Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verisign Implementing SiteFinder On .cc

Comments Filter:
  • Isn't this the equivalent of what any spyware would do to someone's computer? How does this kind of advertisement differ at all?
    • It doesn't differ, but we don't like spyware either.
    • Re:Spyware (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PurpleFloyd (149812)
      It differs in four ways:
      • You can't not get it. Spyware usually isn't installed willingly, but there are steps you can take to prevent getting spyware on your system. This is located on Verislime's servers and can't be avoided.
      • You can't remove it. Spyware, once installed, can usually be removed and the system put back to the way it was. While it can be difficult, it's usually possible for you to put your computer back to the way it was before you were infected. With this, the only way to remove it is t
    • Spyware you can avoid (Don't use IE, turn off the features that it uses to install, run Spybot or Adaware regularly, etc), and when you get it, you can get rid of it. Sitefinder is just *there*. You get it. Period. You can't get rid of it. And furthurmore, I've never had spyware that prevents me from getting otherwise useful error pages.
  • erm.... (Score:1, Funny)

    by moosesocks (264553)
    so how long before someone throws up a goatse mirror at http://an-unregistered-name.cc/
  • huh? (Score:4, Informative)

    by theCoder (23772) on Monday October 04, 2004 @09:23PM (#10435715) Homepage Journal
    Maybe it doesn't work anymore, or my ISP blocks it, but I'm not getting any site-finder like results in the .cc TLD:

    $ host an-unregistered-name.cc
    Host an-unregistered-name.cc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
    $ host alskdfjsldkafjdsalkjskld.cc
    Host alskdfjsldkafjdsalkjskld.cc not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
    • Re:huh? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) on Monday October 04, 2004 @09:54PM (#10435892)
      It's your ISP, thankfully still implementing SiteFinder blocks. Cox Internet gives:
      ibook:~ geoffrey$ host an-unregistered-name.cc
      an-unregistered-name.cc has address 206.253.214.102
      ibook:~ geoffrey$ host alskdfjsldkafjdsalkjskld.cc
      alskdfjsldkafjdsalkjs kld.cc has address 206.253.214.102
      Anyway, the results are not SiteFinder, just "buy this domain or e-mail the registrant". Besides, .cc isn't an autoresolution or even a relatively common domain, which was the problem with SiteFinder.

      Incidentally, http://206.253.214.102/ [206.253.214.102] is a notable example of not checking your input string (in this case, the HTTP Host field) before parsing it.
      • Re:huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by brunes69 (86786)

        Anyway, the results are not SiteFinder, just "buy this domain or e-mail the registrant". Besides, .cc isn't an autoresolution or even a relatively common domain, which was the problem with SiteFinder.

        No, the problem with sitefinder is that it returns bogus, corrupted DNS information, which breaks a hell of a lot of 3rd party software that follows the RFCs.

      • Ha. Yes. They don't even look for 's. Unfortunately I couldn't figure out a way to encode a / in to the URL, else we'd have an example of an XSS vuln.
    • Re:huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Steamhead (714353)
      dan$ host asdjahfljkahfkasdhflsd.cc
      asdjahfljkahfkasdhflsd. cc has address 206.253.214.102

      *sigh* I if .cc becomes a problem, I guess it will become like .biz and be blacklisted on my mail client.
    • I run an ISP, and I use Bind.

      Anyone have a good link on how to implement these blocks? I'll pass it around to my colleagues at the other local ISP's here in St. Louis...
    • How about .nu ?

      http://what-is-wrong-with-you-guys.nu/ [what-is-wr...ou-guys.nu] . The .nu TLD have been using this for a couple of years now. It really screws things up a lot when you do not get a proper NXDOMAIN, but actually get a valig reply that dosn't run whatever service you were trying to connect to.

      But the fact is that a lot of domains do this, just not on TLD. Is this less bad??

      /Spiff

  • Though run by a Verisign subsidiary, this is NOT SiteFinder. SiteFinder is a search engine meant to hijack the type in location-bar -> autocomplete .com process. This is an advertisement for a dot-cc domain, which you couldn't reach accidentally anyway.

    Besides, dot WS [even-at.ws], dot TK [here-too.tk], etc. have this service. Where's the outcry?
  • by jeffy124 (453342) on Monday October 04, 2004 @09:31PM (#10435767) Homepage Journal
    YABT. YHL. HAND.
  • So eNIC is owned by Verisign. I got that wrong. But it's still not Sitefinder.
  • Oh god! it hurts to look at goat.cc
  • http://<b>.cc/ works! They must not bother to escape things at all!
  • Dollar sign? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I though the dollar sign was invalid in domain names...

    http://VeriSignAreA$$Holes.cc/ [verisignareaholes.cc] goes to their little page with the $s intact.
    Slashdot seems to remove $s from URLs even when they are intentional.
  • Good for a laugh (Score:3, Informative)

    by aztektum (170569) on Monday October 04, 2004 @10:45PM (#10436138)
    I typed in sitefinderislame.cc and it gives me a page that says "Welcome to your new home on the web!"
    • is the .cc domain is so popular or this sitefinder thingy just doesnt work right?

      iezhy.cc is not available.
      iamiezhy.cc is not available.
      curseyouverisign.cc is not available.
      blahblah.cc is not available.
      dsded.cc is not available.
      asdqwrdsa.cc is not available.
      sadsdasdemocdza.cc is not available.
      sad3234swaqdvere.cc is not available.
      hihakiliekia.cc is not available.

      lol?
  • well you could have a serious problem as it seems that anything goes and pulls up the .cc page, html works fine as posted and tested...could this lead to verisign themselves being vulnerable being as this is a subsidiary of them??
  • It's Not New (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jeagoss (661909) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @12:24AM (#10436585) Homepage Journal
    Over the past few years, I have helped clients register .cc domains by typing in domain.cc and if that page came up, I knew it wasn't registered. ENIC has been using this blank page service for a while. The page has been changed a few times, but, it has always been pretty much the same "Welcome to Your Future Home", or "Buy this unredistered domain" pitch. Why is it that someone just now noticed? Then, just because by change ENIC happens to be a subsidiary (or however you spell it) of Verisign, this service is automatically dubbed "SiteFinder". I find this very sad.

    (Get out the fire extinguishers, tin foil hats, and flame throwers. This one might catch on fire and explode in contempt.)
  • The cc TLD has had that service running for as long as I can remember. It's just a way to buy an unregistered name, not a search engine like SiteFinder. Even though I highly dislike these kinds of unstandard solutions, it's much better than SiteFinder was.
  • by Fweeky (41046)
    Why is my 'zone "cc" { type delegation-only; };' not doing it's job?
  • One quick way around this is to treat the sitefinder A records the same as if no results were found.
  • You can't block .com, because there are too many valid domains there, but .cc?
    Nothing legitimately worthwhile has ever been hosted there; if the spammers
    or whoever abuse this, you just instruct your software that all .cc domains
    are invalid, and your dad is Robert's brother. It's an ugly hack, but it
    would work; no such thing is possible for .com

    I'm not saying that it's right for nameservers to return wildcard results for
    unregistered domains, but this isn't nearly the problem in .cc that it would
    be in a maj
  • I wrote a paper on this last year... basically there are 3 interesting (legal) theories that could be used to enjoin VeriSign from continuing sitefinder (it's also working on .tv - BTW). Here is the ultra condensed version.

    1. The Lanham Act - specifically the Anti-Cybersqatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). VeriSign is essentially registering and profiting off of the protected trademarks of others.
    2. Antitrust. Verisign could be guilty of violating the Sherman Act - most interestingly as the controller

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...