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

101–110 of 116 posts

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

#101

Post by gcb0 »

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.

more like ford closing all charger stations because a few fords left unlocked got the stereos stolen. (how could i forgot the analogy windows=car left unlocked)

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

#102

Post by Arnt »

ntakasaki wrote: post #59
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.

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.

Goole said "Well less than 0.5% have ever had a problem", you quote a blog that turns that into "up to five million have ever had malware" which shows some ignorance of statistics, and then you turn that into "about five million are infected with malware now".

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

#103

Post by pessimizer »

ggchappell wrote: post #15

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.

Exactly. Microsoft has no obligation to you. Your judicial system does. Microsoft might even be doing a good deed here, but the courts shouldn't have let them.

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

#104

Post by mnw21cam »

chmars wrote: post #95
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?

DynDNS are fairly good, if you're looking for a paid service.

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

#106

Post by chippy »

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…

>It was because of the actions of NoIP themselves, who did not act to prevent abuse by their users

The article of this thread (that is the blog post of NoIP in response to MS's actions) which I'm sure we all read, says that NoIP themselves DID act to prevent abuse. They were not informed of this action by Microsoft.

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

#107

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#108

Post by chmars »

mnw21cam wrote: post #104
chmars wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

DynDNS are fairly good, if you're looking for a paid service.

Thanks!

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

#109

Post by andor »

stevekemp wrote: post #105
davidbanham wrote: post #73

If anyone needs a replacement for no-ip, I wrote this the other day: https://github.com/davidbanham/cloudflare_dyndns

And I recently setup http://dhcp.io/ - source also on github.

Nice! Simple HTTP API, no custom client needed, very easy to include in scripts.

Is there any reason why you're not serving via HTTPS? Without encryption, credentials are completely open to the network.

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

#110

Post by stevekemp »

andor wrote: post #109
stevekemp wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I recently setup http://dhcp.io/ - source also on github.

Nice! Simple HTTP API, no custom client needed, very easy to include in scripts. Is there any reason why you're not serving via HTTPS? Without encryption, credentials are completely open to the network.

Largely because this is a toy-project which has no income behind it.

(It was initially going to be commercialized, but in the end I found people pretended they'd pay, rather than actually wanted to do so for extras like more hostnames, MX records, etc. So in the end I went with a different project https://dns-api.com/)

I could pretend I regard DNS data as public, but sniffing the update token could allow malicious users to change things in surprising fashions so it really does deserve SSL, but I'm not going to pay for it. I would hope that if users cared about security they'd deploy their own instance - and pay for the resulting Amazon traffic.

Post reply on HN