Live data from Hacker News

Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

destructuring.net

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

#22

My workaround for this was to add a TXT record for *.mydomain.com that just returns a string like "Unused". This seems to stop them from hijacking any subdomains, and it's not an A record so undefined subdomain names do not resolve, just like if you had not defined them in the first place. (Workaround shouldn't be necessary of course, but this kind of bullshit is par for the course with cheap hosting companies.)

This is a good workaround, and I am voting you up in the hopes that others see it.

Re: Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

#23

My workaround for this was to add a TXT record for *.mydomain.com that just returns a string like "Unused". This seems to stop them from hijacking any subdomains, and it's not an A record so undefined subdomain names do not resolve, just like if you had not defined them in the first place. (Workaround shouldn't be necessary of course, but this kind of bullshit is par for the course with cheap hosting companies.)

Confirmed to work with name.com

Before: Parked page After: Bing search (thanks IE)

Re: Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

#24
Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@destructuring.net and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Re: Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

#25
post #19

My workaround for this was to add a TXT record for *.mydomain.com that just returns a string like "Unused". This seems to stop them from hijacking any subdomains, and it's not an A record so undefined subdomain names do not resolve, just like if you had not defined them in the first place. (Workaround shouldn't be necessary of course, but this kind of bullshit is par for the course with cheap hosting companies.)

Just fyi, mydomain.com is a real domain, example.com is better to use for illustrative purposes.

Amusingly mydomain.com is a domain registrar. I wonder how many people stumble upon it by accident.

Re: Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

#28

My workaround for this was to add a TXT record for *.mydomain.com that just returns a string like "Unused". This seems to stop them from hijacking any subdomains, and it's not an A record so undefined subdomain names do not resolve, just like if you had not defined them in the first place. (Workaround shouldn't be necessary of course, but this kind of bullshit is par for the course with cheap hosting companies.)

While it is probably not relevant for must users, there is a subtle difference between "There exists no A record for x.example.com" and "There is no x.example.com".

Re: Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

#29
post #18
post #2

It's really not that hard to run your own nameserver. While I obviously disagree with what they're doing, I think you should have been running your own in the first place.

It's really not hard at all. I wrote a blog post about my setup a few months ago[1]. To summarize: djbdns + a few VPS instances which can be very tiny + puppet. [1]: https://bugsplat.info/2012-12-31-how-i-run-my-own-dns.html

Instead of djbdns, take a look at NSD, so that you get IPv6 support, and DNSSEC support!

Re: Name.com hijacks non-existent subdomains and redirects to their servers

#30
Name.com is surprisingly open about this spammy practice, and even highlights methods for circumventing it:

http://www.name.com/blog/general/domains/2012/01/pro-tip-how...

Of course, it would be better for them to simply charge a bit more and get rid of it altogether, especially since it breaks standards.

Post reply on HN