Riskiest Web Domains To Visit 106
wiredmikey writes "According to a report released today, .COM is the riskiest top-level domain, the riskiest country domain is Vietnam (.VN). Japan's .JP ranks as the safest country domain for the second year in a row and TRAVEL as the safest overall domain. It's interesting to note that .JP (currently $89.99 at GoDaddy) and .TRAVEL ($89.99 at Moniker) domains are also some of the most expensive domains. Are cybercriminals getting cheap with other people's credit cards? Or do the higher price make it more risky?"
The higher prices... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll just avoid all .com domains! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is quite possibly the most pointless report ever compiled.
not unit price, but total (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't the $89.99, but the $89.99 times 1000 junk domains.
Plus different TLD operators have different policies: some actually police who can register, requiring that the perp put some effort into pretending to be eligible to use them. .COM obviously does not.
There's also the factor that nobody has ever heard of .TRAVEL (so it looks bogus), but .COM is familiar and friendly-looking.
So you're telling me that.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Spammers use throwaway domains (Score:5, Insightful)
It is more expensive to register domains on a "premium" TLD. Since fewer domains are registered on the TLDs, there will be fewer used by spammers.
Because people black list domains used by spammers; URI-based blacklists, and RHS blacklists that blacklist by domain name. Spam filters start to recognize them, in any case.
So spammers register thousands of domains at the cheapest prices available (probably using stolen cards or multiple shell companies)
It follows, that spam might be reduced, with greater costs or qualifications to register a domain.
I for one would be in favor of a "paper" requirement.
ICANN should require that every domain have a primary 'contact address' verified by the registrar that is listed in public WHOIS.
ICANN should require registrars to verify BY PAPER certified+restricted mail to each new primary contact address, which must be an address in a country the registrar does business in, and may not be a PO Box or forwarded address.
The registrant should be required to SIGN a document mailed, and send it back, before the domain can be placed in the zone. And the signature must match the signature on the mail slip.
The slip signed must include a statement agreeing to the ICANN policies, and certifying that the signer is the principal, and the address provided belongs to the principal who owns the domain, and not a proxy, agent, or designee.
And from then on, that 'contact information' can be used by the owner of THAT account to designate as the org contact for domains registered or transferred. Using a different contact for a domain, requiring going through verification again.
For a minor inconvenience, spammers could be stopped.
Risk of WHAT? (Score:3, Insightful)
Risk of what? Risk of "falling in" and coming out of your trance 3 hours later with 20 new browser tabs open? tvtropes and wikipedia are both .orgs, so I bet .org is the riskiest TLD.
It's pretty funny: even if you RTFA it doesn't really say what the risk is. The fact that they quote McAfee implies that they're talking about a risk of Windows users deciding to download and install malware from websites, but this isn't actually stated.
Re:Even scamming is a business (Score:3, Insightful)
The best way to increase profit is by reducing cost.
I know this is verging on off topic, but I have to disagree with this completely. This reminds me of the corporate tactics of today. Surely if we aren't spending money, we'll make tons of money!
The only way this strategy ever works is when you are guaranteed to have maxed out on every single opportunity for growth, be it "vertical", "organic", "synergized" or otherwise. Cutting cost isn't always the best way to increase profit, its simply the easiest because it doesn't require any thought other than "get rid of that".
Sorry. Off topic but I see this so often at my company that every time I see it elsewhere I rage.
Any safer and it'd be the death penalty (Score:4, Insightful)
3. There isn`t even one single spam or other related issue with .bg domain, if someone try to use it for illegal purpuses register.bg will wipe the domain and file official complain to the police.
So, your website gets hacked and a page is uploaded which delivers malware to visitors. It wasn't your fault, you've kept it patched and backup the logs, but the hackers had a 0-day in their toolkit.
So now YOU lose your domain and go to jail? Nice system you got there.
Tealeaf statistics, retarded summary (Score:3, Insightful)
With a massive and diverse category like a top-level domain, the only statement you can make is "56% of malicious domains are .com"
Concluding, from this, that ".com is the riskiest domain" is like saying "people with long hair are the least likely to murder you" based on how many murders are committed by people with long hair. Actually, it fails on two counts: Firstly, 56% of malicious domains end in .com because most domains do. A better measure would be the relative percentage of malicious domains for a given TLD.
Even that statistic would only say anything about "risk" if you randomly picked a domain under the .com TLD (with perfectly equal chances for each). People don't use the internet like that; they use it by following links from popular sites to other popular sites. One of those neat little obvious-in-hindsight discoveries; there was a small search engine who made it big by using that.
Re:The higher prices... (Score:3, Insightful)
yes they should be doing it by default - and they did when the net started - i remember paying 35$ a year and was voice verified and a letter. now days they don't give a shit because if they don't verify then there is nothing anyone can do.
Re:Nice try (Score:4, Insightful)
Which they aren't doing already?
Just because one approach wouldn't stop all forms of spam, doesn't mean it couldn't significantly impact spam overall by eliminating one or more vectors.