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

No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

noip.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 116 posts

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#11

Post by jpgvm »

norswap wrote: post #4
jpgvm wrote: post #3

This smells like BS, this also isn't the first time that other entities have had to step in to cleanup their crap. Especially this quote: "Apparently, the Microsoft infrastructure is not able to handle the billions of queries from our customers." Azure DNS, Microsoft.com, Bing. Yeah, all of those already require billions of DNS queries. I don't doubt things are not working correctly, but insinuating Microsoft can't h…

I think what is insinuated is that they botched the job, not that they're not technically capable of doing it.

I can agree with the fact they probably botched it (potentially on purpose), but the way it's articulated in the No-IP reply leaves little ambiguity that it was intended as an attack on their technical capability.

I am not in love with what Microsoft did here but No-IP is not doing the best job of defending their position.

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#12

Post by jpgvm »

ddod wrote: post #9

The comments here are surprisingly pro-Microsoft. I'd personally rather deal with spam and botnets over a corporation legally being able to take over the DNS of other companies due to the actions of users of a service. Despite pretty clear slippery-slope arguments, I recognize this isn't a universal opinion. There are many people who would like to curb cyber-bullying at the expense of freedom of speech or curb terror…

I don't agree with the precedent set here but it does seem No-IP was doing a pretty bad job of responding to mass abuse.

While I do take issue to the actions of Microsoft and the courts I also think No-IP hasn't done themselves any favours and are at least partially to blame for this coming to pass.

It stands to reason that it's close to impossible to create a free service that is impervious to abuse however it's still their responsibility to avoid mass abuse of their platform to orchestrate botnets.

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#13

Post by DangerousPie »

ddod wrote: post #9

The comments here are surprisingly pro-Microsoft. I'd personally rather deal with spam and botnets over a corporation legally being able to take over the DNS of other companies due to the actions of users of a service. Despite pretty clear slippery-slope arguments, I recognize this isn't a universal opinion. There are many people who would like to curb cyber-bullying at the expense of freedom of speech or curb terror…

It wasn't actually due to the actions of their user though, was it? It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users.

From what Cisco and Microsoft are reporting NoIP is (was?) a hotspot of botnet activity. If NoIP was not doing anything against that Microsoft's lawsuit doesn't sound that unreasonable.

How this was actually implemented in the end (MS just taking over the DNS) does seem a bit strange to me though. They should at least have been taking over by a government agent.

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#15

Post by ggchappell »

If this action is troubling, then we need to stop putting the blame in the wrong place.

Microsoft does not have the power to seize domains. A federal court order made that happen. This order is (apparently) the responsibility of the U.S. District Court of Nevada. If you want to blame someone, then blame the court.

Obnoxious people ask courts to do obnoxious things every day. Good courts do not comply.

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#16

Post by ddod »

DangerousPie wrote: post #13
ddod wrote: post #9

The comments here are surprisingly pro-Microsoft. I'd personally rather deal with spam and botnets over a corporation legally being able to take over the DNS of other companies due to the actions of users of a service. Despite pretty clear slippery-slope arguments, I recognize this isn't a universal opinion. There are many people who would like to curb cyber-bullying at the expense of freedom of speech or curb terror…

It wasn't actually due to the actions of their user though, was it? It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users. From what Cisco and Microsoft are reporting NoIP is (was?) a hotspot of botnet activity. If NoIP was not doing anything against that Microsoft's lawsuit doesn't sound that unreasonable. How this was actually implemented in the end (MS just taking over t…

I think some related arguments to your point are that you could say ISPs don't do enough to prevent pirated content from being transmitted on their networks or that Muslims don't do enough to prevent Islamist extremists in their communities. These claims might be true, but should companies or governments be stepping in to solve these situations? Who is mandating that they need to be "solved"? What are the consequences of solving things these ways? Could there be more nuanced implications than the solving of the thing they're trying to fix on the face of it?

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#17

Post by ggchappell »

rdl wrote: post #6
norswap wrote: post #5

Wait, how can a company seize the domains of another?

I agree, it's a bit troublesome that one private company can do this to another, vs. the government doing so.

It is the government. Specifically, the order was issued (it appears) by the U.S. District Court of Nevada.

See also my root-level comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7968365

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#18

Post by randunel »

So when will Canonical file an ex-parte TRO against Microsoft for failing to secure Windows XP against malware? It would be nice to see a windows update which upgrades to linux :P

Later edit: Isn't this ironic, how most botnet members are running Microsoft's software, yet they get to do this?

Re: No-IP's Formal Statement on Microsoft Takedown

#19

Post by Omniusaspirer »

ntakasaki wrote: post #2

They also deny Cisco's allegations here. http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/02/12/cisco-malware-report/ It doesn't compute that Cisco is casting blame on them and Microsoft got a court order when all they had to do is send an email. It's kind of strange, they're probably unable to keep up with the abuse reports and validating them or something. There are a lot of dynamic DNS providers so why do the bad guys pick them for…

Presumably because they have a free basic service if you use one of their subdomains. While other companies I'm not aware of might offer the same I've yet to stumble across them.
Post reply on HN