11 ms·

> On June 26, the court granted our request and made Microsoft the DNS authority for the company’s 23 free No-IP domains, allowing us to identify and route all

> On June 26, the court granted our request and made Microsoft the DNS authority for the company’s 23 free No-IP domains, allowing us to identify and route all known bad traffic to the Microsoft sinkhole and classify the identified threats. Something about this bothers me. So the courts granted MS the rights to essentially take over No-IP's DNS in order to "identify" ... "bad traffic?" The implications of this are... chilling. As much as I want to reserve judgement, this makes me uneasy (malware aside).

informatimago 12y ago
Don't use .com, .net, .org, .edu; use domain names in your own sovereignty! Microsoft would have it much harder to get no-ip.ru or no-ip.zh (granted, a little easier grabbing no-ip.fr).
DINKDINK 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin Distributed DNS is the only solution
- zanny 12y ago
  And meshnets. DNS is just a layer on top of an already vulnerable IP stack. IP can work between broad and anonymous mesh nets, but when an IP address can be resolved to a business or person it provides an exploit vector.
  - walden42 12y ago
    Like MaidSafe? Are there other alternatives?
- dsl 12y ago
  So malware authors will be able to operate with impunity? As in all things, the solution is somewhere in the middle.
- livingparadox 12y ago
  It doesn't serve No-IP's market, because No-IP is for frequently changing IP addresses. Namecoin charges for each record change, to my knowledge.
  - Buge 12y ago
    How often are updates necessary? It costs 0.8 cents to update a namecoin domain.
    - therealunreal 12y ago
      It depends on how often a router may disconnect; they typically receive a new IP address every time they connect. It's also a matter of the ISP's policy, some ISP's force a disconnection once per day while others don't.
    - runn1ng 12y ago
      > It costs 0.8 cents to update a namecoin domain That's not fair to say. It costs like this because the namecoin price is so low. However, if it was used more, the price would skyrocket.
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      One of the main reasons to use a dynamic DNS service is because your IP address changes frequently. A service that requires you to pay for each record update is a non-starter for that use case.
moblahbl4hblah 12y ago
Microsoft was able to demonstrate that they were actually involved in committing the crimes. The court didn't give them the domains so that they could then come up with evidence. They already had the evidence. Oh nevermind...NSA...M$ is teh suxor...oh mer gurd!!!!
- Geiko 12y ago
  Really... so the hundreds of thousands innocent users that was not doing any crimes? What about them? This just proves that the current authorized domain system is not working, and its the beginning of the end.
teraflop 12y ago
Agreed. Arguably the net effect in this particular case was positive, but I can easily imagine reading this press release in a parallel universe: "Today, Sony Pictures has upped the ante against global cybercrime, taking legal action to clean up piracy... We're taking YouTube to task as the owner of infrastructure frequently exploited by cybercriminals to infringe copyrights by uploading unauthorized movie clips... On June 26, the court granted our request and made Sony the DNS authority for youtube.com, allowing us to identify and route all known infringing traffic to the Sony sinkhole and identify users who posted unauthorized content."
- ntakasaki 12y ago
  Isn't that close to what happened to Mega Upload and domain handed over to the government?
  - AJ007 12y ago
    Exactly. Here is another one: Microsoft failed to secure Windows XP against malware and botnets, so all Windows XP users will now be redirected to Ubuntu.com when they try to access the internet through Internet Explorer.
    - wfjackson 12y ago
      That's quite a stretched analogy. A fully updated Windows XP computer will still be vulnerable to malware and botnets. That is because Windows, OS X, Android and Linux allow their users to install third party programs without whitelisting them. There is nothing stopping users from installing malware. OS X and Linux have less malware because they're not as popular as Windows and Android. That's opposite to iOS, Windows Phone/RT, XBox and Playstation which are pretty much free from malware because everything has to go through an app store.
      - Swizec 12y ago
        On OSX you actually have to whitelist software as a user. If something doesn't come from an approved developer, user has to say "Yup, I really do actually want this to be able to run" (unless we're talking things installed through homebrew, pip, gems and whatnot, but those aren't likely to be used by inexperienced users)
mihai_ionic 12y ago
This decision is very disturbing indeed.
AlyssaRowan 12y ago
It seems highly irregular: did the court misunderstand, or were they misrepresented to, that No-IP themselves were playing a witting part in botnet C&C coordination? I doubt No-IP will settle out of court. They'll probably countersue - they have nothing to lose, and that sounds like a company lawyering up and getting ready to kick ass - and I'd expect they'd ask for very big, even punitive damages. The $200k bond isn't even two orders of magnitude enough to hedge against MS literally destroying their business, in what may have been an ultimately well-intentioned, but spectacularly reckless, action. How long until MS reverse the DNS changes, I wonder, especially given they can't keep up and they're all effectively down? 12 hours? 24? It's no surprise, btw, that domains in US jurisdiction are under US jurisdiction. We could use some more TLDs that aren't, I think, and I've held for some time that the root DNS should be held by some kind of international treaty entity acting as IANA.
Fuxy 12y ago
And they say America is a democracy... this is one step away from the courts granting Microsoft the power to take over no-ip's business and domains permanently. Reminds me of the old days of communism when you could have your "property" sized since legally speaking everything belonged to the state. And no you can't say this is different because the courts ordered it since no-ip was not given a chance to defend itself. How much would like to bet Microsoft presented the case as some rogue Arab sounding names(terrorists?) running shady bot-nets in cooperation with no-ip a company obviously involved in that criminal activity. Not the largest and well known freed DNS provider in the world that happens to be used by a large number of bot-nets as well. If this is ok I'm sure you could find millions of reasons to seize goggles domains like indexing warez sites or websites like the pirate bay.
- moblahbl4hblah 12y ago
  That's idiotic. It's not fucking Stalinism...you sir, you are a pant-shitter.
mikedenney 12y ago
This is the singlemost monstrously misrepresentational and dubious thing I have seen any tech company do in my 20 years experience as a tech. It also profoundly concerns us all that this type of judgment can be made by our government without any of warning or consent by the people. Millions of users lost their home security and surveillance systems instantly due to this ill-advised decision. We should hold the federal government and Microsoft directly responsible for any losses that happened today, and any that happen in the future as a result of any such action. We might as well go ahead with emotional damages for causing the concern in the first place.

informatimago 12y ago

Don't use .com, .net, .org, .edu; use domain names in your own sovereignty! Microsoft would have it much harder to get no-ip.ru or no-ip.zh (granted, a little easier grabbing no-ip.fr).

DINKDINK 12y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin Distributed DNS is the only solution

zanny 12y ago
And meshnets. DNS is just a layer on top of an already vulnerable IP stack. IP can work between broad and anonymous mesh nets, but when an IP address can be resolved to a business or person it provides an exploit vector.
- walden42 12y ago
  Like MaidSafe? Are there other alternatives?
dsl 12y ago
So malware authors will be able to operate with impunity? As in all things, the solution is somewhere in the middle.
livingparadox 12y ago
It doesn't serve No-IP's market, because No-IP is for frequently changing IP addresses. Namecoin charges for each record change, to my knowledge.
- Buge 12y ago
  How often are updates necessary? It costs 0.8 cents to update a namecoin domain.
  - therealunreal 12y ago
    It depends on how often a router may disconnect; they typically receive a new IP address every time they connect. It's also a matter of the ISP's policy, some ISP's force a disconnection once per day while others don't.
  - runn1ng 12y ago
    > It costs 0.8 cents to update a namecoin domain That's not fair to say. It costs like this because the namecoin price is so low. However, if it was used more, the price would skyrocket.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    One of the main reasons to use a dynamic DNS service is because your IP address changes frequently. A service that requires you to pay for each record update is a non-starter for that use case.

moblahbl4hblah 12y ago

Microsoft was able to demonstrate that they were actually involved in committing the crimes. The court didn't give them the domains so that they could then come up with evidence. They already had the evidence. Oh nevermind...NSA...M$ is teh suxor...oh mer gurd!!!!

Geiko 12y ago
Really... so the hundreds of thousands innocent users that was not doing any crimes? What about them? This just proves that the current authorized domain system is not working, and its the beginning of the end.

teraflop 12y ago

Agreed. Arguably the net effect in this particular case was positive, but I can easily imagine reading this press release in a parallel universe: "Today, Sony Pictures has upped the ante against global cybercrime, taking legal action to clean up piracy... We're taking YouTube to task as the owner of infrastructure frequently exploited by cybercriminals to infringe copyrights by uploading unauthorized movie clips... On June 26, the court granted our request and made Sony the DNS authority for youtube.com, allowing us to identify and route all known infringing traffic to the Sony sinkhole and identify users who posted unauthorized content."

ntakasaki 12y ago
Isn't that close to what happened to Mega Upload and domain handed over to the government?
- AJ007 12y ago
  Exactly. Here is another one: Microsoft failed to secure Windows XP against malware and botnets, so all Windows XP users will now be redirected to Ubuntu.com when they try to access the internet through Internet Explorer.
  - wfjackson 12y ago
    That's quite a stretched analogy. A fully updated Windows XP computer will still be vulnerable to malware and botnets. That is because Windows, OS X, Android and Linux allow their users to install third party programs without whitelisting them. There is nothing stopping users from installing malware. OS X and Linux have less malware because they're not as popular as Windows and Android. That's opposite to iOS, Windows Phone/RT, XBox and Playstation which are pretty much free from malware because everything has to go through an app store.
    - Swizec 12y ago
      On OSX you actually have to whitelist software as a user. If something doesn't come from an approved developer, user has to say "Yup, I really do actually want this to be able to run" (unless we're talking things installed through homebrew, pip, gems and whatnot, but those aren't likely to be used by inexperienced users)

mihai_ionic 12y ago

This decision is very disturbing indeed.

AlyssaRowan 12y ago

It seems highly irregular: did the court misunderstand, or were they misrepresented to, that No-IP themselves were playing a witting part in botnet C&C coordination? I doubt No-IP will settle out of court. They'll probably countersue - they have nothing to lose, and that sounds like a company lawyering up and getting ready to kick ass - and I'd expect they'd ask for very big, even punitive damages. The $200k bond isn't even two orders of magnitude enough to hedge against MS literally destroying their business, in what may have been an ultimately well-intentioned, but spectacularly reckless, action. How long until MS reverse the DNS changes, I wonder, especially given they can't keep up and they're all effectively down? 12 hours? 24? It's no surprise, btw, that domains in US jurisdiction are under US jurisdiction. We could use some more TLDs that aren't, I think, and I've held for some time that the root DNS should be held by some kind of international treaty entity acting as IANA.

Fuxy 12y ago

And they say America is a democracy... this is one step away from the courts granting Microsoft the power to take over no-ip's business and domains permanently. Reminds me of the old days of communism when you could have your "property" sized since legally speaking everything belonged to the state. And no you can't say this is different because the courts ordered it since no-ip was not given a chance to defend itself. How much would like to bet Microsoft presented the case as some rogue Arab sounding names(terrorists?) running shady bot-nets in cooperation with no-ip a company obviously involved in that criminal activity. Not the largest and well known freed DNS provider in the world that happens to be used by a large number of bot-nets as well. If this is ok I'm sure you could find millions of reasons to seize goggles domains like indexing warez sites or websites like the pirate bay.

moblahbl4hblah 12y ago
That's idiotic. It's not fucking Stalinism...you sir, you are a pant-shitter.

mikedenney 12y ago

This is the singlemost monstrously misrepresentational and dubious thing I have seen any tech company do in my 20 years experience as a tech. It also profoundly concerns us all that this type of judgment can be made by our government without any of warning or consent by the people. Millions of users lost their home security and surveillance systems instantly due to this ill-advised decision. We should hold the federal government and Microsoft directly responsible for any losses that happened today, and any that happen in the future as a result of any such action. We might as well go ahead with emotional damages for causing the concern in the first place.