Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

blogs.technet.com

1–10 of 261 posts

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#3
FWIW, in my experience, No-IP is very, very responsive and helpful to abuse complaints. Though that is the extent of my experience with them, I've never thought them to be actively harboring malicious activity (unlike, say, CloudFlare).

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#4
post #3

FWIW, in my experience, No-IP is very, very responsive and helpful to abuse complaints. Though that is the extent of my experience with them, I've never thought them to be actively harboring malicious activity (unlike, say, CloudFlare).

While I'm not familiar with the exact situation here, I suspect the real problem is that the malware domains are being automatically created en masse, and No-IP have been slow or reluctant to do anything to slow that down. Being responsive to complaints is good for small-scale problems involving individual domains, but basically useless for large-scale abuse.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#5
post #3

FWIW, in my experience, No-IP is very, very responsive and helpful to abuse complaints. Though that is the extent of my experience with them, I've never thought them to be actively harboring malicious activity (unlike, say, CloudFlare).

> unlike, say, CloudFlare

Care to elaborate?

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#7
post #3

FWIW, in my experience, No-IP is very, very responsive and helpful to abuse complaints. Though that is the extent of my experience with them, I've never thought them to be actively harboring malicious activity (unlike, say, CloudFlare).

I use their service and am a bit concerned that I've not heard about this until now and taking a look at their blog/website I see no information about this.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#10
post #5
post #3

FWIW, in my experience, No-IP is very, very responsive and helpful to abuse complaints. Though that is the extent of my experience with them, I've never thought them to be actively harboring malicious activity (unlike, say, CloudFlare).

> unlike, say, CloudFlare Care to elaborate?

A quick search shows exactly what he means. No elaboration necessary.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1235995

http://www.organicweb.com.au/17240/internet/cloudflare-secur...

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/the-new-normal-200-400-gb...

Post reply on HN