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

91–100 of 116 posts

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

#91

Post by smsm42 »

cortesoft wrote: post #21
DangerousPie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wouldn't a similar line of reasoning be "It seems that computers running Microsoft Windows are a hotspot of botnet activity. Year after year, a vast majority of computers used in botnets are running Windows; they are clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse by their users. Lets give control of the Windows code base to Linus"

I think most of the judges would be able to see through it and recognize that running a free DNS service which ignores abuse by botnets and having an OS which can be used to run various programs on, including malware, is a bit different thing. If you could prove Microsoft "clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse", you could probably win a juicy class-action lawsuit, but proving this would be extremely hard.

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

#92

Post by smsm42 »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #52
threeseed wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is ridiculous. Turning over IANA or Ford over to Microsoft would not prevent malware or robberies. Turning over NoIP to Microsoft will prevent malware (at least in the short term).

You're kidding right? I honestly burst out with a laugh when I read this. In what world do you live in where Microsoft seizing control of a single dynamic DNS provider will "prevent malware" (even in the short term)? It's not like this motion has created some insurmountable wall that malware creators can't possibly work around.

It of course did not create insurmountable wall, but many malware platforms rely on free DNS services for establishing communications, and if particular strain is hardcoded to use no-ip, the instances that rely on it would not be able to establish the connections and thus would not be controlled by botnet owner anymore, at least for the time it takes to either deliver update by other means (provided such means are coded in particular strain) or re-infect the machine with different strain of malware. Of course, once malware authors know no-ip is no longer their friend, they'd move on to use different services, but the instances that were produced before that may very well be disrupted.

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

#94

Post by smsm42 »

ddod wrote: post #67
threeseed wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You believe in terms of liberty that botnets who compromise machines in order to steal data, spam and many other nefarious activities doesn't compare to one business being temporarily affected ? That is a strange perspective I have to say.

In terms of liberty, one crime doesn't excuse another, especially when they're not directly related. If I manufacture cigarettes and someone dies of lung cancer, I could be ethically liable but my liberty to make cigarettes shouldn't be impacted. If someone uses YouTube to upload copyrighted things, should YouTube have its domain stolen and its users unable to use the site any more?

>>> In terms of liberty, one crime doesn't excuse another,

Except it is not a crime if it's done under lawful authority (by definition) or in self-defense. Otherwise you'd argue imprisoning a murderer or using force to defend your life is a crime, because outside of these circumstances limiting one's freedom of movement or using force on somebody is a crime.

>>> If someone uses YouTube to upload copyrighted things, should YouTube have its domain stolen and its users unable to use the site any more?

If that's the only thing his domain is used for, it very well may happen, and similar things already happened. Seizures of domains used for illegal activities are commonplace.

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

#95

Post by chmars »

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…

My paid No-IP domains actually went offline. Now I know the reason … what's a recommendable No-IP alternative broadly supported by routers?

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

#96

Post by johnchristopher »

CHY872 wrote: post #81
gcb0 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A competitor no less! no-ip and such are a required service for people to host their own "cloud" solutions from their home connections. Microsoft makes money with their own "cloud" offering. which does not require such services. So by closing down on those services (or using the redirect to collect data) they are making their offering more attractive. Obligatory car analogy: This is very well like Ford closing down a…

Nah, not really. A closer analogy is Ford shutting down all of Tesla's charging stations because the chargers had a nasty habit of attempting to bazooka any Ford cars that drove past. The competition from no-ip to Microsoft from this is virtually zero. Any serious hoster will have a static IP, or own their own domain.

I think we can improve on that:

    Ford shutting down all of Tesla's charging stations because the original chargers were replaced by mean people with new ones that had a nasty habit of attempting to bazooka any Ford charging station that were withing shooting distance. Those charger were installed by any customers who happened to be within earshot of a sleazy sales guy that had a solution to cure their cars for non-existent problems by smooth talking them about "did you know internet explorer could run 200% faster" even though their car ran firefox or chrome.

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

#97

Post by yardie »

norswap wrote: post #5

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

You go to court make a claim (copyright, trademark, or in this case negligence). Then with the judgement in hand fax that over to the registrar who has no choice but to comply. If the registrar won't comply you kick it up to the national body.

This has been going on for years. You don't own a domain name you just rent it.

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

#98

Post by McGuffin »

vzhang wrote: post #93

If I keep getting spam emails from a Hotmail account, should I file a motion to take down the whole Hotmail domain?

Sure, you could do that. Personally, I have always had a reply from their abuse department within the hour (usually it's solved by then, too).

But indeed, if you feel you have sufficient evidence that MSFT is downright neglectful and turning a blind eye to spam accounts, feel free to file a motion and post a $200k+ bond.

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

#99

Post by tomp »

smsm42 wrote: post #91
cortesoft wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a similar line of reasoning be "It seems that computers running Microsoft Windows are a hotspot of botnet activity. Year after year, a vast majority of computers used in botnets are running Windows; they are clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse by their users. Lets give control of the Windows code base to Linus"

I think most of the judges would be able to see through it and recognize that running a free DNS service which ignores abuse by botnets and having an OS which can be used to run various programs on, including malware, is a bit different thing. If you could prove Microsoft "clearly not doing enough to prevent abuse", you could probably win a juicy class-action lawsuit, but proving this would be extremely hard.

If they went through with their intended plan to stop supporting Windows XP, then proving that they were "clearly not doing enough to prevent abouse" would be trivially easy.

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

#100

Post by Fuxy »

shawnz wrote: post #29
Omniusaspirer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DynDNS and afraid, which as far as I know are the next two most popular services like this, both have free options. EDIT: Looks like DynDNS recently got rid of their free offering. I wonder if that was related to this?

Also they wouldn't be able to go against afraid since it's fundamentally a different type of service.

It offers a DNS service for your domain and the ability to share your domain with others.

You can't seize the 100.000 domains being shared and used by bot nets so the only easy target was no-ip.

What i find extremely troubling is the domains being handed over to another corporate entity this mechanism is just ripe for abuse.

Post reply on HN