Verisign Implementing SiteFinder On .cc 47
An anonymous reader writes "Community outrage forced VeriSign to kill SiteFinder, but they vowed to bring it back. Looks like SiteFinder is alive and well in the .cc TLD. Just enter your own favorite unregistered name to check it out."
Re:Misleading? No, just wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose that's why the words "A Verisign company" appear under the eNIC logo?
Re:Misleading? No, just wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Misleading? No, just wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
CTFL = MOD DOWN (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I can tell, they are justing grabbing free business off of this service, and deserve to be shamed. How is this different from SiteFinder?
Re:Misleading? No, just wrong. (Score:2)
Why the article is completely stupid is this domain has had a wildcard for years. This is nothing new or noteworthy.
Spyware (Score:1)
Re:Spyware (Score:1)
Re:Spyware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spyware (Score:2)
Re:Spyware (Score:2)
erm.... (Score:1, Funny)
huh? (Score:4, Informative)
$ 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)
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)
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.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Re:huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
asdjahfljkahfkasdhflsd
*sigh* I if
Re:huh? (Score:2)
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...
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at the NANOG archives from around the time of the original SiteFinder debacle. There's a patch. Paul doesn't like it, but he wrote it anyway.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
Basically you can define certain zones to be delegation-only, or you can tell it that they should all be treated that way, except for the specified list.
Re:huh? (Score:1)
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??
No, no, no! This is acceptable! (Score:2)
Besides, dot WS [even-at.ws], dot TK [here-too.tk], etc. have this service. Where's the outcry?
Dear Slashdot, (Score:3, Funny)
OK, yeah... (Score:1)
SiteFinder is alive and well in the .cc TLD (Score:2)
They don't escape addresses! http://Random HTML.cc (Score:1)
Dollar sign? (Score:1, Interesting)
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)
Re:Good for a laugh (Score:1)
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?
buffer overflow (Score:1)
Re:buffer overflow (Score:1)
Re:buffer overflow (Score:2)
I don't think there's much of a way they're vulnerable through this, but there's probably a way to do a goatse redirect or something - it's just that I haven't been able to get a slash or equals sign through so it's a bit hard.
Tim
Re:buffer overflow (Score:3, Interesting)
Tim
It's Not New (Score:3, Informative)
(Get out the fire extinguishers, tin foil hats, and flame throwers. This one might catch on fire and explode in contempt.)
Re:It's Not New (Score:1)
Repeat after me .... (Score:2)
Old news (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2)
Sitefounder A record - not found. (Score:1)
Yeah, but who receives mail from .cc? (Score:1)
Nothing legitimately worthwhile has ever been hosted there; if the spammers
or whoever abuse this, you just instruct your software that all
are invalid, and your dad is Robert's brother. It's an ugly hack, but it
would work; no such thing is possible for
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
be in a maj
3 Ways to stop this (Score:1)
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