5 ms·

It wasn't actually due to the actions of their user though, was it? It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their

It wasn't actually due to the actions of their user though, was it? It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users. From what Cisco and Microsoft are reporting NoIP is (was?) a hotspot of botnet activity. If NoIP was not doing anything against that Microsoft's lawsuit doesn't sound that unreasonable. How this was actually implemented in the end (MS just taking over the DNS) does seem a bit strange to me though. They should at least have been taking over by a government agent.

ddod 12y ago
I think some related arguments to your point are that you could say ISPs don't do enough to prevent pirated content from being transmitted on their networks or that Muslims don't do enough to prevent Islamist extremists in their communities. These claims might be true, but should companies or governments be stepping in to solve these situations? Who is mandating that they need to be "solved"? What are the consequences of solving things these ways? Could there be more nuanced implications than the solving of the thing they're trying to fix on the face of it?
cortesoft 12y ago
Wouldn't a similar line of reasoning be "It seems that computers running Microsoft Windows are a hotspot of botnet activity. Year after year, a vast majority of computers used in botnets are running Windows; they are clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse by their users. Lets give control of the Windows code base to Linus"
- smsm42 12y ago
  I think most of the judges would be able to see through it and recognize that running a free DNS service which ignores abuse by botnets and having an OS which can be used to run various programs on, including malware, is a bit different thing. If you could prove Microsoft "clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse", you could probably win a juicy class-action lawsuit, but proving this would be extremely hard.
  - tomp 12y ago
    If they went through with their intended plan to stop supporting Windows XP, then proving that they were "clearly not doing enough to prevent abouse" would be trivially easy.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      How so? Microsoft never promised it would support XP forever. EOLing old versions is a standard and widely accepted industry practice. Just buy (or install for free) a newer operating system. Buying a license to run Windows XP on your computer does not entitle you to unlimited amount of free labor from Microsoft. If you think that makes XP suck, nobody forces you to buy it or keep using it. Are you also expecting Linus to still make patches for Linux kernel 1.0?
  - skygazer 12y ago
    How would NO-IP detect C&C servers aliased to their subdomains, even if they connected to every single one of their subdomains daily -- they wouldn't know what ports to scan. By my, possibly naive thinking, they'd have to impose denial of service attacks on their own customers, constantly, and they would be easily thwarted by port knocking schemes. Probably their only recourse is to stop offering free service, and instead take payment, or require and verify customer IDs. I'm not sure there's a technical solution. Microsoft seems to be attacking their business model.
readme 12y ago
You might just as well say it is the IANA's fault for issuing the IP addresses the malware authors used, or Ford's fault for building the getaway car used in a bank robbery.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Your argument is ridiculous. Turning over IANA or Ford over to Microsoft would not prevent malware or robberies. Turning over NoIP to Microsoft will prevent malware (at least in the short term).
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    And what about any innocent users of Dynamic DNS who are currently suffering from the consequences of this action? No-IP's statement implies that this is somewhat widespread and due to Microsoft's inability to handle the responsibility it has somehow acquired in this case. Others on HN seem to be posting independent verification of this using standard tools from their own systems. In short, it is neither obvious that turning over NoIP's domains to Microsoft will prevent malware, nor clear what should happen if it doesn't, and it is certainly not clear that Microsoft will not cause more damage than they repair by acting in this way or what should happen if they do.
  - djrogers 12y ago
    "Turning over NoIP to Microsoft will prevent malware" Really? Not according to anyone with anything resembling a passing familiarity with malware and it's distribution...
    - mpyne 12y ago
      In any event, the malware will at least not resolve to a no-ip.com address, since apparently nothing is able to consistently resolve to such addresses anymore...
      - moe 12y ago
        Unfortunately malware tends to be the one kind of No-Ip client that actually has (lots of) redundancy built into its peer discovery mechanism. Malware authors anticipate their communication channels to fail and usually account for it with a whole series of fallbacks. Quite unlike your NetGear or LinkSys home router, which many people suddenly can't reach anymore from e.g. their vacation home...
me1010 12y ago
I would imagine most DDNS services push traffic to a blacklisted node. Your ISP blacklists the D-IP so that you, as a lowly end-user, can't run something like an email server. So, I would imagine effectively sorting out which IP addresses are blacklisted because of malware infection or simply ISP infection would be very hard indeed...
chippy 12y ago
>It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users The article of this thread (that is the blog post of NoIP in response to MS's actions) which I'm sure we all read, says that NoIP themselves DID act to prevent abuse. They were not informed of this action by Microsoft.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ddod 12y ago

I think some related arguments to your point are that you could say ISPs don't do enough to prevent pirated content from being transmitted on their networks or that Muslims don't do enough to prevent Islamist extremists in their communities. These claims might be true, but should companies or governments be stepping in to solve these situations? Who is mandating that they need to be "solved"? What are the consequences of solving things these ways? Could there be more nuanced implications than the solving of the thing they're trying to fix on the face of it?

cortesoft 12y ago

Wouldn't a similar line of reasoning be "It seems that computers running Microsoft Windows are a hotspot of botnet activity. Year after year, a vast majority of computers used in botnets are running Windows; they are clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse by their users. Lets give control of the Windows code base to Linus"

smsm42 12y ago
I think most of the judges would be able to see through it and recognize that running a free DNS service which ignores abuse by botnets and having an OS which can be used to run various programs on, including malware, is a bit different thing. If you could prove Microsoft "clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse", you could probably win a juicy class-action lawsuit, but proving this would be extremely hard.
- tomp 12y ago
  If they went through with their intended plan to stop supporting Windows XP, then proving that they were "clearly not doing enough to prevent abouse" would be trivially easy.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    How so? Microsoft never promised it would support XP forever. EOLing old versions is a standard and widely accepted industry practice. Just buy (or install for free) a newer operating system. Buying a license to run Windows XP on your computer does not entitle you to unlimited amount of free labor from Microsoft. If you think that makes XP suck, nobody forces you to buy it or keep using it. Are you also expecting Linus to still make patches for Linux kernel 1.0?
- skygazer 12y ago
  How would NO-IP detect C&C servers aliased to their subdomains, even if they connected to every single one of their subdomains daily -- they wouldn't know what ports to scan. By my, possibly naive thinking, they'd have to impose denial of service attacks on their own customers, constantly, and they would be easily thwarted by port knocking schemes. Probably their only recourse is to stop offering free service, and instead take payment, or require and verify customer IDs. I'm not sure there's a technical solution. Microsoft seems to be attacking their business model.

readme 12y ago

You might just as well say it is the IANA's fault for issuing the IP addresses the malware authors used, or Ford's fault for building the getaway car used in a bank robbery.

threeseed 12y ago
Your argument is ridiculous. Turning over IANA or Ford over to Microsoft would not prevent malware or robberies. Turning over NoIP to Microsoft will prevent malware (at least in the short term).
- Silhouette 12y ago
  And what about any innocent users of Dynamic DNS who are currently suffering from the consequences of this action? No-IP's statement implies that this is somewhat widespread and due to Microsoft's inability to handle the responsibility it has somehow acquired in this case. Others on HN seem to be posting independent verification of this using standard tools from their own systems. In short, it is neither obvious that turning over NoIP's domains to Microsoft will prevent malware, nor clear what should happen if it doesn't, and it is certainly not clear that Microsoft will not cause more damage than they repair by acting in this way or what should happen if they do.
- djrogers 12y ago
  "Turning over NoIP to Microsoft will prevent malware" Really? Not according to anyone with anything resembling a passing familiarity with malware and it's distribution...
  - mpyne 12y ago
    In any event, the malware will at least not resolve to a no-ip.com address, since apparently nothing is able to consistently resolve to such addresses anymore...
    - moe 12y ago
      Unfortunately malware tends to be the one kind of No-Ip client that actually has (lots of) redundancy built into its peer discovery mechanism. Malware authors anticipate their communication channels to fail and usually account for it with a whole series of fallbacks. Quite unlike your NetGear or LinkSys home router, which many people suddenly can't reach anymore from e.g. their vacation home...

me1010 12y ago

I would imagine most DDNS services push traffic to a blacklisted node. Your ISP blacklists the D-IP so that you, as a lowly end-user, can't run something like an email server. So, I would imagine effectively sorting out which IP addresses are blacklisted because of malware infection or simply ISP infection would be very hard indeed...

chippy 12y ago

>It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users The article of this thread (that is the blog post of NoIP in response to MS's actions) which I'm sure we all read, says that NoIP themselves DID act to prevent abuse. They were not informed of this action by Microsoft.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]