7 ms·

I get really irritated with companies that put absolutely no effort into cleaning up their services on their own. When nearly 20,000 of No-IP's accounts are bei

I get really irritated with companies that put absolutely no effort into cleaning up their services on their own. When nearly 20,000 of No-IP's accounts are being used for malicious purposes, crying about how Microsoft didn't give them any warning just makes them seem incompetent. There was another article recently on HN about some free tunneling service whose creator tried to automate account shutdowns whenever his ISP sent a complaint letter, which I found to be similarly annoying -- these services are essentially forcing other companies to spend money to do the work that they themselves should be doing. IMO No-IP is responsible for its legitimate customers' outages. Waiting around for other companies to do your job for you will result in ham-handed solutions like this one.

manicdee 12y ago
How many of Microsoft's customers are being used for malicious purposes? Am I as an ISP allowed to summarily disconnect all Microsoft customers from my network?
the_ancient 12y ago
It is a very dangerous notion that the federal courts can seize the domains of one company and just hand them over to another company... It was bad enough when ICE was doing it, this takes that bad practice to a whole other level...... What is even worse is they got the order ex parte, meaning No IP did not have a chance to defend or explain themselves to the judge before their business was irreparably harmed by the actions of their competitor. Even if the malware claim is true (which I doubt because I trust MS about as much as the NSA) No IP should have been given basic Due Process to explain their side to the Judge before their business was harmed.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- danielweber 12y ago
  Question of fact: did the court attempt to contact No-IP.com? Or did they attempt contact, and No-IP.com failed to show up?
  - the_ancient 12y ago
    Courts never contact anyone. It is normally up to the Plaintiff to "Serve" the defendant. Except when the Plaintiff seeks an ex parte motion,order,etc which allows to court to act with out contacting the defendant. Further if this would have been a situation where contact was attempted and failed it would have been a "default" judgment/order not ex parte
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Fine, did any party before the court attempt to serve No-IP.com? If No-IP.com avoided service like Charles Carreon, I have little sympathy. If there was no attempt at service, that's a different story.
      - the_ancient 12y ago
        Perhaps one should read my full post, as I answer this question in my "Further" second paragraph I think you are just grasping to find any justification for what MS and the courts have done here... There are none.
        bitJericho 12y ago
        Read the order, it's floating around on the other thread. The justification is laughable at best, purjury at worst.
        DanBC 12y ago
        HN has an international audience. Many people here do not speak English as a first language and you could help those people by being a bit clearer with your communication.
jdong 12y ago
And how is No-IP supposed to find these malware hosts? Seems to me like they'd have less capability to do so than an antivirus company that collects thousands if not millions of malware samples each day.
pling 12y ago
Lets be honest about the problem and this isn't some slashdot-esque rant: a) Windows is a piece of crap when it comes to staying clean. If it wasn't, Microsoft wouldn't have to go after people like this. Not joking but I clean out a fair number of PCs every year and they are crawling with malware. b) Users are dumb and install any old crap on kit if prompted to. Microsoft's SmartScreen did very little to prevent this. In the fallout from this, people are getting hurt. End users are getting their PCs and data stuffed and companies like this lose their reputation and business because they are a convenient mule (as are the end users) for malware pushers who's job has been made easy. And don't give me the crap about probability based on the sheer number of windows machines or the plain bullshit security statistics. They're a pretty easy target as the architecture of Windows is incredibly complicated and they're playing plug the holes rather than designing it properly to start with. For ref, I know the NT kernel, win32 and CLR inside out and no longer would I poke it with a stick. So, there's nothing here that's unique to no-ip.com's case. The problem is that Microsoft spewed out crap for years and people are suffering because the only way they can contain it is to scorch the earth.
- wfjackson 12y ago
  >They're a pretty easy target as the architecture of Windows is incredibly complicated and they're playing plug the holes rather than designing it properly to start with. For ref, I know the NT kernel, win32 and CLR inside out and no longer would I poke it with a stick. Not sure what you mean by that. Does Linux have any protections beyond Windows to stop malware? Why does Android have a malware problem? This is the text of a post I made yesterday in reply to a similar comment: How can they patch it in their product without turning desktop Windows into something like iOS or Windows Phone/RT? Even Android has a ton of malware so the notion that Windows is somehow more hole ridden than other platforms stopped being true starting about 10 years ago with their Secure computing initiative. If the user can install Firefox, they can install malware. If Firefox doesn't need to get permission from MS for their next version, Windows cannot distinguish between Firefox.exe and Codec_Flash_Shady.exe. Sandboxing will disable system level utilities. MS is capable of making secure OSes. How many viruses and trojans do the 3 Xboxes, Windows Phone and RT have? Even Windows Server is pretty secure(atleast as secure as Linux) unless the admins start browsing on it. Malware is a real threat to any popular OS unless third party apps are entirely blocked or restricted by the use of a approval based App Store. Windows gives much more control to the user, which is why many users are able to stay away from infections. And it's ironic that you're blaming MS here instead of the folks that propagate it(including a YC company https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/17343321692/why-are-y-combinator-andreessen-horowitz-backing-drive-by-toolbaradware-installer.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/17343321692/why-a...) and people who install it(users). Remember the shitstorm that was raised against MS on here and elsewhere when they tried to secure users by preventing undetectable rootkits by enabling Secure Boot?
spindritf 12y ago
They claim it was 2k out of 4M. Goguen said while Microsoft claimed that there were more than 18,000 malicious hostnames involved, no-ip.com could only find a little more than 2,000 from that list that were still active as of Monday morning. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/microsoft-darkens-4mm-sites-in-malware-fight/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/microsoft-darkens-4mm-sit...
Omniusaspirer 12y ago
I don't think I could possibly disagree with you more. It is in no way No-IP's job to protect Microsoft from malware yet by all accounts they employed both automated detection as well as a (very timely) manual reporting option. How can you possibly sit back and claim they're "incompetent" when you have absolutely zero knowledge of what happened within the company to address this issue? Microsoft wants to complain No-IP wasn't doing their job to their standards as if how they feel about it matters in the slightest. Oh, and from the numbers I saw it was 12,000 accounts were deemed to be complicit in malware distribution by a 3rd party security firm. Another user posted they have ~4 million accounts total. If those numbers are accurate that means only .003% of total accounts had anything to do with malware; Sounds like a damn good job from the No-IP guys to me. Even if you manage to delude yourself into thinking Microsoft is in the right in their domain seizure then you still can't justify the sneaky way they approached this with no forewarning to No-IP customers or even No-IP themselves. Had they actually established a dialogue maybe I wouldn't be experiencing any outages since they could have actually set up sufficient infrastructure in advance to handle the No-IP server load. And yes, I actually used No-IP domains myself for completely legitimate purposes and am still unable to make use of any of the seized domains. No-IP is absolutely not responsible for this, that blame falls 100% on Microsoft and I honestly think you'd need to be misinformed or a Microsoft employee to feel otherwise.

manicdee 12y ago

How many of Microsoft's customers are being used for malicious purposes? Am I as an ISP allowed to summarily disconnect all Microsoft customers from my network?

the_ancient 12y ago

It is a very dangerous notion that the federal courts can seize the domains of one company and just hand them over to another company... It was bad enough when ICE was doing it, this takes that bad practice to a whole other level...... What is even worse is they got the order ex parte, meaning No IP did not have a chance to defend or explain themselves to the judge before their business was irreparably harmed by the actions of their competitor. Even if the malware claim is true (which I doubt because I trust MS about as much as the NSA) No IP should have been given basic Due Process to explain their side to the Judge before their business was harmed.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
danielweber 12y ago
Question of fact: did the court attempt to contact No-IP.com? Or did they attempt contact, and No-IP.com failed to show up?
- the_ancient 12y ago
  Courts never contact anyone. It is normally up to the Plaintiff to "Serve" the defendant. Except when the Plaintiff seeks an ex parte motion,order,etc which allows to court to act with out contacting the defendant. Further if this would have been a situation where contact was attempted and failed it would have been a "default" judgment/order not ex parte
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Fine, did any party before the court attempt to serve No-IP.com? If No-IP.com avoided service like Charles Carreon, I have little sympathy. If there was no attempt at service, that's a different story.
    - the_ancient 12y ago
      Perhaps one should read my full post, as I answer this question in my "Further" second paragraph I think you are just grasping to find any justification for what MS and the courts have done here... There are none.
      - bitJericho 12y ago
        Read the order, it's floating around on the other thread. The justification is laughable at best, purjury at worst.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        HN has an international audience. Many people here do not speak English as a first language and you could help those people by being a bit clearer with your communication.

jdong 12y ago

And how is No-IP supposed to find these malware hosts? Seems to me like they'd have less capability to do so than an antivirus company that collects thousands if not millions of malware samples each day.

pling 12y ago

Lets be honest about the problem and this isn't some slashdot-esque rant: a) Windows is a piece of crap when it comes to staying clean. If it wasn't, Microsoft wouldn't have to go after people like this. Not joking but I clean out a fair number of PCs every year and they are crawling with malware. b) Users are dumb and install any old crap on kit if prompted to. Microsoft's SmartScreen did very little to prevent this. In the fallout from this, people are getting hurt. End users are getting their PCs and data stuffed and companies like this lose their reputation and business because they are a convenient mule (as are the end users) for malware pushers who's job has been made easy. And don't give me the crap about probability based on the sheer number of windows machines or the plain bullshit security statistics. They're a pretty easy target as the architecture of Windows is incredibly complicated and they're playing plug the holes rather than designing it properly to start with. For ref, I know the NT kernel, win32 and CLR inside out and no longer would I poke it with a stick. So, there's nothing here that's unique to no-ip.com's case. The problem is that Microsoft spewed out crap for years and people are suffering because the only way they can contain it is to scorch the earth.

wfjackson 12y ago
>They're a pretty easy target as the architecture of Windows is incredibly complicated and they're playing plug the holes rather than designing it properly to start with. For ref, I know the NT kernel, win32 and CLR inside out and no longer would I poke it with a stick. Not sure what you mean by that. Does Linux have any protections beyond Windows to stop malware? Why does Android have a malware problem? This is the text of a post I made yesterday in reply to a similar comment: How can they patch it in their product without turning desktop Windows into something like iOS or Windows Phone/RT? Even Android has a ton of malware so the notion that Windows is somehow more hole ridden than other platforms stopped being true starting about 10 years ago with their Secure computing initiative. If the user can install Firefox, they can install malware. If Firefox doesn't need to get permission from MS for their next version, Windows cannot distinguish between Firefox.exe and Codec_Flash_Shady.exe. Sandboxing will disable system level utilities. MS is capable of making secure OSes. How many viruses and trojans do the 3 Xboxes, Windows Phone and RT have? Even Windows Server is pretty secure(atleast as secure as Linux) unless the admins start browsing on it. Malware is a real threat to any popular OS unless third party apps are entirely blocked or restricted by the use of a approval based App Store. Windows gives much more control to the user, which is why many users are able to stay away from infections. And it's ironic that you're blaming MS here instead of the folks that propagate it(including a YC company https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/17343321692/why-are-y-combinator-andreessen-horowitz-backing-drive-by-toolbaradware-installer.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130115/17343321692/why-a...) and people who install it(users). Remember the shitstorm that was raised against MS on here and elsewhere when they tried to secure users by preventing undetectable rootkits by enabling Secure Boot?

spindritf 12y ago

They claim it was 2k out of 4M. Goguen said while Microsoft claimed that there were more than 18,000 malicious hostnames involved, no-ip.com could only find a little more than 2,000 from that list that were still active as of Monday morning. http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/microsoft-darkens-4mm-sites-in-malware-fight/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/microsoft-darkens-4mm-sit...

Omniusaspirer 12y ago

I don't think I could possibly disagree with you more. It is in no way No-IP's job to protect Microsoft from malware yet by all accounts they employed both automated detection as well as a (very timely) manual reporting option. How can you possibly sit back and claim they're "incompetent" when you have absolutely zero knowledge of what happened within the company to address this issue? Microsoft wants to complain No-IP wasn't doing their job to their standards as if how they feel about it matters in the slightest. Oh, and from the numbers I saw it was 12,000 accounts were deemed to be complicit in malware distribution by a 3rd party security firm. Another user posted they have ~4 million accounts total. If those numbers are accurate that means only .003% of total accounts had anything to do with malware; Sounds like a damn good job from the No-IP guys to me. Even if you manage to delude yourself into thinking Microsoft is in the right in their domain seizure then you still can't justify the sneaky way they approached this with no forewarning to No-IP customers or even No-IP themselves. Had they actually established a dialogue maybe I wouldn't be experiencing any outages since they could have actually set up sufficient infrastructure in advance to handle the No-IP server load. And yes, I actually used No-IP domains myself for completely legitimate purposes and am still unable to make use of any of the seized domains. No-IP is absolutely not responsible for this, that blame falls 100% on Microsoft and I honestly think you'd need to be misinformed or a Microsoft employee to feel otherwise.