Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains • Hacker News Board

> On June 26, the court granted our request and made Microsoft the DNS authority for the company’s 23 free No-IP domains, allowing us to identify and route all known bad traffic to the Microsoft sinkhole and classify the identified threats.

Something about this bothers me. So the courts granted MS the rights to essentially take over No-IP's DNS in order to "identify" ... "bad traffic?"

The implications of this are... chilling. As much as I want to reserve judgement, this makes me uneasy (malware aside).

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#15

Post by makmanalp » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 9:04 PM UTC

nvr219 wrote: post #13

kqr2 wrote: post #6

Any alternatives for free dynamic DNS?

Hurricane Electric: https://dns.he.net/

Whoa, he.net is alive and kicking. These guys used to run an efnet server back in the day.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#16

Post by vfclists » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 9:05 PM UTC

Loads of self-congratulating tripe. Microsoft why don't you simply provide free OS upgrades or fixes for the millions of XP computers out there? They are not going anywhere soon.

Next thing we know your lawyers and lobbyists are going to come up with some legislative wheeze and you will be running the biggest botnet in the world. You created the problem so fix it yourself.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#17

Post by alasdair_ » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 9:05 PM UTC

"On June 19, Microsoft filed for an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) from the U.S. District Court for Nevada against No-IP. On June 26, the court granted our request and made Microsoft the DNS authority for the company’s 23 free No-IP domains, allowing us to identify and route all known bad traffic to the Microsoft sinkhole and classify the identified threats. "

How can this be legal? Does this mean that if I get malware from a hotmail.com address, I can file for a TRO against Microsoft and control their domains?

I honestly don't understand why Microsoft should be given this ability.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#18

Post by jlogsdon » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 9:06 PM UTC

nothxbro wrote: post #10

jlogsdon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Thanks, what I searched for didn't really bring anything up.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#19

Post by lucb1e » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 9:07 PM UTC

nothxbro wrote: post #10

jlogsdon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

In all 3 links this is the only relevant part I've been able to find regarding them being malicious:

> Heck, if the DDoS for hire services protect themselves against DDoS attacks by using CloudFlare then CloudFlare must be damn good!

So they protect their customers from DDoS attacks. All of them. I see nothing bad in this. Saying they shouldn't is like saying a government should put all criminals together in a village and then have them perform criminal activity on each other.

The link to Kreb's is basically the same: people protecting themselves. Should CloudFlare play for judge and ban people that do not violate their terms? Because I'm sure they boot people that perform illegal activities on their network or otherwise harm their network from within, but I can see why they don't proactively take down any website mentioning "we offer DDoS attacks". Like I said before, that person A kills another person doesn't mean that another person may kill person A, at least not within our current laws. Even if it did, is CloudFlare the one who should be calling the shots?

Finally your first link is someone complaining to CloudFlare about LOIC (or related perl scripts launched from VPSes) and cloudflare responds that they see no harmful traffic and that logs or other details should be attached. Merely saying "hey I'm having trouble" has never gotten anyone further in resolving issues. That's why we have logs so that CloudFlare can check their own logs to see what happened. Perfectly reasonable.

So yeah elaboration is necessary. I do not see why CloudFlare is harmful.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#20

Post by runarb » Mon, Jun 30, 2014, 9:08 PM UTC

Has I understood this correctly? Microsoft, a private company, has been granted the right to filter all dns traffic, and choose what will bee forward to this other company, No-IP. No-IP will so bee allowed to run there service for the remaining customers Microsoft approves?

Is this common practices in the us legal system? Would it work like this in the offline world also? If my neighbor sometimes had loud parties that bothered me, could I be granted the right to stand in front of his door and turn any potential troublemakers away.