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

71–80 of 116 posts

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

#71

Post by tonywebster »

wfjackson wrote: post #35
Mandatum wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We assume that this is on-going (No-IP was the go-to since 2004) and Microsoft has finally decided they'd be able to take it over. Unfortunately they didn't plan enough to anticipate the amount of traffic they'd receive. If I was No-IP, I'd be out for blood. Someone sends a court order to essentially handicap your business, putting it at risk for the sake of malevolent users. This was a situation where No-IP's "resol…

>Someone sends a court order to essentially handicap your business, putting it at risk for the sake of malevolent users. "Someone" in this is case is a federal district court which did that because there was no communication from No-IP. MS does not have the power to send court orders. The court ordered No-IP to send a response and looks like there was no response. >If I was No-IP, I'd be out for blood. Who's blood?

> "...which did that because there was no communication from No-IP ... The court ordered No-IP to send a response and looks like there was no response."

That's absolutely false. Microsoft explicitly asked the court to allow them to file the entire case under seal, and to obtain ex parte emergency relief without notifying the defendants.

The TRO states: “...good cause and the interest of justice require that this Order be Granted without prior notice to Defendants, and accordingly, Microsoft is relieved of the duty to provide Defendants with prior notice of Microsoft’s motion.”

The judge signed that. No-IP did not receive any advance warning or service by Microsoft's own admission, and No-IP's blog post confirms they weren't served until today.

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

#72

Post by pbhjpbhj »

outside1234 wrote: post #40
gnu8 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we file the same action against Microsoft? I would like to take their domains for my own purposes, which are obviously far more worthy than what Microsoft is doing with them (I swear).

Microsoft would respond. No-ip.com didn't respond.

>No-ip.com didn't respond. //

Presumably you have a link where we can see the notarised documentation and proof of delivery of that which was sent to No-IP that they failed to respond to?

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

#74

Post by pbhjpbhj »

secalex wrote: post #70

The Microsoft hate here is unfounded and ill informed. Those of us working defense at large organizations have known for a while that No-IP domains are wretched hives of scum and villainy. Any company with a threat model that includes at least one of a diverse set of characters ranging from malware authors to organized crime to nation state teams should be logging all DNS requests and treating any request to a No-IP…

>No-IP domains are wretched hives of scum and villainy //

Is that rather like saying "Bing domains are full of malware". You appear to be claiming that No-IP are complicit in the actual hosting of content that gets pointed to with No-IP domains. MS facilitates a ton of illegal activity, I could spin up a Windows box and break 5 laws before bedtime. Of course shutting down MS would harm some innocent bystanders but handing their windowsupdate domains over to Google will lead to less malware, less spam, less successful scamming.

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

#75

Post by pbhjpbhj »

mpyne wrote: post #53
randunel wrote: post #18

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?

Creating the tools by which anyone might theoretically spawn abuse is not the same as proactively hosting those engaging in the same. E.g. one might reasonably disrupt a farmer's market known to be selling beef infected with salmonella without banning cows of the same breed across the world.

Would you shut down the printing company that makes the flyers that tell people where the market is though? Oh, and hand over the presses to a local supermarket to keep printing the flyers but with the convert replacement of the address of the supermarket as the place to source your meat.

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

#76

Post by liquidise »

secalex wrote: post #70

The Microsoft hate here is unfounded and ill informed. Those of us working defense at large organizations have known for a while that No-IP domains are wretched hives of scum and villainy. Any company with a threat model that includes at least one of a diverse set of characters ranging from malware authors to organized crime to nation state teams should be logging all DNS requests and treating any request to a No-IP…

You seem to miss a key takeaway from this: the analogous comparisons to this in physical services companies is laughable:

If, as a car company, i sell cars with potentially lethal flaws, i am required/told to recall and fix those vehicles. Other companies who sell cars are NOT allowed to have a court order the seizure of my phone numbers and have them direct to competitive business, so they can figure out who is driving safe cars and who isn't.

Secondly, the idea that private companies can be labeled "wretched hives of scum and villainy" by other private employees and have that permissible as anything other than meaningless hearsay is itself, nonsense.

I have read many documents on this today and every HN comment and I have yet to find someone present a case as to why on earth this is a good and sustainable precedent.

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

#77

Post by ntakasaki »

moe wrote: post #61
ntakasaki wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your original statement was: >Practically every instance of malware runs on Microsoft Windows. Even according to Google, about 5 million Android devices are infected with malware. http://bgr.com/2014/06/26/google-on-android-malware-and-secu... I would suppose that your statements aren't support by fact, but the HN downvotes have got me thinking.

If "5 million" sounds like a large number to you then this may help to put it into perspective; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#Historical_list_of_botne...

First, were you referring to instances of malware, not membership in botnets. Second, we disagree on the meaning of the phrase "practically every".

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

#78

Post by me1010 »

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 would imagine most DDNS services push traffic to a blacklisted node. Your ISP blacklists the D-IP so that you, as a lowly end-user, can't run something like an email server. So, I would imagine effectively sorting out which IP addresses are blacklisted because of malware infection or simply ISP infection would be very hard indeed...

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

#79

Post by moe »

secalex wrote: post #65
moe wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure virtually none of the spam mails in my spamfilter were sent from a phone. Nor do phones have the bandwidth to carry out DDoS attacks or host phishing sites. Nor do many people do onlinebanking on their phone (though that number is certainly on the rise). So yes, while malware exists on android, I doubt the total damages caused by it are more than a drop in the bucket when compared to windows malware.

Android botnets are very valuable because they use mobile network IPs that confuse fraud and login classifiers that use ASN or GeoIP.

That is certainly true. But in terms of scale even a claimed 5 million compromised android phones just barely registers while desktop botnets of six times that size are discovered.

The bandwidth constraints imposed by most users draconic data plans and the realities of limited battery life further put a fairly low cap on what a mobile botnet can do in this day and age. (both of which admittedly will hopefully change sooner rather than later...)

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

#80

Post by nitrogen »

ntakasaki wrote: post #77
moe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "5 million" sounds like a large number to you then this may help to put it into perspective; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#Historical_list_of_botne...

First, were you referring to instances of malware, not membership in botnets. Second, we disagree on the meaning of the phrase "practically every".

Instances of malware must necessarily be >= sizes of botnets.
Post reply on HN