Slashdot Log In
VeriSign Shutting Down Site Finder
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Oct 04, 2003 01:49 PM
from the but-guys-what's-the-big-deal dept.
from the but-guys-what's-the-big-deal dept.
00420 writes "VeriSign, the administrator of the .com and .net domains, made plans to shut down its new Site Finder service Friday, after the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ordered the company to undo controversial changes. Of course they're not taking it down because it affected the internet, they're just doing it to keep good relations with the technical community. (Seems a little late for that doesn't it?)" The shutdown is not complete yet, though: VeriSign hasn't changed their wildcard DNS entry (64.94.110.11).
Related Stories
[+]
EarthLink Establishes Their Own "Site Finder" 241 comments
Guppy06 writes "Last week, instead of a regular DNS error, EarthLink's DNS servers started to return a redirect to earthlink-help.net, a site that bears a close resemblance to VeriSign's much-maligned Site Finder, to their subscribers. According to their official blog at Earthling, "By presenting users with contextual help based upon the non-existent domain the user entered, we believe we are improving the EarthLink user experience with a system that will not interfere with other network processes." Most of the responses in said blog posting aren't positive."
[+]
Microsoft "SiteFinder" Quietly Raking It In 176 comments
An anonymous reader writes in with the news, which isn't particularly new, that Microsoft's Internet Explorer sends typo domain names to a page of pay-per-click ads. In this endeavor Microsoft joins Charter and Earthlink in profiting from the dubious practice that Verisign pioneered but failed to make stick. The article is on a site whose audience is, among others, those who attempt to profit by typo-squatting, and its tone is just a bit petulant because individuals cannot hope to profit in this game on the scale Microsoft effortlessly achieves.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
VeriSign Shutting Down Site Finder
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 234 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Starwars Moment (Score:2, Funny)
(http://haltingpoint.blogspot.com/)
Re:Starwars Moment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Starwars Moment (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Starwars Moment (Score:5, Funny)
We could find: "www.gnu.org"
There is a Web site at this address.
Are you sure? (*) No ( ) Yes [SUMBIT]
Did You Mean ?
We did find these similar Web addresses.
www.sun.com [sun.com]
www.microsoft.com [microsoft.com]
www.sco.com [sco.com]
Re:Starwars Moment (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.axante.net/)
Re:Starwars Moment (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday February 24 2004, @06:10PM)
Easy: the one way to guarantee us geeks will get our panties in a BIND (heh heh) is to have a Responsible Designated Party (tm) violate an RFC or standard. The standard says a DNS server does not return an IP address when no such host or domain exists, NOT that the DNS server resolves the request to some "default no such domain" domain.
I think it also irked a lot of people because it really shows how much the Web has been pushing out all other Internet protocols to the point that the rest don't seem to matter to the Powers That Be anymore. Quite a few Internet users, I imagine, access email and news (and even chat) through the Web. But the other protocols are still there, and still in use.
Personally, it pissed me off because I administer several nameservers and when I mistype a domain in a dig or nslookup I want to SEE IMMEDIATELY that no such domain exists rather than remembering "oh right that's the Sitefinder IP address". Some of the scripts I've written depend, in fact, on nslookup saying "server can't find yaoho.com" and I've had to instead look for the sitefinder IP address.
Anyways, short answer is: geeks hate it because we tend to believe in standards since adhering to standards is the only reason the Internet got off the ground in the first place and it's just as important nowadays that we keep them up.
Too little too late (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://urandom.ca/)
I never much liked Verisign in the past, but since I already had an account there, using them to register new domains was simply the path of least resistance. But their SiteFinder is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Jason.
Re:Too little too late (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.littleblur.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @01:52PM)
But is that all? (Score:4, Insightful)
what...? (Score:2, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I thought we didn't like them?
Re:what...? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Kierthos
Awwww... (Score:2, Insightful)
They're such a bunch of jackasses! It's like spitting in our faces for THEIR wrong-doing.
So... nothing about those lawsuits? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gwala.net/)
So, it has nothing to do with the three lawsuits by godaddy, netster and their ilk?
Riight.
-Gwala
How Does VeriSign Even Stay In Business? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How Does VeriSign Even Stay In Business? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How Does VeriSign Even Stay In Business? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How Does VeriSign Even Stay In Business? (Score:5, Insightful)
I still believe the whole concept of charging for domains was technically illegal. They had a grant from the government to manage the TLDs and almost EXACTLY like what happened in the DNS redirection debacle, they decided to arbitrarily change the terms of their service in direct conflict with the agreement under which they were operating.
At the time of the domain charge scam, they got away with it in part, due to the inciteful activity of one big corporation that decided to register virtually every common name they could think of, from diarrhea.com to diapers.com. So the public turned the other way and didn't question the legality of the domain charge in the first place. Only later did someone challenge this and something like half the charges were ruled illegal. But who got their money back? Nobody to the best of my knowledge. NSI stole millions of dollars from the Internet community. What happened to this money?
Then there is the whole issue of the ridiculous terms of service Verisign/NSI employ which are arguably legal in the first place relative to managing domains. Up until recently, we had a domain that legally didn't require any renewal fee (because it was registered before NSI had the facist TOS agreement) but when we changed the nameserver, we couldn't do so without agreeing to the new terms and then were liable for renewal charges.
Re:How Does VeriSign Even Stay In Business? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.cavebear.com/)
This $6 amount was fixed into the contract under which ICANN (with the help of the US Dept of Commerce) gifted
W00T! (Score:3, Funny)
(http://haltingpoint.blogspot.com/)
Damn the Goddess of Geekdom, she is a fickle mistriss!
They'll be back... (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday January 23 2004, @03:25PM)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced.
What are some alternatives? (Score:2, Interesting)
NANOG Linkage (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday February 16 2004, @03:55PM)
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14917
Just goes to show how pissed people really are.....
Verisign vs. ICANN (Score:2, Funny)
huh? (Score:2)
It's still up and running. (Score:5, Interesting)
Email from Verisign (Score:5, Informative)
(http://guillaume.filion.org/)
[mailto:owner-
Service
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 6:08 PM
To: registrars@verisign-grs.com
Subject: [RegistrarsList] VeriSign NDS Response to Suspension of Site
To All Registrars,
I am writing to update you on VeriSigns Site Finder service. On Friday,
October 3rd, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) directed VeriSign, Inc., to temporarily suspend service no later
than 6PM PST, Saturday, October 4. VeriSign requested an extension from
ICANN for 3 additional days for the shut down in order to provide the
technical community time to make any necessary system changes.
Unfortunately, ICANN refused this request. Accordingly, in response to
this demand, VeriSign is temporarily suspending the Site Finder service
as of Saturday, October 4 at 6PM PST.
In suspending the service, VeriSign will remove the wildcard A records
from the
zones which is returning Name Error/RCODE=3 in response to queries for
nonexistent domain names.
VeriSign remains committed to improving the Internet user experience.
We look forward to providing the Site Finder service following this
suspension. Thank you for your business. We greatly value our
relationship with you.
Best Regards,
Chris Sheridan
Manager, Customer Service
VeriSign, Inc.
www.verisign.com
Re:Email from Verisign (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday December 08 2005, @04:33PM)
Maybe they have plans to let ISPs wildcard to Sitefinder for a kick back.
ICANN's power (Score:5, Interesting)
yeah.. well (Score:1)
(http://www.crxohio.org/)
So good riddance.
I'm also done with them as well, I'll pass my domain registrations to someone else...
-H
This HUGE problem hasn't bothered me one bit (Score:3, Informative)
We know why they are doing it . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.lawhacker.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 26 2003, @09:14AM)
Nonsense. They have already demonstrated significant contempt for the technical community -- remember their original response to ICANN's advisory?
They are doing it because ICANN's last letter put their super-duper exclusive right to operate the DNS in play. Maybe ICANN could terminate, maybe not -- but who would put the entire business on the line for this opportunity -- particularly when there still is a chance to negotiate something like that in the future?
Temporarily is the word that worries me (Score:2, Interesting)
Something tells me Verisign still has some tricks up their sleeve, which includes reinstating the service after their laywers have come up with a "satisfactory answer" to ICANN's ultimatum.
Guess I shouldn't take away my wewantour404.(com|net) yet...
A few things (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.zone-h.org/defacements/onhold)
Also, a quick hint to all of you stuck with Verisign to renew because the domain is past due:
Verisign renewal [stayoffer.com]
Pay 15USD instead of 35USD for the very same 1 year reneal service.. Ain't that great?
Re:A few things (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.pjrc.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 27 2002, @04:31PM)
YES, they did give some advance notice.
In fact, Slashdot had coverage 4 days before it went into effect [slashdot.org].
The actual news coverage was at Computer Business Review [cbronline.com] 6 days before Verisign went live with SiteFinder on Sept 15.
Perhaps it was known before then, but there was certainly more than 3 days. That doesn't make Verisign any less slimey for doing this. But to say they did it without even a few days warning would clearly contradict the news coverage of their intentions at Computer Business Review and here at Slashdot (if you can stomache calling slashdot "news").
STILL RUNNING (Score:1, Redundant)
(Last Journal: Thursday September 30 2004, @01:33AM)
$ host versign-are-gutless-wankers-lkjaflja.com versign-are-gutless-wankers-lkjaflja.com has address 64.94.110.11
Not DNS (Score:2, Interesting)
These are the same guys that were ordered by the FTC to stop falsely advertising renewal services, isn't it?
Lame crooks.
I feel sorry... (Score:3, Interesting)
Trouble for VeriSign -- "non-registry service" (Score:2, Informative)
(http://www.kirikos.com/)
What might get VeriSign into very big trouble is the admission, in the press release [yahoo.com] that "ICANN is using anecdotal and isolated issues to attempt to regulate non-registry services, but in the interests of further working with the technical community we will temporarily suspend Site Finder."
I think this is a brand new tactic on the part of VeriSign, to categorize it as a "non-registry service".
That seems to escalate things to a new level, in that it seems to be an admission of abusing their monopoly in the Registry for the provision of a NON-REGISTRY SERVICE.
It had been my understanding that previously their position would have been that it would have been categorized as a Registry service, but one that didn't need approval due to it being "free" (i.e. needs no contract amendment). However, giving advantage for the provision of a non-registry service seems to be MUCH WORSE. Suppose that NON-REGISTRY SERVICE was a REGISTRAR SERVICE, for example, and VeriSign abused its monopoly to advantage one of their partners in that space? Just like WLS [stopwls.com].
Clearly, VeriSign's abusive and monopolistic business practises need to be examined [usdoj.gov] at the highest levels of government and by regulators.
P.S. Keep up the pressure, by supporting the Stop VeriSign DNS Abuse [whois.sc] petition -- 17,000 signatures and counting.
good news, but doesnt matter to me (Score:2)
(http://www.fuckedregime.com/)
I'm surprised the rest of you guys didnt all do the same as well.
It will be back .... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure the lawyers will drag this one out in court.
What Sitefinder? (Score:2)
(http://www.hedonism.cx/users/chris/)
Click here for info: ISC BIND delegation-only [isc.org]
zone "aero" { type delegation-only; };
zone "biz" { type delegation-only; };
zone "com" { type delegation-only; };
zone "coop" { type delegation-only; };
zone "zw" { type delegation-only; };
Verisign is breaking their contractural agreement (Score:5, Informative)
Heres one violation that I found.
As noted in the Message from Security and Stability Advisory Committee to ICANN Board [icann.org]:
Now take a look at verisign's
Of course, Im no lawyer. Any comments on this would be appreciated. It looks pretty clear to me that Verisign isnt meeting their contractural agreements.
I like how Verisign is trying to act like ICANN is acting so rash and irresponsible:
This is what ICANN is for. This is excellent news! It doesnt matter how many moronic web users are clicking on things when verisign's page comes up or how useful Verisign's market research shows it is. Its important to adhere to standards. Verisign's excuses are hilarious. "Users find it useful. It has nothing to do with the loads of advertising money we get. I swear!".
Its always about money.
Attack!!! (Score:1)
(http://www.thedavetoday.com/)
Not complete yet? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://kasperd.net/~kasperd/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 08 2004, @10:18AM)
Actually that means the shutdown has not started yet. Removing the DNS entry is the only thing that matters. The actual webserver can stay for as long as they want, but the IP address 64.94.110.11 will of course never be usable again. We will have switched to IPv6 before the last filtering of that address is removed.
Distribution Point (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.initialized.org/)
mp3.com sites (Score:1)
(http://www.wudfirstindustries.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 06 2004, @05:34PM)
the REAL verisign press release (Score:4, Funny)
Losing DNS connection (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I was thinking that XP had developed an allergic reaction towards my broadband modem. However, now that I read this story, I'm starting to wonder if Verisign's actions have anything to do with this.
Anybody got a clue?
Connection Refused (Score:1)
Forbes CEO approval ratings (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/01/cx_ceointernetpol l.html [forbes.com]
Baha!
Well received? (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.nin10doh.com/)
"The service has been well received by millions of Internet users who appreciate getting navigation tools as opposed to the 'dead end' of an error message," VeriSign's Lewis said in the statement.
Of course, it's considered "well received" because of its 40 million hits... that 99% of which were not intentional. (Of course, the only ones who would actually go somewhere like that intentionally would be us Slashdotters... have to see what all the buzz is about
Deadline passed, still active (Score:2)
Wildcard Entry Gone (Score:1)
Verisign launches ICANN hate site (Score:2)
PR Here:
http://verisign.com/corporate/news/2003/pr
Ironic the date.
The site's purpose is to critique ICANN for making the whois info available and public.
If NetSol would have implemented methods to prevent harvesters from accessing the information years ago, rather than months ago... no problems.
These guys are just rediculus.
Was Verisign bought by SCO?
Hmmm... (Score:1)
Verisign Discards Wildcards... (Score:5, Informative)
As of about 8:00 PM EST the wildcard A records pointing to 64.94.110.11 appear to be gone. I'm now getting normal NXDOMAIN responses to queries for nonexistent names.
As for the Web site, I suppose they must have taken that down, too. If you try explicitly going to http://64.94.110.11 [64.94.110.11] (sitefinder-idn.verisign.com) you get a keen little page that says
We didn't find: "64.94.110.11"
There is no Web site at this address.
and I'm sure VeriSign wouldn't fib about a thing like that....
They don't have to shut sitefinder down (Score:2)
New Verisign "service"? (Score:1)
Ok so erm, it's down right? (Score:1)
http://dsfsdfsdf.com/
Omg... it's still active ! Now only it's
Only to find out it must've been a random name some isp registered to sell later on.
I'll go to bed again.....
repetitive comment that'll be modded down, but... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Monday July 04 2005, @03:43PM)
(The "we" being a huge group of which I'm just a tiny, insignificant part).
This gives space for hope, you know.
The ariticle summary is not accurate (Score:2)
(http://www.strobe.net/)
what they WERE asked to do (and have now done) is to drop the
Re:Bout time (Score:1)
(http://www.gwala.net/)
-Gwala
Re:Bout time (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://slashdot.org/)
just voicing my opinion
Re:Verisign.... verispensive (Score:2)
(http://www.pie2k.com/ | Last Journal: Monday June 30 2003, @12:52AM)