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

The .ing top-level domain

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 333 posts

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#221

Post by afavour »

Clamchop wrote: post #215
wholinator2 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is ambiguity between a zip file from your coworkers website and an entirely separate phishing website which downloads an entirely different zip file with a malicious payload. Anything that introduces unnecessary and previously unforseen ambiguity to the olds is just another path to filling the internet with scams

Browser vendors should just splash users with one of those click-through security warnings. Make it bright yellow. I'd be very entertained by drama from owners of those domains, but in my opinion, such a thing would be completely justified.

Here’s the problem: the biggest browser vendor is the one selling the domains!

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#222

Post by heywire »

rafark wrote: post #219
themagician wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it even matter anymore? Domains have been replaced with apps and search anyway. Outside of maybe the top 100 domains, how many people are actually typing out a domain?

I wonder if there’s a better alternative to current domain formats? Like, wouldnt it be great if you could just use your organization name without an extension? Like just google or apple or whatever. Instead of google.com or apple.com You can’t register tlds with those names anyway (a random person can’t register google.xyz) so why bother with extensions? Maybe not get rid of the altogether but as an alternative?

AOL keywords!

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#223

Post by Refortified »

Sander_Marechal wrote: post #2

Great. There's a Dutch bank called ING. I can't wait for all the phish.ing to start. IMHO all those new TLDs are just a huge mistake and a blatant money-grab.

It is, the reasoning along as to buy an .ing domain is laughable at best. it does nothing that a .com isn't already doing

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#224

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

Google has 46 tld that I found, many of them unavailable for public registration. .ads, .android, .app, .boo, .cal, .channel, .chrome, .dad, .day, .dclk, .dev, .docs, .drive, .eat, .esq, .fly, .foo, .gbiz, .gle, .gmail, .goog, .google, .guge, .hangout, .here, .how, .ing, .map, .meet, .meme, .mov, .new, .nexus, .page, .phd, .play, .prod, .prof, .rsvp, .search, .soy, .谷歌, .みんな, .グーグル, .youtube, .zip,

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#226

Post by kmeisthax »

Refortified wrote: post #223
Sander_Marechal wrote: post #2

Great. There's a Dutch bank called ING. I can't wait for all the phish.ing to start. IMHO all those new TLDs are just a huge mistake and a blatant money-grab.

It is, the reasoning along as to buy an .ing domain is laughable at best. it does nothing that a .com isn't already doing

I mean, strictly speaking, this argument could apply to any public suffix. Why not have every site be its own TLD in a single global namespace?

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#227

Post by silisili »

heywire wrote: post #222
rafark wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there’s a better alternative to current domain formats? Like, wouldnt it be great if you could just use your organization name without an extension? Like just google or apple or whatever. Instead of google.com or apple.com You can’t register tlds with those names anyway (a random person can’t register google.xyz) so why bother with extensions? Maybe not get rid of the altogether but as an alternative?

AOL keywords!

You joke, but that was a better system and user experience than whatever the world we have now...

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#228

Post by jeroenhd »

s3p wrote: post #187
heipei wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, when I saw the HN headline about this TLD I thought it belonged to ING Group, just like .barclays and .chase belong to their corporate owners. Just shows how suited this TLD is for phishing...

Don't they sell .zip TLDs now too?

I don't get it, and I'm sure some people fall for the scams, but .com has been a dangerous file format since before the internet became common and that hasn't been much of a problem either.

My guess is that it'll only be a matter of time before .png and .jpg will be TLDs.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#229

Post by jeroenhd »

Sander_Marechal wrote: post #2

Great. There's a Dutch bank called ING. I can't wait for all the phish.ing to start. IMHO all those new TLDs are just a huge mistake and a blatant money-grab.

I can't wait for creditcard.ing, pinpas.ing, debitkarte.ing, cartededebit.ing, and all the others to be sent across the world.

Might as well pre-emptively add .ing to every phishing list out there.

Re: The .ing top-level domain

#230

Post by al_borland »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #189
al_borland wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people already bank on people searching for sites vs remembering domain names. Though now, even with a search, which “draw” result is the right one. The TLD can’t be used as much of a filter anymore.

> I think most people already bank on people searching for sites vs remembering domain names. But that can't be entirely true, or else Canva wouldn't have purchased draw.ing in the first place, they'd just stick with Canva.com. The whole reason these TLDs are desirable is because they create easy-to-remember addresses.

I wonder if they will use these almost like we use file extensions on a desktop OS. Something like draw.ing/1234 would be a link to share are Canva drawing, kind of like 1234.psd tells you a file is a Photoshop document.

Though using canva.com/1234 still makes more sense, from a branding point of view. Draw.ing vs draw.io will being confusing, especially if company names aren’t changing.

Go.ing I get. That one just makes sense, but is ultimately pointless when they already have going.com.

Post reply on HN