Verisign Plans to Revive SiteFinder Advertising 'Service' 370
kiddailey writes "Claiming that their own independent examination of their controversial redirection service has found 'no security or stability problems', and that 'Internet users consider the service a helpful tool to navigate the web', Verisign has announced that it will give a 30- to 60-day notice before resuming the SiteFinder 'feature' that it voluntarily shut-down a couple of weeks ago."
WWW != Internet (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WWW != Internet (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WWW != Internet (Score:2)
me-->(_(_)====DO:--verisign.net A 64.94.110.11
(Yes, this actually resolved that way before.)
Not Entirely True (Score:2)
Re:WWW != Internet (Score:2, Interesting)
Have they addressed the issues of postmasters who can no longer handle mail to non-existing domains locally? (they have to send the mail to Verisign first, then handle the bounce, rather than relying on DNS). "Tweaks" probably won't fix this.
Re:WWW != Internet (Score:2)
Just install (or bug your ISP to install) BIND 9.2.2p2 or above and add:
zone "com" {
type delegation-only;
};
zone "net" {
type delegation-only;
};
I've resolved millions of queries since I put that in and have NO problems. Unless Verisign plans to implement their sitefinder "service" using another mechanism to get
Re:WWW != Internet (Score:2)
Re:WWW != Internet (Score:2)
(That whole story should have been modded "-1, Troll")
Typos != intentional usage (Score:5, Insightful)
"Prior to ICANN's October 3 directive to shut down the service, Site Finder had
been used more than 48 million times by Internet users to get where they want to go online."
"...has been used more than 48 million times...". Makes it sound like folks are eagerly flocking to the Verizon web site to 'use' this service. It's as if the highway administration shut down all lanes of I-95 and then celebrated the increased HOV usage.
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
In the past if the page was not found your web browser would do something about it like not display anything or display a custom search page. In both cases you wouldn't be confronted with your typo next time you try typing the right address.
This service should be provided by the web browser and not Verisign, since at least that way you have the option of customising the service you use. BTW I have found out that some c
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
example
That way, any homepage or any site will resolve to the registration page.
So wildcarding *can* be useful.
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
RFC rfc2616 [w3.org] - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
Here's a few:
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
Re:Typos != intentional usage (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
Average user likely doesn't know... (Score:2)
"Internet users consider the service a helpful tool to navigate the web."
I'd guess that most Internet users, not being part of the Slashdot-loving geek crowd, aren't even aware of the service to begin with. More than likely, the poll asks a question like, "Would you, as an internet user, appreciate a service whereby a system locates the correct web site when you make a mistake?" I can see most people saying "yes" to that.
Re:Average user likely doesn't know... (Score:2)
Re:Average user likely doesn't know... (Score:2)
What I always find surprising is that people will just try to figure out a website.
While whitehouse.(com/gov) is a good example of why cybersquatting is a nasty business, I prefer web addresses to be inherently "guessable". In a perfect Internet setting, I shouldn't have to use Google to know that ID Software is at idsoftware.com. In general, I'm happier when I can figure out a website rather than having to rely on a third-party to locate it for me.
Still, I understand where you're coming from. The "f
Let's write to ICANN (Score:2)
NOW!
Standards are Standards (Score:2)
Whenever someone blatantly blows off standards to line their pockets a little, it has serious implications for the continuity and integrity of the system.
If Verisign would like to continue making money from the internet, they should play by the collective rules that allow fair access
Re:Standards are Standards (Score:2)
Hmmm... now who can it be?
Perhaps.....
SATA^H^H^HMicrosoft!!?!?!?
Re:Standards are Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course there is a right to innovate and make it pay, but Verisign has a prior obligation to uphold role they took on. Police don't innovate after they get the job. Neither do surgeons or firefighters. There are specific people who's role is to innovate, such as lawmakers, medical researchers, and scientists. And those innovations, after shown to be safe and advantageous, are carrie over to the first set of people. Police implement what the lawmakers say... etc.
There are consequences when someone with a well defined duty strays from it. In this case Verisign agreed to resolve names as the current standards dictate, not to say, "I feel like doing it differently today."
I'm ready not to use.... (Score:2)
3 words to Verisign: Fuck it all.
Not only Verisign (Score:2)
Others, like *.name and *.no use wildcards, but use extra logic to return a "not found" (nxdomain) when the second leel domain doesn't exist.
It's time for ICANN to enforce the standards, both against Verisign and the others. Since Verisign is the TLD entity that has the largest impact, the
Let your voice be heard, more on the poll... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd suggest making your comments now.
Regarding the Verisign survey...more information about it is in this article [cbronline.com]. Excerpts:
The survey, a telephone poll of 1,000 internet users who could recall seeing Site Finder, was conducted by Markitecture and Harris Interactive and commissioned by VeriSign. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5%
On the opposing side, Tucows Inc, a domain name registrar that competes with VeriSign, said a poll of its resellers (generally ISPs and web hosting companies) indicated that 90% of respondents wanted Site Finder turned off.
Re:Let your voice be heard, more on the poll... (Score:2)
Time to overhaul internet naming (Score:2)
Didn't ICANN already rule this unacceptable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, ICANN, you've always sucked before, but maybe there's hope for you yet. Enforce the terms of the contract with Verisign with extreme prejudice and terminate these scumballs.
Let me fix your post... (Score:2)
Enforce the terms of the contract with Verisign with extreme prejudice and terminate these scumballs... with extreme prejudice.
There we go, much better.
Legalities (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I understand, sitefinder is being used in almost the exact same way as the scenario I just mentioned. Verisign's activity is prohibited at least by the spirit, if not by the letter of the law.
Re:Legalities (Score:2)
Which is a Bad Thing to have in the hands of a supposedly-trusted domain registrar.
If you don't think this is likely, try htobot.com -- this was originally registered as a joke, way backwhen hotbot.com was new, and it poked fun at your bad typing before sending you on your way to hotbot.com. NOW -- it's a portal site, evidently getting enough hits to be profitable.
A relat
Could be a good thing (Score:2)
And the investigated huh? (Score:5, Funny)
1) a banker
2) an enginee^H^H^H^H^H^H^H MSCE
3) 3 Marketing droids
4) the woman in the coffe shop across the road
5) and
They must have quite the dream team of experts to come to such a conclusion.
Re:And the investigated huh? (Score:2)
If worst comes to worst (Score:2)
The Internet's the like Wild West and Verisign is setting itself up like a company town.
Re:If worst comes to worst (Score:2)
A case like this would not actually represent the spirit of the problem, but hey, the American legal system has seen things that are way more weird than thi
Re:If worst comes to worst (Score:2)
Verisign is a commercial enterprise, and only one thing counts: $$$$$MONEY$$$$$
If they can make extra money by exploiting the fact that they control the root servers for the
If ICANN were to transfer control of the root servers to another commercial enterprise, (which will probably be the case, 'cause I don't t
Service? (Score:3, Funny)
They've always been one of those 'for-a-better-internet' companies.
God Bless Them
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ICANN has options (Score:2)
When Hell freezes over (Score:2)
I doubt their independent study as ICAAN's own independent study indicates otherwise and when Verisign was aske dto submit such facts it stalled
Translated: (Score:2)
This one has the potential for getting really ugly.
From the article (Score:2)
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Nope, it's not just you; a lot of articles are obviously being written by people for whom Internet == WWW, and this mistake is occuring a lot. The error they actually mean is NXDOMAIN, short for "Non-existant Domain", and not a "404" which is, of course, a HTTP error to indicate that the specific object was not found.
Microsoft Already Does It (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Already Does It (Score:5, Informative)
However, there are some very important differences --
The IE feature only affects web browsing. It doesn't break email, for example. Verisign's change does. This is by far the biggest issue.
The IE feature probably doesn't remember `incorrect' URLs in the browser history
The IE feature can be turned off, either in IE or by not using IE. To turn off Verisign, you need to patch your name server.
Yes but... (Score:2)
Verisign is fscking every client that would want to do this.
Re:Yes but... (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Already Does It (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Already Does It (Score:2)
I still find it a bit annoying, though, because if I made a simple typo (and the correct link doesn't showup in the 'did you mean?' list), then the URL in the address bar has been completely fscked, and I have to cut and or paste to get back to what I typed so I can correct it.
Sufficient Notice? (Score:2)
Verisign has announced that it will give a 30- to 60-day notice before resuming the SiteFinder 'feature' that it voluntarily shut-down a couple of weeks ago.
Is 30 to 60 days long enough to de-authorize Verisign as a DNS registrar and find someone else to run those top-level domains?
Big Surprise (Score:2)
Well, duh. Did anyone actually expect something different? The ball is now firmly lodged in ICANN's court. They've done their legal blustering and letter writing - now they need to take it to court if Verisign continues flipping the bird to the Internet community.
No problems? HAH! (Score:2)
You claim there are no problems? HAH. There are so many holes and bugs in your
Lies, damn lies, and surveys (Score:2)
Re:Lies, damn lies, and surveys (Score:2)
NXDOMAIN is not 404. Learn what a 404 is. If you visit a lot of companies websites and get a 404, you will get a list of possible alternatives.
A 404 is on a webserver that already exists, that is running an http server and has the DNS properly configured.
Here is a better survey:
Users had a choice? (Score:2)
been used more than 48 million times by Internet users to get where they want to go online."
...as if they all chose to go to Site Finder instead of directly where they intended to go. I'm generally pro-business and pro-creativity, but this is a despicable exploitation of people making honest mistakes. IMHO, this should warrant a DOJ investigation.
Vote Against Sclavos on forbes.com (Score:2)
We've tried the carrot... (Score:2)
Last time when Verisign sprung this on Internet users, for the most part, people worked around them. The changes to BIND were not exclusive to Verisign, they just tried to address what they considered to be a flaw exposed by Verisign. This time is different. ICANN has told them not to do it, and they're still going to do it. This time, it's time for a punitive reaction.
Here's what I propose. If you write software that interacts with DNS keep track of how often Verisign hijacks a non-existant DNS en
OTher Registrars? (Score:2)
Re:OTher Registrars? (Score:2, Informative)
dotster.com (Score:2)
-russ
Re:OTher Registrars? (Score:2)
And if you just want to tweak netsol's ass, godaddy is one of their primary "let's see if we can hijack their customers" targets.
This belongs at the application level (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the proper place to implement this is at the browser level, not at the network level. So, you can grant their statement is true but it doesn't justify their case.
Re:This belongs at the application level (Score:2)
Yup, I'm with you. I think a search engine like Persian Kitty [persiankitty.com] to help me find what I was probably looking for in the first place would be nice
Re:This belongs at the application level (Score:2)
So even tho something like SiteFinder (even at the browser level) might not look as "scary" as the "No DNS" error, I think it does more harm to these users' actual ability to use the web.
There are still peop
It never ceases to amaze me (Score:3, Interesting)
The second (article || press release) yields a clue as to how it was done this time:
Somehow I suspect that the people who don't find 404s "extremely frustrating" and do have the knowledge to "see a downside to this...enhancement" weren't part of the survey. So 53% of clueless PHBs think SiteFinder "improves the Internet". BFD.*
.
* "Big Furry Deal." - Dogbert
Ah, the life of a Vice President. (Score:2)
Re:It never ceases to amaze me (Score:2)
I have noticed, during all this Verisign SiteFinder nonsense, that many people who should know better don't seem to have any idea what a 404 error is. (Not referring to the parent poster, of course, but many others.)
404 isn't what you get when you type in a non-existent domain. That depends on your browser. Error 404 is an HTTP status code that a real live webserver returns when you request a d
A modest proposal: (Score:3)
Next patch to Internet Explorer, they should throw in some code that brings up their own search page whenever a domain name resolves to Verisign's computers.
I have few complaints with Microsoft's service, because the behavior is happening at the application level, not the infrastructure level. I mean, what good is having a 95% browser share if you can't smack down the little bastards that try to muscle in on your turf?
Re:A modest proposal: (Score:2)
Verisign wins a new award... (Score:2)
Yeah, so? (Score:2)
I would like to point out... (Score:2)
Browser Problem, Not a DNS Problem (Score:2)
'Agree with me or shut up.' (Score:2)
---
"Larson suggested that "you guys don't think consumers are relevant" and that committee members were unduly focused on the travails of network operators affected by the Site Finder changes.
"We're going to have to stop this discussion and turn to a different venue," Larson said."
---
Of course users are important. But the opinions of those in the trenches making things work is more important. Think of it this way:
What if a car maker declared to its c
Poll .... (Score:2)
In another story, random members of the families of high ranking Verisign executives were asked about their days. "We spend so much time on the phone now that we have little free time." was a frequently heard complaint. "But I guess we can't get on the Do Not Call list really as the callers all seem to be doing polls and they're all about Verisign. I a bit of responsibility to answer their questions because of my family relationship."
Those interviewed said they'd ne
Time to take back the roots (Score:2)
The present root servers only serve that purpose because we (who have name servers) allow them to. There is a file that comes with recursive name servers that "seeds" them to know where the root servers are (you have to start with some IP addresses). Many people might not yet be aware, but there are separate servers for the "." zone (the root), and top level domains (TLDs) like ".com" (more correctly "com."). It is the root zone that delegates authority to the top level domain servers. By configuring yo
A "service?" Yeah, like a bull "services" a cow (Score:2)
It's worth noting that "ordinary" typosquatters have to pay 7 to 35 dollars a year per domain. Given all the possible names on which Verisign can squat, how much money is it looting from users of the Net? Perhaps it should be required to contribute that amount to a worth Inter
One more point (Score:2)
I doubt that they could enforce their T&Cs on me, since I'm not based in the US, but I personally dislike the idea that I can be obliged to accept a cont
Baby, who you gonna believe? (Score:2)
Me, or your lyin' eyes?
(As the man said to his wife, on being caught in bed with the housekeeper)
Infrastructure must be neutral! (Score:2)
Feedback to Verisign (Score:2)
VeriSign Media Relations: Tom Galvin, tgalvin@verisign.com, 202.973.6600
VeriSign Investor Relations: Kathleen Bare, kbare@verisign.com, 650.426.3241
I was quite surprised by the results of their usbility study, so I asked them if they could provide so more data to back up the results. I also provided some other statistics from objective sources that voiced opposite opinions.
Will this single email be effective? Prob
404 != NXDOMAIN (Score:2)
VeriSign says that this will prevent 404 error messages from happening. How did the original SiteFinder prevent that? It prevented NXDOMAIN errors in the .com and .net TLDs, but it never prevented 404 errors, as those are handled by each individual webserver and have nothing to do with DNS, but only with not being able to find a file on an already-resolved webserver.
Verisign's choice of spokesuser (Score:2)
"As a heavy but non-technical computer user it has been extremely frustrating for me to encounter 404 errors. Naturally, they happen at the busiest times," said Roy S. Lahet, vice president of Planning for Mercy Behavioral Health."
a google search [google.com] for him came up with this picture [mercybehavioral.com] as the second result.
out there... somewhere... a Verisign PR guy is limping with a smoking gun and wounded foot
Sitefinder TOS (Score:4, Informative)
6. Modification by VeriSign.
At any time VeriSign may modify or terminate these terms of use, its websites and the VeriSign Services and may at any time discontinue your use of the VeriSign Services without any notice to you, and without liability to you, any other user or any third party. Please review these Terms of Use from time to time so that you will be aware of any changes. Your continued use of the VeriSign Services constitutes your agreement to all such terms, conditions, and notices.
So I can be found to a "Terms of Use" agreement simply by mistyping a domain name? How is this legal? And are there any situations where a user could be caught in violation of this "agreement"?
The day it goes up again (Score:5, Interesting)
Please join me.
Re:Analogy (Score:2)
Actually, it's more like the phone book, where if you look up a name that isn't there, you aren't told it isn't there, in fact, YOU ARE TOLD IT IS THERE, but it turns out when you call the phone number it plays a recording with an ad for yellow pages advertising department.
Re:I actually LIKED the SiteFinder service! (Score:2)
First of all, anyone with a non-shitty browser can configure it to redirect the standard error to a custom error page - one more useful then "error: you suck" that most browsers do by default. So this "feature" should have been implemented on client side if it was desired. This breaks the browsers that have that feature intelligently implemented. For those of us who don't want our typos to line Verisign's pockets and instead want to use our own redirect - now
Re:I actually LIKED the SiteFinder service! (Score:2)
A lot of anti-spam software uses domain lookups to see if an email originates from a valid domain. Since every domain is now valid, this can no longer be used to filter out the good from the bad...
Re:I actually LIKED the SiteFinder service! (Score:2)
It it was really going to duplicate the functionality of sitefinder, it would need to contact a server which had a database of all doamin names.
The best way I can think would be to have sitefinder (or an alternative service) have a separate protocol, and your browser can query it to make suggestions as to what domain you wanted (and the browser doesn't have to query it if it doesn't want to). Also you should be able to qu
Re:I actually LIKED the SiteFinder service! (Score:2)
Re:I actually LIKED the SiteFinder service! (Score:2)
Re:I actually LIKED the SiteFinder service! (Score:2)
There are lots of correct replies to this elsewhere, but yours is a good question worth responding to directly.
The first answer is a question of scope -- it's not within the responsibility of a DNS service to suggest alternates. Your request was in error, the RFCs require than an error message be returned. It's legal for somebody else (you, your ISP, whatever) to catch the error and handle it in a more user-friendly way than just reporting it. Catching the report
Re:So what is the best way to show my disapproval? (Score:2)
If you're still with verisign, you've got a problem.
Re:Boycott time (Score:2)
In releated news, I just received the following email. Note that Verisign had mentioned Network Solutions was a money pit on their SEC filings.
---
Dear Valued Network Solutions(R) Customer,
Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new entity formed by Pivotal Private Equity.
Please be assured that Network Solutions continues to
Re:Prediction of WWW Demise (Score:2)