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

151–160 of 261 posts

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#151

Post by sampk »

tedivm wrote: post #51
jlogsdon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unlike, say, CloudFlare Care to elaborate?

I have multiple horror stories from my days at Malwarebytes about CloudFlare. They absolutely refuse to take down people who abuse their network- at best they'll block a single file from being distributed, but then the malware authors simply change the name of the file (or, more commonly, dynamically name the file something completely random). Their network is fantastic for malicious activity, not only because of the…

Where exactly does Matt accuse Malwarebytes of blocking their CDN because of "political" reasons? Your whole post looks like blatant lies.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#152

Post by rippa242 »

I'm wondering how Microsoft managed to take down the noip.me base domain, since the court stated (footnote 1 on page 5 of the 2nd amended TRO, 2:14-cv-00987-GMN-GWF-019) that the noip.me domain is controlled by the country of Montenegro and outside US legal system control. While there are noip.me 3rd level domains in Appendix A of the TRO, mine were NOT listed and yet I'm being sinkholed by Microsoft.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#153

Post by Silhouette »

wfjackson wrote: post #141
AJ007 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Here is another one: Microsoft failed to secure Windows XP against malware and botnets, so all Windows XP users will now be redirected to Ubuntu.com when they try to access the internet through Internet Explorer.

That's quite a stretched analogy. A fully updated Windows XP computer will still be vulnerable to malware and botnets. That is because Windows, OS X, Android and Linux allow their users to install third party programs without whitelisting them. There is nothing stopping users from installing malware. OS X and Linux have less malware because they're not as popular as Windows and Android. That's opposite to iOS, Window…

A fully updated Windows XP computer will still be vulnerable to malware and botnets.

That is because Windows, OS X, Android and Linux allow their users to install third party programs without whitelisting them.

Then clearly Microsoft aren't doing enough to look after their own back yards, and their domains should be seized and potential Microsoft customers rerouted to information about the dangers of using Microsoft products and safer alternatives.

This is a highly impractical response to the problem of malware, of course, but I don't find the analogy stretched at all. The action Microsoft have reportedly taken -- and the support they appear to have been given by the courts -- are just about as absurd as my tongue-in-cheek response above.

We seem to have grown up and stopped assuming everyone using P2P protocols obviously wants to pirate films, and we don't assume everyone using Windows XP obviously wants to be part of a botnet, so why would we assume everyone using Dynamic DNS obviously wants to distribute malware?

[Edit: There are now quite a few HN posters in multiple discussions about this action who are saying their innocent use of No-IP is being undermined because Microsoft's sinkhole is getting in the way.]

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#154

Post by wtracy »

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.

It's called "deputizing", and a deputy is not a vigilante pretty much by definition.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#156

Post by Dylan16807 »

wtracy wrote: post #154
JacobEdelman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's called "deputizing", and a deputy is not a vigilante pretty much by definition.

The judiciary has the ability to deputize law enforcement? I thought those were supposed to have independent structure.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#157

Post by tzs »

higherpurpose wrote: post #90
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 has been doing more and more of this stuff lately, and it does start to worry me quite a bit. The last time they worried me was when "Microsoft shut down a million-strong Tor botnet, by uninstalling Tor from the computers ". I don't want Microsoft to have that kind of power, let alone use it. Worse yet, they make it sound like it's some kind of PR win for them. "Microsoft the hero, takes down evil network".…

> The last time they worried me was when "Microsoft shut down a million-strong Tor botnet, by uninstalling Tor from the computers"

They did not uninstall Tor. They disabled it. More importantly, this Tor was NOT installed by the user of the computer. It was installed by the malware for its own use, without the knowledge of the computer user [1].

> I don't want Microsoft to have that kind of power, let alone use it

Actually, if you are running anti-malware software, you DO want them to have this power, as finding and disabling things that malware has installed on your computer is the whole point of anti-malware software.

[1] http://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/top-security-stori...

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#158

Post by spion »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #142
spion wrote: post #99

This is quite outrageous. I've been using no-ip.com for very legitimate purposes and this will surely result with a lot of breakage. Thanks Microsoft. Thanks a lot.

As another completely legitimate user what strikes me the most with this is how they did their best to basically pull off a sneak attack. I mean really? Microsoft just couldn't be bothered to give any forewarning to the millions of customers who's services they were directly interfering with? Tack on the dubious reasoning and the alleged failure to even contact NOIP at all before having this court order issued and th…

Indeed. Luckily I have a domain: now I'm going to fix this by setting up a CNAME and an account at another dyndns provider. Now if the other provider goes down, it should be possible to quickly make a switch without changing it in 1000 places*

Should've thought of this earlier. Well, hindsight is 20/20

* includes git remote configuration, configuration files, scripts, bookmarked/saved links, and the worst: other people's links.

Re: Microsoft takes down No-IP.com domains

#159

Post by MBCook »

ntakasaki wrote: post #146
MBCook wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the judge in question was probably just paid off or otherwise influenced That's a hell of an accusation.

I guess you haven't been reading comments and articles on Slashdot, Groklaw and even HN over the years. Such wild accusations against MS are the norm. If you want a good chuckle, read this "article" and comments. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/2259257/draconian-dr...

I know MS's reputation, and I remember when it was much worse.

I just expect more out of HN than "M$ is is buying judges with l00t."

No evidence, no simple argument, just "I don't like it so they must suck and do evil."

Post reply on HN