this the fact that courts rarely allow parties to participate remotely. If you're summoned to court you have to show up in person. If you aren't paid to be there, then you probably aren't being paid that day. If the court is on the other side of the country you get to choose between a default judgment, hiring a lawyer to represent you there, or airfare and hotel for a one day appearance.
Courts really need to be about determining the facts and applying the law, not letting the parties slug it out and declare a winner. If only one party shows up, then the judge can question the other party to determine the facts and apply the law.
However, no-ip has certain legal responsibilities as a service provider and if they don't meet them their legitimate customers may end up getting caught in the crossfire.
What would those be? They're a DNS provider. Somebody tells them that domain A is IP B, and then somebody asks them what the IP for A is, and they say B.
They don't carry traffic. No attack would come from their servers.
I could see a court ordering them to lock an account or remove a domain being used to coordinate malicious activity, and then they'd have a duty to comply. However, that isn't what happened here.
Hard to imagine how the money in escrow will undo the massive damage to no-ip's business. Everyone using the service is right this minute switching to alternatives, changing their DNS settings and updating their routers.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The 93% sounds serious, but it just says that these specific infections choose No-IP.com, which is a very common dynDNS service. You can counter with the fact that 100% of the systems targeted by Bladabindi-Jenxcus infections are vulnerable due to Microsoft software.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
I don't know where you went to school, but you should ask for a refund. Or read up on basic percentage calculations.
Microsoft claims that 93% of the malware traffic is traced to No-IP. But that says nothing about the total amount of traffic for No-IP, nor does it say anything about the total volume of legitimate domains. Malware traffic could be as little as 1% on No-IP's infrastructure while still accounting for 93% of malware DDNS traffic.
It is completely wrong to state that 93% of No-IP domains are hosting malware. A large number of legitimate customers are being affected by this, and Microsoft is not resolving their DDNS domains correctly (as promised). The actual percentage of legitimate vs malicious domains is unknown, as is the distribution of legit/malicious traffic.
Also, Microsofts claims are disputed by No-IP, so we should not take them at face value. No real evidence of malice has been proven (yet), which makes it extremely questionable that this was conducted ex parte.
Finally, the fact that No-IP was a favorite for malware is not (or should not be) in itself sufficient to take control of the domains like this. I sincerely hope Microsoft can prove No-IP did not respond properly to requests. Or that they can document that an extremely large portion of total traffic on No-IP was malware (which we know nothing about at this point).
Simply quoting the 93% number is a pile of BS. I can't stand by itself. I can say with certainty that at least 93% of the Nigerian scam mail I have received the last year has used a hotmail.com or outlook.com account. But surely this does not prove that Microsoft is willingly aiding Nigerian scammers and that their domains should be seized?
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...