10 ms·
Securing Your Domain Against Seizure: Where Is Safe to Register a Domain Name?
- drucken 15y agoInteresting article. Shame he did not cover or mention directly the highly popular .EU domain which has no particularly strong requirements. While individual EU countries may fall under the NATO/ECHELON agreements under varying degrees of importance (Germany for example it is likely highly irrelevant), internet infrastructure tend to be well-protected at the EU level.
- JBiserkov 15y agoHow about .eu? An obvious choice for any European company planning to expand beyond national borders. EURid European Registry for Internet Domains) is a non-profit organisation established by the European Commission is a consortium of three European ccTLD operators: DNS Belgium (.be), IIT-CNR (.it) and NIC-SE (.se). Am I missing something?
- wilfra 15y agoLots of online poker sites have been switching to .eu
- rmk2 15y agoI think the article forgot its own criteria half way through... > Countries with military mutual defense agreements (NATO, etc). And then he continues to name both Sweden and Norway...Norway is a NATO-member (though not part of the EU, just the EEA), and while Sweden is not a NATO-member, it is an EU member state, which means it is involved in EU-defence just as well...(and even though Iceland's economy has recovered well, they are also a NATO-member) Norway is definitely not militarily neutral, since they have troops in Afghanistan. He also doesn't give a definition for what a "small"-sized or a "medium"-sized country is... [edited for clarity/spelling]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- drucken 15y agoYes, I would not have thought countries gets much smaller than Iceland! :) Small countries are a poor choice for many reasons, not least because too much can change too quickly and it does not require much capital (monetary or political) to capture such a state. Though, obviously, they can be useful for redundancy. That said, it could be the author meant the list more as optimization criteria rather than a firm checklist. In which case, both the strongly-independently wealthy Norway and the politically liberal and neutral Sweden, are not bad choices.
- rmk2 15y agoOh, I agree, it's not so much that either country is a bad choice per se. And pointing out that a country subject to various bilateral treaties might provide problems down the road is also fair. Just thought i'd point it out for those that might not know about their degree of international collaboration. However, especially Sweden is ambiguous at best in my opinion, given their recently enacted strong wiretapping laws. They might not be a problem yet, but they provide the basis for future trouble.
- Gigablah 15y agoI disagree with the .sg suggestion too. Singapore is an ACTA signatory and the government is in discussions with the MPAA for tougher IP legislation (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1176385/1/.html http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/vi...). Not to mention it's a "small" country (you can't get much smaller than an island)
- caf 15y agoAgreed, the author is clearly unfamiliar with Singapore - it's a highly authoritarian country.
- mixmastamyk 15y agoI've got a .co on namecheap now. No controversial plans but curious as to how safe it is.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- vignesh_vs_in 15y agoEven i have got 5 domains with namecheap. As far as i know, there have been no negative incidents with namecheap yet.
- freejack 15y agonamecheap primarily operates as a reseller for enom. You'd be subject to 3 layers of policy (registry, registrar, reseller) + ICANN regulation + the laws in the various jurisdictions. Find something cleaner if you are worried about your domains. Complexity can lead to all sorts of finger pointing when something goes wrong. And if that doesn't phase you, be sure you are comfortable with the enom TOS as you'd likely be subject to that as well. (and yes, I"m aware that NC has an accreditation, that said, most of their registrations are held under and managed through enom's accreditation.)
- redthrowaway 15y agoI take issue with the author's criticism of .is. They've recently told most of the world to go fuck themselves, and one of their members of parliament is a Wikileaks spokesperson. I'm thinking they're pretty pro-freedom.
- anateus 15y agoI believe he meant that despite their intentions their size and precarious economic state leaves them open to pressure relative to countries of similar cultural values.
- junto 15y agoI'm not so sure how relevant the economic strength of a nation is in this decision. It was not that long ago that Ireland was seen as a booming example of economic growth. In a relatively short term that boom has turned sour. The selection of a domain name is an integral part of your brand and that is LONG term. Therefore short term fluctuations in economic success should play a muted part in your domain name decision. The bottom line here is that the direct US controlled TLDs of .com, .net and .org are now slowly becoming poisonous in the branding decision for any company that may risk annoying the RIAA or MPAA with their new "fangled" business model that disrupts the existing media space or their profit margin (or perceived profit margin) in any way. The US is shooting itself in foot, but personally I find that a good thing. I see this as a great step in reducing the prominence (and worth) of the core TLDs and ICANN. I find it quite interesting that when it comes to .com names in particular we are coming towards a point where the saturation is so great, there are no viable domains left. Since land is not ubiquitous, saturation means that you are limited to trading those existing properties only, whilst with domain names, we can create a new TLD and start over again. It is like being able to create new land. As a further analogy, we discover a new M class planet and some of us brave new worlders start moving there. Everyone living on Earth things we are mad (wtf, they have no Starbucks), but who cares right, we have a virgin planet to discover and plenty of new land to stake our claim upon. We get to choose the best bits of land for ourselves before all those Earthlings get fed up of living in their over-populated land and jump on star ships to join us.
- 15y ago
- mcantelon 15y agoNon-centralized approaches like Namecoin will be more likely offer DNS security than the establish approached.
- pessimism 15y agoSpeaking of gandi, a while ago, I ran into some problems logging in to their site, and I—finally—got this response from them by e-mail: Hello again pessimism, Our password field supports only passwords up to 16 characters at this time. All longer passwords are truncated. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, [redacted] Tier 1 Tech Support Gandi US I checked in with @theharmonyguy who says this is a pretty bad thing, and I originally intended to do an Ask/Tell HN post about it, but life got in the way. What are your thoughts on this and its implications for using gandi?
- icebraining 15y agoThe worrying thing about that limit isn't the limit itself, but whatever process they are using to process passwords that imposes that limit. I mean, if they're hashing the password as they should, why the limit? It's stored as fixed length string anyway...
- SkyMarshal 15y agoGood find. I use Gandi for some domains, and was curious how they truncate passwords (wtf?) so I tested it by creating a new account with a spare gmail address. The registration page says your pwd must be between 6 and 16 characters, so I tested what happens if you register with a pwd > 16 chars. I registered the 26 letters of the alphabet for my password, and then tested re-logging in with the full 26 char version, the 26 char version + 1 char (a), the first 17 characters, the first 16 chars, and the first 15 characters. abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyza abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopq abcdefghijklmnop abcdefghijklmno None but the original 26 character password worked, so apparently they don't truncate passwords at all, they're probably just hashing it down to 16 characters or whatever in the database, then comparing hashes on login attempt. Their support guy is just playing fast and loose with the word truncate.
- ceol 15y agoSpeaking of their support, I can see why some people were avoiding Gandi because of it. I'm trying to transfer a domain (from SWITCH, no less) and am having issues. I emailed them a week and a half ago and heard back the next day saying they were looking into it. Still nothing, so I sent another support email two days ago and haven't heard anything. They have the most TLD offerings of any registrar I've seen (sans Go Daddy) so I'd hate to move away from them because of support issues, but I'm starting to understand the complaints I've read.
- EGreg 15y agoOr simply register your own tld if you've got hundreds of thousands of $ lying around :)
- TazeTSchnitzel 15y agoWhat about .hax? :P
- wisty 15y ago.pirate?
- lignuist 15y agoIf it's only hundreds of thousands, you might want to find thousands who'd like to pay hundreds for a TLD that rocks and is safe.
- drats 15y agoI think a distributed .alt where people can have a "backup" of their domain would be nice. gun.io with gun.io.alt running concurrently on the distributed system. It would be a nice reference to the alt.* Usenet split in response to attempts to control it. The underlying technology and how to arrange it is another question though. Edit: Mcantelon's reference elsewhere in the thread to namecoin looks like a good start http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page
- moe 15y agoThe tech is largely a solved problem, also one can download the zone-files[1] to seed/sync the new system. The real problem is the chicken/egg one, this is where all past attempts towards an alternate DNS have failed. [1] http://www.premiumdrops.com/zones.html http://www.premiumdrops.com/zones.html
- sneak 15y agoRepeat after me: NOBODY WILL EVER USE AN ALTERNATE ROOT. EVER. It took over a decade to get everyone on the same page re: IPv6, and everybody WANTS that. Be realistic. It ain't gonna happen, ever.
- shingen 15y agoA lot of this comes down to how badly the Feds want you. Another domain might buy you a thin buffer of protection, but if you're doing anything that really irks the US Government they'll go to great lengths to get you. They got the Swiss to burn a lot of their treasured banking privacy customs just to flush out off shore accounts. If you can get the Swiss to do that, you can get most any country to seize a local domain with a fraction of the pressure.
- zyfo 15y agoIf you have particularly anti-US content, I would think .ru or .ch is a good bet.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 15y agoThey only got the Americans who kept assets with "Swiss" banks (UBS or CS aren't traditional Swiss banks). Those who took the time to come to Schweiz and meet with the private banks were not touched.
- kijin 15y agoUAE and Palestine? Seriously? UAE has a questionable track record insofar as journalistic freedom is concerned. It ranks #112, below Liberia and South Sudan, in RSF's Press Freedom Index. What if one of the Emirs is offended by what I post on the site? Palestine ranks #153, not to mention you'd have to take Israel into consideration when you do anything Palestine-related. Gandi.net is an excellent registrar, but I'm not sure about them anymore since they now operate in the UK and US as well. They even have a US-incorporated subsidiary.
- larrys 15y agoAgree. And all of this is ridiculous anyway. A non-issue for the vast majority of startups who want to do something in the US. Think you're going to get funding and grow your company with a foreign TLD doing something that the US government might disapprove of? Not to mention the fact that the entire OP is based on the way things are TODAY and that assumes it's even accurate. Which of course it's not (just taking your comment as one of many which makes an important point about UAE.) Most importantly things in the political world can change overnight. .ch is Switzerland which is great everybody thinks. Guess what? Check out the way the Swiss caved into US demands on revealing those keeping money in swiss bank accounts. Those accounts were secret for a very long time. Then that changed. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917648,00.html http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1917648,00....
- bo1024 15y ago> Think you're going to get funding and grow your company with a foreign TLD doing something that the US government might disapprove of? The web's biggest sites right now (e.g. YouTube and Facebook) are doing things the U.S. government doesn't approve of. They haven't been shut down ... yet ... but Megaupload has, and what's the functional difference between what Megaupload does and what YouTube does? My point is just that the way the U.S. gov't is going, no decent web application is safe from being taken down. Anything with user-generated content is basically wide open for seizure.
- elithrar 15y ago
- kgo 15y agoIf you look at this as an uptime issue, it has the same answer as any other uptime issue. Redundancy. A single server isn't good for uptime because when it dies you're screwed. At the next level, a single data-center only gives you so much uptime because if that data center goes down you're screwed. Same thing here. Any single TLD isn't safe for any number of technical and political reasons. If you want to be safe, register multiple tlds with multiple entities so you have redundancy.
- pyre 15y agoRight, but your domain is your 'store front.' Depending on your customer-base, you could lose out when it comes time to switch domains from example.com to example.ca or example.co.au...
- codesuela 15y agoIf you want a bulletproof registrar that doesn't bow under pressure and with competitive pricing go for http://internet.bs/ http://internet.bs/ (yes they have their offices in the bahamas). Also free whois protection is included AFAIK
- justincormack 15y agoUnfortunately .bs reads as .bullshit to me.
- Ecio78 15y agoThis could be a plus, you can register reallno.bs :-) All jokes aside, according to their site, .bs is not on the list of the available TLD you can register with them
- sireat 15y agoI've registered a few domains with them, when I distributed some domains away from GoDaddy and have been quite happy with them(meaning nothing special happened). However, one thing you have to keep in mind, that despite actually being a fairly large registar, they are a small company in bahamas. I would imagine, if they had a large target painted on them, they could not last long.
- Nyr 15y agoInternet.bs is a good choice if you want a safe domain name registrar. They are based in the Bahamas and the staff is composed by people from Europe and South America. Getting a "secure" swiss domain name with a registrar in the USA isn't probably the best idea ;)
- twentysix 15y agoUAE, Singapore and Mauritius are all small countries. Singapore and UAE have a cozy relationship with US and the media is heavily regulated and controlled by the government in both countries. UAE even blocks Skype. I dont think the top level domains of these countries are secure at all.
- tlack 15y agoThis is a great resource. But where should we locate our actual application: where should we host to avoid seizure?
- plainOldText 15y agoI have a curiosity. Would it be better to register a domain as a person or as an organization? Are there any major differences in liabilities associated with each entity? (And I'm thinking .ch and the like domains. I don't think for .com would make any difference.)
- freejack 15y agoThis is getting a bit silly. Unless you are running a gambling, torrent or porn site, just get a .com and worry about more important things in your life. Asset seizure is something that drug dealers, not startups, should be worrying about.
- drucken 15y agoSo, Jotform (to name just a recent one) was running a "gambling, torrent or porn site"? Right... The only thing silly here is not taking into account all business risks. US-owned TLDs are very much now a risk.
- freejack 15y agoJotform was a victim of lax registrar policy and wasn't a seizure by the USG or any of its agencies in any sense. Using the Internet is a risk. So is crossing the street. Your single biggest risk in registering a domain name relates to the business practices of the registrar you choose. This has nothing to do with the "nationality" of a TLD. You also face risks associated with the policy of the TLD you register in, the laws of the local government and the jurisdictions of the registrar, registry and DNS provider you register with. You also face a myriad of risks associated with the UDRP and various intellectual property law. You can either worry yourself silly with the boundary cases and outside risks that I see most talked about in recent HN articles or you can cover 99% of your issues by finding yourself a good registrar (one with fair and reasonable policies and practices) operating under a good government (one with fair and reasonable laws and law enforcement practices) and register in a reliable TLD. And then spend the other 23.5 hours in your busy day worrying about running your startup or doing something else useful with your time.
- joejohnson 15y agoCan anyone explain why these domains are usually so much more expensive that .com domains? I just looked at .se and most of those run almost $40/year. It seems like demand would have .com domains priced higher than these cc-TLDs.
- CyrusL 15y agoThere is very little variable cost to create one additional domain name, so it's hard to have a logical explanation for their pricing. All the TLDs have different beliefs about which price will maximize profit.
- orjan 15y agoThen you have looked at the wrong registrars. Loopia[1], Binero[2] and Crystone[3] all sell .se domains for around $15. (I'm not affiliated with any of these companies), [1]https://www.loopia.com/domainnames/#prices https://www.loopia.com/domainnames/#prices [2]http://www.binero.se/doman http://www.binero.se/doman [3]http://www.crystone.com/domainname.aspx http://www.crystone.com/domainname.aspx
- joejohnson 15y agoOk, thank you!
- kzrdude 15y agoI would go with anything .ch
- sdfjkl 15y agoWorth pointing out that SWITCH doesn't permit whois "proxy/anonymizer" services. Your real name and address is going to show up there (unless you register under a company name).
- vaksel 15y agonowhere is safe...if you become a problem they'll eventually come for you
- Ecio78 15y agoWhat about .to ?
- instakill 15y agoWhat about .co.za?
- ragmondo 15y agoHow about... we start a kickstarter. Target 200k of which 185k is used for the application for a gTLD and the remaining 15k is for setting up an INC or LLP such that all those who have contributed can register as many domains as they want for "cost" (whatever that works out to be). Obviously the exact gTLD we chose is subject to a bit of democracy, voting etc etc but I'm sure with a bit of an open forum then they'll be an interesting debate.