5 ms·

If a third party got burned, they should turn around and sue Microsoft. MS deserves some responsibility for causing this. And "take your entire AD network down

by ethbro 7y ago

If a third party got burned, they should turn around and sue Microsoft. MS deserves some responsibility for causing this. And "take your entire AD network down for some amount of time and break backwards compatibility" is not a reasonably fix.

soneca 7y ago
I don't see why those third parties wouldn't sue the owner that sold this domain to unknown parties fully aware of the security risk.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Sue on what grounds? He has no legal obligation of any kind towards them, and they're the ones who incorrectly sent their traffic to him. Microsoft certainly screwed up here, but all this guy did was... exist.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    Technically, the domain owner probably has grounds to sue Microsoft. By effectively configuring AD / Windows to DDoS the domain, on multiple protocols, MS deprived him of usability. Seems pretty open & shut on loss of value.
    - totalZero 7y ago
      That configuration is the only reason the seller is able to publicly demand such a high price without the universe laughing at him in concert. To put it in perspective, dating.com sold for 1.75m.
      - ethbro 7y ago
        To put it in perspective, Microsoft products have been spamming his domain for 26 years.
      - FDSGSG 7y ago
        >To put it in perspective, [in 2010] dating.com sold for 1.75m. That was 10 years ago. "myworld.com" sold for 1.2m in 2017, "jade.com" sold for 1.25m, "vivo.com" went for 2.1m In 2019, "voice.com" sold for 30 million usd.
        totalZero 7y ago
        Outlier. My search turns up 10 sales since 2017, only one was higher than 3.5m, and that's "voice.com." I chose a sale that was in the ballpark of the stated figure for "corp.com." "California.com" sold for $3m this past year, so let's not pretend that much has shifted in the market for these domain names in the span of this decade. $1.7m is a hefty sum for a domain name that isn't even a word. But it's an irrelevant debate. My point is that the counterargument against any lawsuit would be that the high value of the domain name "corp.com" comes from the Microsoft issue, so it'd be pretty tough to argue that the owner was harmed by Microsoft.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Because he has no legal responsibility whatsoever. He is not responsible for the content that others send to a domain her controls.

by ethbro 7y ago

soneca 7y ago

I don't see why those third parties wouldn't sue the owner that sold this domain to unknown parties fully aware of the security risk.

crooked-v 7y ago
Sue on what grounds? He has no legal obligation of any kind towards them, and they're the ones who incorrectly sent their traffic to him. Microsoft certainly screwed up here, but all this guy did was... exist.
- ethbro 7y ago
  Technically, the domain owner probably has grounds to sue Microsoft. By effectively configuring AD / Windows to DDoS the domain, on multiple protocols, MS deprived him of usability. Seems pretty open & shut on loss of value.
  - totalZero 7y ago
    That configuration is the only reason the seller is able to publicly demand such a high price without the universe laughing at him in concert. To put it in perspective, dating.com sold for 1.75m.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      To put it in perspective, Microsoft products have been spamming his domain for 26 years.
    - FDSGSG 7y ago
      >To put it in perspective, [in 2010] dating.com sold for 1.75m. That was 10 years ago. "myworld.com" sold for 1.2m in 2017, "jade.com" sold for 1.25m, "vivo.com" went for 2.1m In 2019, "voice.com" sold for 30 million usd.
      - totalZero 7y ago
        Outlier. My search turns up 10 sales since 2017, only one was higher than 3.5m, and that's "voice.com." I chose a sale that was in the ballpark of the stated figure for "corp.com." "California.com" sold for $3m this past year, so let's not pretend that much has shifted in the market for these domain names in the span of this decade. $1.7m is a hefty sum for a domain name that isn't even a word. But it's an irrelevant debate. My point is that the counterargument against any lawsuit would be that the high value of the domain name "corp.com" comes from the Microsoft issue, so it'd be pretty tough to argue that the owner was harmed by Microsoft.
nkrisc 7y ago
Because he has no legal responsibility whatsoever. He is not responsible for the content that others send to a domain her controls.