Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

blogs.technet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 261 posts

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#131

Post by userbinator »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #34
nostromo wrote: post #26

According to Reuters, Microsoft is only sending traffic from computers that are infected with malware to Microsoft instead of No-IP. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/30/us-cybercrime-micro... That may still make people uncomfortable, but it seems much less egregious than Microsoft taking control of No-IP's domains, which is what this press release implies. Edit: the reuters article is in error here, not the Micr…

> Microsoft is only sending traffic from computers that are infected to Microsoft instead of No-IP. Unfortunately that's false. See below: dig -t ns no-ip.biz ; > DiG 9.9.2-P2 > -t ns no-ip.biz ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4000 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;no-ip.biz. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: no-ip.biz. 7154 IN NS ns8.microsoftinternetsafety.net. n…

The funny thing is that "microsoftinternetsafety.net" sounds just like a domain that a fake antivirus software would use.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#132

Post by bradleyjg »

tptacek wrote: post #53
alasdair_ wrote: post #17

"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…

It's an ex parte order, so presumably Vitalwerks didn't show up in court despite the summons? If you filed for a TRO against Microsoft and their lawyers ignored it, something bad might happen to them too.

Ex parte means "from (by or for) one party", the judge acts upon the moving party's request without hearing from the other party. They are supposed to be rare and meet a high bar -- generally involving emergencies (and occasionally involving actions that need to remain secret).

Given that the allegations span many months, it's hard to see how it was an appropriate form of action here. I'd be very interested to see if there was a written decision granting the TRO.

Edit: This appears to be it http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Second%20Amended%20Order...

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#133

Post by zanny »

gtirloni wrote: post #121

1 - Court seems to quick to grant Microsoft control of the domains 2 - No-IP statement that they have an open channel with Microsoft executives but never (never?) received a complain from MS about any malicious activity is doubtful (sure MS can produce evidence to the contrary) 3 - What was the urgency and how was this presented to the judge? Personally I don't feel the urgency to use a takeover maneuver in this case…

> - Our governments are so inept at fighting cyber-crime that instead of sending the request to a govt-regulated cyber-security unit they had to trust Microsoft's with the enforcement? That's sad.

If this were true, I could sleep easier at night. I doubt it - the judge in question was probably just paid off or otherwise influenced to give MS just insane power, while probably being ignorant of networking in the first place.

I can't think of a software problem that is best served through the violent arm of the state.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#134

Post by dsl »

hendersoon wrote: post #77

It's just plain outrageous that this court order was granted. It essentially puts no-ip out of business when they were not complicit in anything illegal. It took me 5 minutes to switch my completely legitimate hosts over to ddns.net. I'm sure the evil botnet owners have backup hostnames and will do the same, or more likely switch to another provider entirely. The end result will be a short-lived dip in criminal activ…

No-ip was complicit in the illegal activity.

If you use a car wash that is also laundering money, your legitimate need for a clean car is not a defense against shutting the business down.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#135

Post by MBCook »

zanny wrote: post #133
gtirloni wrote: post #121

1 - Court seems to quick to grant Microsoft control of the domains 2 - No-IP statement that they have an open channel with Microsoft executives but never (never?) received a complain from MS about any malicious activity is doubtful (sure MS can produce evidence to the contrary) 3 - What was the urgency and how was this presented to the judge? Personally I don't feel the urgency to use a takeover maneuver in this case…

> - Our governments are so inept at fighting cyber-crime that instead of sending the request to a govt-regulated cyber-security unit they had to trust Microsoft's with the enforcement? That's sad. If this were true, I could sleep easier at night. I doubt it - the judge in question was probably just paid off or otherwise influenced to give MS just insane power, while probably being ignorant of networking in the first…

> the judge in question was probably just paid off or otherwise influenced

That's a hell of an accusation.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#136

Post by MBCook »

JacobEdelman wrote: post #84
cwyers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition , if it's court-authorized, it's not vigilantism.

If a court legalizes Batman then its court authorized, but he's still not a publicly controlled entity and those still a vigilante.

Vigilante. N.

A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHROITY, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#137

Post by cstrat »

userbinator wrote: post #131
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft is only sending traffic from computers that are infected to Microsoft instead of No-IP. Unfortunately that's false. See below: dig -t ns no-ip.biz ; > DiG 9.9.2-P2 > -t ns no-ip.biz ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4000 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;no-ip.biz. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: no-ip.biz. 7154 IN NS ns8.microsoftinternetsafety.net. n…

The funny thing is that "microsoftinternetsafety.net" sounds just like a domain that a fake antivirus software would use.

so true, I would not trust that domain at all.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#138

Post by regd005 »

dsl wrote: post #134
hendersoon wrote: post #77

It's just plain outrageous that this court order was granted. It essentially puts no-ip out of business when they were not complicit in anything illegal. It took me 5 minutes to switch my completely legitimate hosts over to ddns.net. I'm sure the evil botnet owners have backup hostnames and will do the same, or more likely switch to another provider entirely. The end result will be a short-lived dip in criminal activ…

No-ip was complicit in the illegal activity. If you use a car wash that is also laundering money, your legitimate need for a clean car is not a defense against shutting the business down.

So if some number of people use cars for illegal activities should we shut down the gas stations that they use to fuel them?

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#140

Post by mst »

dubfan wrote: post #123
eastdakota wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Pardon the copy-and-paste reply, but it's a perfect opportunity for me to publish up a draft blog post I wrote half a year ago in anticipation of a Brian Krebs post on the topic of Booter sites. Brian's article didn't turn out nasty enough to warrant a response, but I've had the post sitting around in by drafts folder for a while and it addresses your points as well. ======== Why a Hunger Games-Like Vision for…

> Booter sites, you may argue, are different. But the key question is where do you draw the line. If a site says you can push a button and launch an attack should we take that down? What about one that has a phone number you can call? Or gives you instructions on launching the attack yourself? CloudFlare is many things, but one thing we are not is the Internet cops. That is incredibly disingenuous. It's simple: if yo…

He appears to choose to let the decision as to whether they 'knowingly facilitate an illegal service' be taken by law enforcement rather than by Cloudflare.

So I don't see anything disingenuous whether you disagree or not.

Post reply on HN