3 ms·

Why shouldn't they be angry at jotform? It looks like they had no expedited process for reporting phishing forms which had to have been a known risk somewhere

Why shouldn't they be angry at jotform? It looks like they had no expedited process for reporting phishing forms which had to have been a known risk somewhere around #1 on their list of known risks, they actually made it easier to go upstream instead of searching for their contact page (only linked in the footer) and hoping someone replies today. Did they have any automated detection? If they didn't have a "report a bad form" button then maybe they didn't even try and find bad forms ... like anything with a sign in button or password field. 2 million forms is too many to inspect, but you could narrow that list down very easily. What happened to them sucks but it seems like the problem could probably have been avoided. Edit: it let me make a form with "Account number" and "Password" complete with emailing me what people put in it which is suggestive of no preventative measures at all.

AndyJPartridge 15y ago
Some good points. But surely they should have been sent a warning, even a 24 hour one, to remove some content before just being wiped off the Internet. This action is business destroying and draconian.
- benologist 15y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree they shouldn't have been destroyed and that GoDaddy has no right to be the executioner.
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    Then how do you rectify the statement you made that their customers should be angry with them, and that they shouldn't be destroyed? I really want to hear this.
    - benologist 15y ago
      Because there are two things here: 1) GoDaddy overstepping their bounds and shutting down a website 2) JotForm having inadequate, perhaps even non-existant measures in place to prevent or respond to phishing Obviously #1 dwarfs #2 significantly but that doesn't make #2 okay.
      - sukuriant 15y ago
        How doesn't it? The argument could be made that GoDaddy would have done that deed anyway, even if (2) hadn't been rectified. GoDaddy might not have, if those provisions had been in place. Do these sorts of stories with GoDaddy happen often?
        benologist 15y ago
        GoDaddy's actions don't cancel it out because ignoring or not adequately preparing for phishing was wrong every single day and a foreseeable problem for about a decade now. They had a responsibility to prevent this for their paying users. Maybe it wouldn't have saved them, but there are a lot of free-x-hosting companies out there that haven't been shut down in spite of abuse.
        sukuriant 15y ago
        Do you plan for every illegal thing that could happen on your website? It's easy to not imagine what sort of evil your site could be used for when you're thinking of just the awesome problem you're trying to solve.
        benologist 15y ago
        This isn't really some unforeseeable edge case that nobody could have reasonably expected to happen - their site lets you build a form, embed it on a page, and they either email or save the form data for you. Not anticipating phishing would be fine if it was 10 years ago.
        drucken 15y ago
        benologist please stop trying to make it sound as if there is any dependency between your 1 and 2. How can anyone who has ever used the Internet or has even a basic understanding of the Domain Name System believe that it is a registrar's right or responsibility to take down a domain, especially without notice, and that does nothing to contravene the conditions of owning that domain name? I wouldn't even say you are beating a dead horse with that dependency. It was never a horse to begin with! The blame obviously lies squarely with the US federal agencies - you do not see this happen in other developed countries, for example (UK does not count since its a US colony in all but name). In particular, to be able to shutdown or ruin the reputation of a business at the drop of a hat due to alleged breaking of the law - not even by the business itself - before it has even been processed by the justice system! Just imagine if this had been a takedown of Google, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook site, all of which easily meet or have met the conditions for alleged infringements of US IP or other laws at some point, if for no other reason than hosting user-generated content...
meow 15y ago
Do you think this would have been averted if they took all the measures you are proposing ? There are no set guide lines here according to which the government is taking down stuff.. This is not DMCA related to create an process to take down stuff.. Even if they could not find the contact page, taking the whole website seems to be ridiculous thing to do. I think things like this will make websites with user generated content to move away from .com domains and even move into countries where there is more due process to things like this.
- benologist 15y ago
  I think there's a decade of history that shows it could probably have been avoided - they're not the first free-x-hosting company to ever be abused for phishing.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    The history of this matter stopped being relevant when domain-seizures stopped being the last option.
    - benologist 15y ago
      The same risk existed last year alongside the many exploitable-by-phishing flavors of hosting. Although this wasn't even a domain seizure, this is just an overzealous domain registar which has also, always, been a risk to web services.
nitrogen 15y ago
Edit: it let me make a form with "Account number" and "Password" complete with emailing me what people put in it which is suggestive of no preventative measures at all. See this comment by the founder of Jotform: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597821 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597821 (Relevant quote: "Our Bayesian phishing filter has suspended 65.000 accounts last year.")

AndyJPartridge 15y ago

Some good points. But surely they should have been sent a warning, even a 24 hour one, to remove some content before just being wiped off the Internet. This action is business destroying and draconian.

benologist 15y ago
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree they shouldn't have been destroyed and that GoDaddy has no right to be the executioner.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  Then how do you rectify the statement you made that their customers should be angry with them, and that they shouldn't be destroyed? I really want to hear this.
  - benologist 15y ago
    Because there are two things here: 1) GoDaddy overstepping their bounds and shutting down a website 2) JotForm having inadequate, perhaps even non-existant measures in place to prevent or respond to phishing Obviously #1 dwarfs #2 significantly but that doesn't make #2 okay.
    - sukuriant 15y ago
      How doesn't it? The argument could be made that GoDaddy would have done that deed anyway, even if (2) hadn't been rectified. GoDaddy might not have, if those provisions had been in place. Do these sorts of stories with GoDaddy happen often?
      - benologist 15y ago
        GoDaddy's actions don't cancel it out because ignoring or not adequately preparing for phishing was wrong every single day and a foreseeable problem for about a decade now. They had a responsibility to prevent this for their paying users. Maybe it wouldn't have saved them, but there are a lot of free-x-hosting companies out there that haven't been shut down in spite of abuse.
        sukuriant 15y ago
        Do you plan for every illegal thing that could happen on your website? It's easy to not imagine what sort of evil your site could be used for when you're thinking of just the awesome problem you're trying to solve.
        benologist 15y ago
        This isn't really some unforeseeable edge case that nobody could have reasonably expected to happen - their site lets you build a form, embed it on a page, and they either email or save the form data for you. Not anticipating phishing would be fine if it was 10 years ago.
        drucken 15y ago
        benologist please stop trying to make it sound as if there is any dependency between your 1 and 2. How can anyone who has ever used the Internet or has even a basic understanding of the Domain Name System believe that it is a registrar's right or responsibility to take down a domain, especially without notice, and that does nothing to contravene the conditions of owning that domain name? I wouldn't even say you are beating a dead horse with that dependency. It was never a horse to begin with! The blame obviously lies squarely with the US federal agencies - you do not see this happen in other developed countries, for example (UK does not count since its a US colony in all but name). In particular, to be able to shutdown or ruin the reputation of a business at the drop of a hat due to alleged breaking of the law - not even by the business itself - before it has even been processed by the justice system! Just imagine if this had been a takedown of Google, Microsoft, Apple or Facebook site, all of which easily meet or have met the conditions for alleged infringements of US IP or other laws at some point, if for no other reason than hosting user-generated content...

meow 15y ago

Do you think this would have been averted if they took all the measures you are proposing ? There are no set guide lines here according to which the government is taking down stuff.. This is not DMCA related to create an process to take down stuff.. Even if they could not find the contact page, taking the whole website seems to be ridiculous thing to do. I think things like this will make websites with user generated content to move away from .com domains and even move into countries where there is more due process to things like this.

benologist 15y ago
I think there's a decade of history that shows it could probably have been avoided - they're not the first free-x-hosting company to ever be abused for phishing.
- Zirro 15y ago
  The history of this matter stopped being relevant when domain-seizures stopped being the last option.
  - benologist 15y ago
    The same risk existed last year alongside the many exploitable-by-phishing flavors of hosting. Although this wasn't even a domain seizure, this is just an overzealous domain registar which has also, always, been a risk to web services.

nitrogen 15y ago

Edit: it let me make a form with "Account number" and "Password" complete with emailing me what people put in it which is suggestive of no preventative measures at all. See this comment by the founder of Jotform: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597821 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3597821 (Relevant quote: "Our Bayesian phishing filter has suspended 65.000 accounts last year.")