VeriSign Looks At Earning Money on Domain Typos 288
Harald Paulsen writes "In a recent article Computer Business Review uncovers how VeriSign Inc is testing a service that would return a webpage if a user mistypes an URL. Basically all nonexistant domain queries could return an IP address and if the user was trying to access a page with a webbrowser they could get redirected to a search-engine, or worse: a page asking them to buy a domain. This is most certainly breaking the DNS standard and could be compared to cybersquatting (Hey Ford, want to have a banner ad whenever someone mistypes Toyota?). This is interesting in relation to an earlier story about register.com and holding-pages."
This is also done with domain suffixes. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is an abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
They should maintain the registry from a technical perspective, period.
Re:You can't cybersquat.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as someone registers the page and points it somewhere, the DNS listing for that address would take over from the typo-redirection.
Re:You can't cybersquat.... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least it's better than that frightening site that was/is (I'm not looking) at anazon.com. They had bestiality pictures on the main page!
Now here's why thats stupid.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If they wanted to be heroes... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's the problem with modern business thinkers. It's not about providing a service and seeing if you can get paid for it. It's about controlling channels and leveraging that control.
Seriously, I don't even suggest for a moment to anyone I know that they consider using Verisign for anything. They're the antitheses of trust.
Because the Internet is not just 'The Web' (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I already DID configure it to do that. So I don't need this alleged 'service', thankyouverymuch.
They're geniuses! (Score:5, Insightful)
If this takes effect, the story changes. FooBar knows that if any customer makes a typo, Verisign will get to show an ad for Widget.com. The only way to make this go away is to register all of the possible typo names. So FooBar registers every single possible domain name that could possibly be considered close to FooBar. Bad for FooBar. Bad for anybody who wants a domain name (now they will ALL be taken), but good for Verisign.
Ugh. No! (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, this would have to be some form of nameserver hack, not a root file hack(correct me if I'm wrong). But not all of the root servers are controlled by Verisign. Are those independant roots going to go along with this? Why should they?
Another reason the "R" word? (Score:5, Insightful)
More Verisign Shenanigans and Tomfoolery (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess with competitors closing the gap [geotrust.com] by offering virtually the same thing [geotrust.com] for a fraction of the price [rackshack.net], they must be getting desparate.
Re:This may be a stupid question.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Verisign abusing its com/net monopoly again (Score:5, Insightful)
I wrote the following letter [icann.org] to ICANN when it first cropped up:
Hello,
We already have the example of WLS in Verisign abusing its monopoly (and ICANN not stopping this abuse -- see www.stopwls.com [stopwls.com]).
Planning to monetize all typos by rewriting DNS error codes to instead point to itself (i.e. instead of returning error codes, it will no longer return errors, but instead bring the surfer to Verisign money-making pages) is yet another example of an abusive monopolist. See here [cbronline.com]:
Given the huge technical standards that Verisign would be violating, as well as the Intellectual Property and economic issues (e.g. a typo of one letter of your domain name could send a client to a search engine listing your competitor as #1, or worse; John Zuccarini is in JAIL for his typo-squatting!), can someone in the Names Council, or the ICANN Board that has a spinal column please pre-empt this Verisign move by forbidding unilateral action of such a nature by means of a vote of some kind, through the introduction of a motion?
From the comments at ICANNWatch [icannwatch.org] when this abuse last came up, perhaps the way to frame the motion is "gTLD Registry operators WILL return NXDOMAIN for ALL DNS queries for which where there is not a REGISTERED domain name." Period.
Once you start tampering with things at the DNS level, as Verisign is intending to do, you threaten the security and stability of the internet, as I think Vint Cerf properly recognizes (being right at least half of the time; bad call on WLS, but the courts and the US governmet will take care of that one eventually). For a company whose slogan is "The Value of Trust", Verisign makes a mockery of the caretaker role it has been given as guardian of the com/net registries. I trust them as much as I trust John Zuccarini.
If the US government had a problem with Microsoft embedding the Internet Explorer browser into its operating system, what will they think given Verisign has an even greater monopoly when it comes to DNS resolution? The power should belong to the users, who should have the choice (through their own software) how to resolve errors. That's why we have technical standards. Making that decision for them, by BREAKING technical standards and the applications that rely on those standards, as Verisign plans to do, and making loads of $$$$ while doing it, smacks of an abusive father-knows-best monopolist. Verisign is the father you wish you never had! Calling it a "service" adds insult to injury, as they did with WLS, especially when it's a MONOPOLY service, for which one has no choice. When you make a typo for a telephone call, does the 1-800 operator (AT&T, MCI, Neustar?) start playing paid jingles for your competitors, instead of telling you that you misdialled via a message?
Ultimately, folks know Verisign wants to milk every last penny out of its monopolies, and doesn't care who they have to step on to do so. Take a look at Games.TV [games.tv] which shows:
to understand what Verisign's goals are (Verisign runs .tv). Do you think you really own your .com domains? What price would Verisign like to charge you for your domains?? Once they wipe out some registrars through WLS, and other monopoly abuses, who will be left to stop them?
If Verisign is permitted to g
Re:It breaks no standard (Score:4, Insightful)
This isnt evil this is brillant business... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And people trust Verisign? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's another misuse of standards though. The "www" prefix is just a 'common' way of setting up websites. It's not required. It's no different from any other zone, for that matter.
If Verisign is going to only do these for 'www.' prefixed records, it may be a bit less of a problem, but it's still a problem. Among the things I can think up off the top of my head (I'm sure other people have mentioned these, and there are many more)
- Proxies would be caching extra data
- Web applications (or non-web) that validate user input by checking for existance of a domain are going to break
- For sites that don't have a www prefix, it could confuse users, since they'll see a (different) browser specific error message.
- Obviously, lockin to a certain vendor - suddenly verisign decides who you use for searches, and what happens when you make a typo, instead of your browser settings.
this is just YASTAPTDE (yet another solution to a problem that doesn't exist)Kick 'em hard (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy work-around (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd be willing to help add a patch to Bind 9 to check for DNS responses that are "from verisign's redirection" and respond with an empty response.
This is REALLY quite annoying for a 3 pinky typist like me !
Re:This is already done (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ugh. No! (Score:3, Insightful)
.nu (Score:3, Insightful)
system instability caused by Verisign? (Score:1, Insightful)
Scenario:
1. An application is written which contains an undetected bug: when it starts it first tries to bind to some non-existent hostname (i.e. somehostname.com). It's default behaviour in name lookup failure is to log a warning and bind to 0.0.0.0.
Obviously this application could easily slip through testing and go into production.
2. Verisign implements changes, and suddenly somehostname.com come resolves. Application is restarted (perhaps scheduled restart) and fails to start with an error as the app cannot bind to the external ip address returned by verisign.
System is now down and
==
This scenario is not all _that_ unlikely. There is a lot of applications out there... after all, how likely are typos?
==
If Verisign goes through with this, it is a complete and utter abuse of their position.
-Hugh
(and no I didn't write an application like this.. except perhaps _your_ airport traffic control / banking system
Re:This may be a stupid question.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Without the DNS returning an error for domain-not-found, I can't know if mis-typed. That is error correcting feedback (for me, not the computer) and I want it left on!
This is not an empty channel; this is not an unused resource, and what verisign are proposing is theft.
Not that that should come as a huge surpise to anyone, I suppose.
Easy to stop--and impossible too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time we spend money (or not), we are making a choice. When we buy something, we are buying a product based on our needs, wants, perceptions, and beliefs. When you buy something from a company, you are supporting that company and their actions. When you decide against buying something from a company which you would like to have, you are making a statement that you will NOT support them, based on...whatever you're not supporting, be it sleazy advertising (spam, or the Ford example), bad corporate behaviour (Microsoft, the major RIAA members), or unethical products (Tobacco companies).
PERSONAL ACTION is an easy easy easy easy easy way to prevent most corporate excess. Unfortunately, it's also nearly impossible, because not enough people are willing to implement it. "Yeah, I've heard about the problems with the RIAA, but I want the new (x) album." Even such things as, "my old stereo is fantastic, but this year's model is NEWER (with less features, poorer specs, etc.)" defeat a big chunk of personal action.
Can you imagine what would happen to companies like VeriSign if EVERYONE actually made all of their decisions consciously, and let the companies know about it? Why, we might have corporate responsibility.
Re:Microsoft could do this already (Score:2, Insightful)
User-agents (browsers) must have control over what happens when they encounter error codes. If yours does something you don't like, you should complain to it's manufacturer (MS in this case) or choose a different product (such as Mozilla). What you should not do, is press for outside regulation. That type of thing merely serves to repress innovation.
What Verisign is doing, however is completely different. They are interfering with the system of error codes that browsers rely upon to properly interpret conditions under which they operate. Verisign wants to change the DNS error code system so that user agents will no longer be able to determine if they have reached a legitimate website or not. That can only have negative effects, regardless of what Verisign claims.
Re:Inverted Typos [ot] (Score:2, Insightful)