Slashdot Mirror


Dell Lost Control of Key Customer Support Domain for a Month in 2017 (krebsonsecurity.com)

Brian Krebs reports: A web site set up by PC maker Dell to help customers recover from malicious software and other computer maladies may have been hijacked for a few weeks this summer by people who specialize in deploying said malware, KrebsOnSecurity has learned. There is a program installed on virtually all Dell computers called "Dell Backup and Recovery Application." It's designed to help customers restore their data and computers to their pristine, factory default state should a problem occur with the device. That backup and recovery program periodically checks a rather catchy domain name -- DellBackupandRecoveryCloudStorage.com -- which until recently was central to PC maker Dell's customer data backup, recovery and cloud storage solutions. Sometime this summer, DellBackupandRecoveryCloudStorage.com was suddenly snatched away from a longtime Dell contractor for a month and exposed to some questionable content. More worryingly, there are signs the domain may have been pushing malware before Dell's contractor regained control over it.

73 comments

  1. People are so fucking incompetent... by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've got to wonder if the Internet has caused a *lot* more problems than it's solved.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've wondered the same. The Internet was support to bring a period of human enlightenment and help people become more educated (thus better people). Instead we now have a huge mass of falsely educated people, more than ever before, which is worse than not being educated at all.

    2. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theres more:
      No Critical Thinking Skills
      Lost Without GPS
      Can't Make Their Own Decisions Without Help From Social Media Groupthink
      Can't Sign(write) Their Name
      Constant Anxiety Due To Social Media Induced FOMO
      Etc;

    3. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by barbariccow · · Score: 2

      "Lost without GPS" is a big issue for me. IT's very annoying when folks can no longer handle directions like "turn left at the second light" and instead need to take their eyes off the road every 4 seconds to see how close they are getting to said light.

    4. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then couple it with folks accessing the internet via a closed source operating systems containing tens of thousands of security flaws...

      Yes, you're probably right.

    5. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any time you think that technology or education or civilization or anything else will result in "better people", you're wrong. People now are the same as they've been for thousands of years. There's nothing magic about the times we live in that changes human nature.

    6. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is even worse when you see people cut across many lanes of traffic to get to a turn. Its almost like if they miss their turn they will never make it again. Go to the next turn and turn around, or even better, let your GPS find a route from where you are when you're past the previous turning point! If you're going to use technology, don't turn off your brain!

      The big problem I have with GPS based directions is they either tell you a turn is coming too early, or too late. The addition of lane based directions has alleviated this a bit, but there are many issues near my house. We're surrounded by forest preserves and farmland, so most of the directions involve turn right, but get in the left lane to make an immediate left turn, which isn't conveyed well with garmen, apple maps, nor google maps.

    7. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Lost without GPS" understates the problem. Even if these people had GPS embedded in their skulls, they'd still be lost without maps that use the GPS to tell them where on the map they are.

      For these people to say they're "lost without GPS" is like for someone to say they're "stranded due to lack of gas" when they don't even own a car. The lack of gas is a problem but it's not the main problem, just like some clueless person's lack of GPS isn't the main problem. Give them their coordinates and a can of gas and they'd still be lost or stranded.

      "My computer doesn't turn on."

      "Is it plugged in?"

      "No, because I don't have a computer to be plugged in."

      *facepalm*

    8. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      we now have a huge mass of falsely educated people, more than ever before, which is worse than not being educated at all.

      Wait.. is it worse for them or is it worse for you? I think these people are happier than they used to be. The Internet has removed a lot of tedium and difficulty from my life. How about yours?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by jep77 · · Score: 1

      It sure has created a lot of jobs though. I wonder where we'd all be working if the internet hadn't cocked things up so badly.

    10. Re:People are so fucking incompetent... by Nutria · · Score: 1

      It sure has created a lot of jobs though.

      Or has it just created different jobs?

      I wonder where we'd all be working if the internet hadn't cocked things up so badly.

      Being disabled and working from home, things would definitely be more inconvenient for me.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  2. Why more than one? by XanC · · Score: 2

    Why not just have everything off of dell.com? Wouldn't that make more sense AND be easier to manage?

    1. Re: Why more than one? by guruevi · · Score: 3, Informative

      In large corporations itâ(TM)s often easier to register a new domain than go through the hoops of getting a subdomain approved.

      Where I work, it takes me $8 and a half hour work to get a domain but it can easily take me 6 work hours across 2-4 weeks to get a subdomain.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Why more than one? by crow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a Dell employee, I couldn't agree more. We're heading into open enrollment right now for next year's benefits, and there are a bunch of web sites that we use for various parts of it, and while they all have "dell" in the domain name, none of them are subdomains off of dell.com. It's crazy.

      And this after the security training where we were told to watch out for suspicious domain names.

      I suspect the reason is that they keep everything under dell.com controlled by Dell directly, so anything contracted to an outside vendor needs its own domain. But at the very least, they should set up for all the valid domains a redirect from subdomain.dell.com to subdomaindell.com so they could still advertise a professional-looking domain.

    3. Re:Why more than one? by ctilsie242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know this isn't possible, but maybe businesses should have a separate domain that they can federate out to contractors. For example, keep dell.com for core stuff, then have a second domain, dellstuff.com that Dell could hand contractors foo.dellstuff.com, bar.dellstuff.com, etc. This way, if bar.dellstuff.com has issues, it is obvious who the contractor is, and there isn't a need to keep adding new domains. This way, if it doesn't come from dell.com or dellstuff.com, it is almost certainly a fake.

    4. Re:Why more than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing at Dell has gone right since I left.

    5. Re: Why more than one? by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Precisely because any idiot can register a domain with dell in the title, but to get an authorised subdomain.dell.com goes through a verification process and is immediately and obviously representative of Dell as a corporation.

      This is the exact point, I think, and what you WANT to be doing.

      I've gone to great lengths to remove all the old crappy domains that my workplaces insisted on buying up, or using for one-off events, and pushing everything under subdomains. To the point that "drive.domain.com" is actually our Google Drive link (so it automatically knows to sign you in with that domain account rather than your personal GMail, etc.).

      Literally any idiot on the planet can register a domain with your name in. Chasing and pre-registering such - unless you hold a trademark that you need to enforce - is almost impossible, and an endless game of new TLDs and tricks (e.g. "fordsucks.com") make it a no-win game.

      Buy one domain. Put everything on it. Hell, buy two so you have a backup (e.g. companyname.com, companyname.countrycode) and can quickly tell people "don't use the .com, use the local domain for now until we're back up, as it points to our secondary systems and always has."

      But myriad psuedo-related domain names that you forget about while they're running business-critical systems with live user data and the expectation that you'll own them forever is a really stupid idea. And... technically... who owns those domains? Did you register the correct contacts, could you take it over if you wanted? What about the DNS does it actually go to your company's DNS or goes it bounce via yours thus leaving the company in a fragile position should you leave or want to snoop data (e.g. SSL is reliant on DNS being authoritative)? Do those domains have the company SPF fields? Are they included in the main mail domain's SPF record? DKIM? SSL certificate? There are no end of reasons to actively block such adhoc registration in preference to FORCING YOU to jump through the hoops.

      "An easy life" and "security" are often polar opposites.

    6. Re:Why more than one? by robmv · · Score: 1

      When you hire awful subcontractors (like the evidence points in this case), you don't want those people putting files (JavaScript for example) on your own domain and later bat victim of some kind of XSS (or related) vulnerability on your site. It is like using another domain for user generated content, in this case the user generated content is the subcontractor output.

    7. Re:Why more than one? by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Nothing at Dell has gone right since I left.

      "Dude, you're getting a Dell!" guy??? Is that you?

    8. Re:Why more than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a member of the IT staff for a smaller/medium sized company, it's mostly because some genius in marketing decided to buy every domain he could dream up under the sun and put different info on each. Then some genius in HR decided to buy a few more domains and put different information on them. Then some genius in the VP club decided we needed some other domains with still different info on them. And now that we've hit complete clusterfuckation they all come to IT and ask how we dared to let this shit get so out of control when they SPECIFICALLY told us the web sites were not under our control from the beginning.

      This should be super easy to sort out.

    9. Re:Why more than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this isn't possible, but maybe businesses should have a separate domain that they can federate out to contractor

      It is absolutely possible to delegate a subdomain to a third party. It's called an NS record in DNS. How do you think domain names under TLDs are delegated?
      All they'd need to do is put an entry in like:

      somecontractor.dell.com. 86400 IN NS ns1.somecontractor.com.

      This is not hard.

    10. Re:Why more than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I can't even begin to ponder why large corporations that have multiple contractors don't do this. Create a subdomain (partners.domain.com) and then whenever you get a new contractor that needs a corp affiliated web presence, give them the subdomain (contractor.partners.domain.com) along with a stringent contract to keep things clear and professional. Makes everything look more official.

    11. Re: Why more than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are not in a position to improve the process, tell your boss you are stuck for four weeks on a procedural task. If your boss is not in a position to improve the process, escalate to boss's boss and up the chain until someone can improve it. If the person who can improve the process says waiting four weeks is acceptable, then use the down time to explore other job opportunities.

    12. Re: Why more than one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why so many companies fail at basic security. Apparently, 6 hours of work is all it takes to abandon the right solution in favor of something faster and easier.

      You're part of the problem. Your corporate bureaucracy isn't even the worst I've seen, so don't expect sympathy on that front.

      Congratulations on being a case study.

    13. Re: Why more than one? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Precisely because any idiot can register a domain with dell in the title, but to get an authorised subdomain.dell.com goes through a verification process and is immediately and obviously representative of Dell as a corporation.

      What verification process? Internal to Dell? I hope you're not suggesting a registrar is involved because subdomains are a part of DNS only.

      If there is a "process" involved, that is internal to Dell only and their own fault.

    14. Re:Why more than one? by antdude · · Score: 1

      I saw this with big named security companies too in the past. People brought this issue up too! I bet they stilll do that. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    15. Re: Why more than one? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Anyone suggesting "security" as a reason to use an official domain/subdomain should not be in security and you end up with cases exactly like this. You can't even guarantee that people WITHIN the organization have company.com resolve to the "authentic" addresses, let alone those outside.

      Whether or not you use live customer data on any particular domain is inconsequential, the data does not move ownership if the domain registration changes.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    16. Re: Why more than one? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The boss's boss's boss's bosses told everyone that we couldn't register subdomains anymore because there were so many, they couldn't manage them and they should from now on all use subfolders on the main domain (as in don't use "service.example.com", use "example.com/service", that way we can better control the "marketing message". And since nobody up the chain understands the difference between the two and most requests get outright denied, we're just doing what we need to do to "make things work".

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re: Why more than one? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on being a moron and not understanding the difference between "security" and DNS.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    18. Re: Why more than one? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      It's the length of time to get approval (weeks) that is the complaint, not the 6 work hours. 10 minutes vs weeks.

  3. Rookie mistake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always uninstall Dell*.* stuff.

    1. Re:Rookie mistake. by Anonymous+Cashews · · Score: 1

      A clean install of Windows is the better approach. The only thing you need to re-install from Dell is the driver package.

  4. I should've noticed the redirect on my URL bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to DellBackupandRecoveryandpr0nCloudStorage.com

  5. Was subdomain.dell.com already taken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain why IT professionals at Dell and earlier Equifax come up with convoluted domain names instead of using a subdomain on their primary and familiar domain?

    1. Re:Was subdomain.dell.com already taken? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they can...

      BUT... If you don't already know, They won't explain it to you..

  6. Subdomains? by aglider · · Score: 1

    At Dell they don't know anything about subdomain delegation. Do they?

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  7. Failure to protect a MITM by guruevi · · Score: 1

    A good setup would verify the authenticity of the service before installing any software.

    Any WiFi hotspot these days can pretend to be âoeyour websiteâ.

    The thing is that these schemes are even built-in to most webservers these days, you need to be truly incompetent not to know about and implement them.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  8. Sigh. by ledow · · Score: 2

    This annoys me.

    Why not "backupandrecoverywhateveryouwant.dell.com" as the business-critical bit of it (hard-coded into software, etc.) and then if you REALLY need to, make

    www.ridiculousdomainnamehere.com just resolve to that subdomain.

    Then nobody is going to let dell.com expire (you would hope), if they do, the service will still work as expected and not be subject to compromise, and worse that happens if you have to tell customers to update their bookmarks if there was some user-focused web element on that domain (but, hey, without the secured login to the dell.com subdomain, it wouldn't matter right?).

  9. Dell users a lot of cheap contractors subs by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Dell users a lot of cheap contractors or ones that just sub out stuff to others.

  10. I'm surprised they didn't offshore/H1B the problem by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

    Dell is (still) a massive H1B shop. I'm surprised they even got the domain registered at all. Perhaps Tata, Wipro, or Cognizant can help the poor beset millionaire C-level pukes figure it out.

  11. New problems but not more problems by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've got to wonder if the Internet has caused a *lot* more problems than it's solved.

    Let me put your mind at ease. The internet has caused new problems to be sure but it has resolved even more old ones. I'm old enough that I pre-date the internet in anything remotely resembling its current form and I pre-date the world wide web by multiple decades. I can assure you that the Good Old Days weren't all that good and that the the internet has solved substantially more problems than it has caused. Nothing is perfect and people are still just as incompetent as they ever were but that doesn't mean the technology is a bad thing.

    1. Re:New problems but not more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but that doesn't mean the technology is a bad thing.

      The issue is that the tech makes is easier to affect more people's lives. It's a double-edged sword and will get sharper.

    2. Re:New problems but not more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people are still just as incompetent as they ever were

      The Internet just makes it more obvious.

      Why is Dell using a "contractor" for this? Because that's the big fad these days. Everything is farmed out to the lowest bidder, with entirely predictable results.

    3. Re:New problems but not more problems by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I also predate the Internet by multiple decade (the TRS-80 Model 1 Level 1 was the computer I learned to program on, and was entranced by them back when Radio Shack was still mostly radios and electronic parts).

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:New problems but not more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but now its possible to be a bad guy to so many more people that before, and even more quickly than before? Whereas before you had to go door-to-door to steal from people, now you can do it from the comfort of your living room. (and I don't just mean politicians)

    5. Re:New problems but not more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real issue is people trying to use the internet for the opposite of it's original intent.

      The internet was supposed to be an information sharing network. As such it was never designed to be secure in any real sense. This was fine and it worked, until someone came up with the idea of using the insecure system for handing financial transactions, private internal records, among other things. Now, all of a sudden, that insecure system needs to be made secure, and what did they do to "secure" it? Base the security on a bunch of private gatekeepers (CAs), server identities based on aliases (DNS), and human identities based on any number of free to sign up for email addresses (MSN, Yahoo!, AOL, etc.) verified by publicly available information. Why did they choose the most insecure methods possible to secure a bunch of insecure transactions? Because everyone was constantly told: "They can't be expected to know how to do X.", "It has to be a toaster.", "We have to comply with export regulations." etc. So they went and used the most flimsy thing they could find to pass as "security" because that's what they were told would work.

      They would have been better off creating a separate network for secure transactions, or at the very least use proper public key crypto and require that key signing be done in person with proof of identity. But of course they didn't do that. That would be too expensive, and time-consuming and no-one would know how to use it..... Except the alternative was what we got, a broken mess where everyone is constantly a victim of some random identity thief, financial instability created by the ease of quickly spending other people's money, massive amounts of corporate espionage, products rendered useless due to security bugs never being patched and constantly exposed, no standards for basic security functionality, (go try using a smartcard with anything but the manufacturer's client), people misusing and not understanding what is there / available in general due to lack of wide-spread adoption (and lack of repercussions for breaking the rules), information leaks / spying becoming SOP for all new consumer devices, etc.

      This mess could be fixed. But there is no will to do so. I guess we still need to throw some more $MILLIONS on the fire before people notice the smoke suffocating them. Oh, well.

  12. I receive fake Dell support calls every month by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    The caller knows my name, address, phone number, and which Dell system I purchased. Dell's corporate security is non-existent.

    1. Re:I receive fake Dell support calls every month by chispito · · Score: 2

      Did you buy direct from Dell? TFA mentions such scams, including that the scammers know the service tags of the systems they're calling about. I ask because I suppose it's possible that a re-seller may have been breached, though it makes a lot more sense that it would be Dell itself.

      When did you buy the system and when did you start receiving the calls? If you bought the system recently, that suggests a recent or ongoing breach. If you bought the system a year ago and received the first call six months ago, then Dell is being especially negligent with disclosure or, even worse, doesn't know the scope of the breach.

      No matter what, it's pretty solid evidence they have been breached.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re:I receive fake Dell support calls every month by chispito · · Score: 1

      Okay answering one of my own questions: in TFA, Krebs links to a post he made in Frebruary about the tech support scams, so shame on Dell.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:I receive fake Dell support calls every month by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      I started receiving the calls about 18 months ago.

    4. Re:I receive fake Dell support calls every month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this is what you get when you enforce people to install a browser plugin which sole purpose is to dig every bit of information from the PC. Perhaps their plugin implementation is used by some other websites than dell.com itself. Of course, a company which implements such measures is likely to screw their own internal system security design too, so the data may be stolen from the mothership of spyware network too.

  13. To those asking "why not a dell.com subdomain" by Burdell · · Score: 2

    The big reason a company wouldn't want to allow contractors and other miscellaneous sites under a subdomain of the main domain is how browsers treat domains. Cookie access, cross-site scripting, etc. could all be problems, unless you change the main website to also act under a subdomain, and make sure everything is restricted properly.

    1. Re:To those asking "why not a dell.com subdomain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your explanation is that Dell trusted a contractor to access its customers' computers, but did not trust the same contractor to use a dell.com subdomain? OK...

    2. Re:To those asking "why not a dell.com subdomain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your explanation is that Dell trusted a contractor to access its customers' computers, but did not trust the same contractor to use a dell.com subdomain? OK...

      Would this behavior from a company surprise you? You must be a recent visitor to this planet. Welcome.

    3. Re: To those asking "why not a dell.com subdomain" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except almost every website does use a sub domain: www.

      Besides, if the contractor can't be trusted to maintain a secure website, why are you treating them with all your customers data and (via updates) the security of their machine? If you can't find a subcontractor you CAN trust, maybe you shouldn't have outsourced that function?

  14. government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a government employee that works on various levels of stuff and I run Kaspersky on my home machine.. I am however not so fucking stupid that I take work or work related info out of the secure work environment and expose it to these kinds of dangers. Kaspersky and the Russian fucknuts can scan my machine all they want.. only thing they will find is some games and a few movies, because I don't violate federal policy on working with secure information.

  15. Affecting lives by sjbe · · Score: 2

    The issue is that the tech makes is easier to affect more people's lives. It's a double-edged sword and will get sharper.

    That is better than the converse which is an inability to affect lives. Seriously, you do NOT want to go back to the days of the Pony Express if you catch my meaning.

    Yes there will be new issues to resolve but that's no different than it has ever been. Every new non-trivial technology has new issues to deal with and it takes society some time to come to grips with them. The industrial revolution has been one long series of new technologies affecting people's lives in ways they need to come to grips with. The so called information age will be no different in that regard.

  16. Is there anything that HASN'T be compromised? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    At this point in time, is it just easier to list the assets on the Internet that haven't been compromised?
    Seriously, I'm beginning to think that the Internet died years ago, and this is just Zombie Internet, and the corpse has just been running on inertia this whole time and will sooner or later grind to a halt and become DEAD-dead instead of UNdead.

    1. Re:Is there anything that HASN'T be compromised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a mechanical typewriter at home, and I don't think it's been breached yet. But sometimes it does lock up, so now I'm not so sure.

  17. Not people, groups. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    People aren't incompetent. Corporations are incompetent. Procedures and strict controls lead to incompetence.

    I used to criticise "people" until I myself let a critical license go overdue (not a domain name, but a government license). I knew the renewal was coming. After I didn't receive the renewal notice (it was routed to the wrong department in our company and bounced around for 6 weeks) I with plenty of time to spare paid it anyway based on a web invoice. But since there was no paper to track the payment, accounting didn't release the funds despite procurement approving them. Me (the only person who was tracking the license) only saw that procurement had done their job since I have no connection to accounting which is outsourced to a specialist.

    3 weeks later the invoice arrived on my desk along with, a late warning, along with a notice of license cancellation.

    Not a single person was incompetent. Everyone did their job exactly like they were supposed to. What we were was limited and encumbered.

    1. Re:Not people, groups. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Your company needs to find a way to cut through the silos. Too many compartments all unaware of each other.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Not people, groups. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We're all aware, we just don't interlink.
      And yes we do. I think every country in the Fortune 500 needs to. These problems have existed in every multinational I've worked for, and when joking about it I've heard the same stories from people at others too.

      Mind you the fact I also find a relevant Dilbert cartoon to describe pretty much every single one of my workplace interactions isn't a good sign either :-)

  18. And this is why I reformat all Dell PC's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The generic Windows Image is far superior to all the crapware that Dell likes to install.

  19. Idiots ignore proper procedure for convenience by sjbe · · Score: 1

    In large corporations itâ(TM)s often easier to register a new domain than go through the hoops of getting a subdomain approved.

    So what? That doesn't make registering a new domain a good idea. I could register a new domain with your company name in it. So could anyone else. It's FAR more difficult for anyone to spoof the subdomain of dell, especially for something as important as system updates and tech support. Seriously, doing what you suggest in a large company is a really really bad idea.

    Where I work, it takes me $8 and a half hour work to get a domain but it can easily take me 6 work hours across 2-4 weeks to get a subdomain.

    Again, so what? I'm sure there are all kinds of idiotic things you can do that are less hassle than going through official channels. While nobody is a fan of bureaucracy it often exists for EXACTLY the reason of keeping people from doing stupid things like your suggestion. If you worked for me and you did that I'd fire you in a heartbeat for doing something so dangerously stupid. You're potentially exposing the company to huge financial risk because you're too lazy to go through proper channels for something that actually matters.

    1. Re:Idiots ignore proper procedure for convenience by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Explain why is it so 'dangerously stupid'. DNS is no part of any security model, if yours is, then I would fire you in a heartbeat.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  20. Cookies? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The big reason a company wouldn't want to allow contractors and other miscellaneous sites under a subdomain of the main domain is how browsers treat domains. Cookie access, cross-site scripting, etc. could all be problems, unless you change the main website to also act under a subdomain, and make sure everything is restricted properly.

    So your argument is that one of the largest tech companies in the world can't handle cookies properly? Ummm, if that is actually true then nobody should ever buy their products again. Dell is a huge company and they have more than enough heft to force vendors to conform to reasonable security standards and work with their network properly. Vendors who can't handle this probably shouldn't be utilized.

    1. Re:Cookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want dell.com and www.dell.com to be valid hosts and share cookies and all that for your application, then anydomainyouwant.dell.com is also going to have access to those cookies too. This is pretty standard to this day, and I would argue has become worse as many recent applications have been designed to issue parallel requests for content across multiple servers to scale.

      You should never put that responsibility in the hands of a contractor for somethingelse.dell.com. The domain pool is quite large still, just go pluck another and use it.

    2. Re:Cookies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's think about this for a moment.

      The backupwhateverclouddell.com contractor has the ability to perform changes on the customer's computer.

      You didn't want them to use subdomain.dell.com because they could read dell.com cookies. But, they have access to the customer's computer. They have the ability to perform changes on the customer's computer. Ergo, they can read, copy, and modify whatever they like on the customer's computer including any dell.com cookies and any other cookies.

  21. Any company dialing home by tbuskey · · Score: 1

    When a large, ongoing corporation in tech has part of its infrastructure for customer support compromised in this way, it reinforces my conviction to never do any home automation that requires an external server to work.

    Microsoft/Walmart had the music service based on "Plays for Sure" go dark. Nest disabled its hub. My kids used to play a game with a usb device (similar to Skylanders) that connected to a game server. Phillips stopped working with 3rd party equipment. When the company controlling the home it connected to, the devices and content you owned stop working.

    I think we'll see more products that rely on a set of servers after the sale. It will be a long time until consumers force companies to design differently. I don't think government will ever regulate these things to the point where telco was: you buy the phone, they have to keep the service going.

  22. Depends on the brand by DrYak · · Score: 1

    We're surrounded by forest preserves and farmland, so most of the directions involve turn right, but get in the left lane to make an immediate left turn, which isn't conveyed well with garmen, apple maps, nor google maps.

    Some brands (e.g.: Tomtom, even the older device as long as you've updated to a recent enough software version) can litteraly say that "Turn right, then keep left lane and prepare to turn left", with the logo on the screen showing that too (Big "Right turn" arrow, thin right arrow for "next", then Big "Left Turn" arrow).

    Other brand (I've seen it on Volvo in-vehicle infotainment) don't have a special vocal message, but will open a split-screen pop-up next to the usual 3d over-the-shoulder view, with a bird's-eye view illustrating a complicated sequence of such turns.

    (Which in theory is a nice idea, but in practice sucks, because you need to take your eyes of the road and look inside the car - as opposed to dedicated satnavs that you can stick on windshield just at the edge of your usual field of view.
    On the other hand, that specific Volvo is equipped with forward collision avoidance systems and could autonomously slam the break to avoid rear-ending the car in front while you're looking away. So never had an accident due to taking the eyes that far away from the road).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  23. Misleading domains = bigger attack surface by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Explain why is it so 'dangerously stupid'. DNS is no part of any security model, if yours is, then I would fire you in a heartbeat.

    It's about preventing easy opportunities for scams and reducing the attack surface. You are very incorrect that DNS isn't a part of the threat model. Misleading domain names are routinely used in various forms of cyber attacks, particularly phishing attacks.

    It's dangerously stupid because if you don't go through the primary domain that is well understood to be the company in question (Dell in this case) then it becomes ridiculously easy for people with less than honorable intentions mislead customers. If I register the domain mydellupdates.com, how do you know if it is or is not actually owned and operated by Dell Corporation? Sounds vaguely official so there would be some percentage of people that probably would be fooled. Sure you can do a research into who owns the domain but you ought to know that won't happen in most cases. Lots of people don't know how and more simply cannot be bothered or it doesn't occur to them to try.

    1. Re:Misleading domains = bigger attack surface by guruevi · · Score: 1

      This is about software update service, not about a website, if you are designing the system to work over the Internet, you should never trust that in any particular environment any particular domain is legitimate.

      It's not even guaranteed that all subdomains or even all pages on Dell.com are owned by Dell Corp, through JavaScript injection or simply taking over a web server, you could host malware on the main domain. You could also have a hostile DNS resolver in your network redirect Dell.com anywhere the attacker wishes.

      So to "trust" anything on Dell.com blindly is just as stupid as trusting that anything with Dell in the name is part of Dell. That's my point.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com