What's up with the whois spam for google.com?

#1

Post by zurla » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 12:55 AM UTC

What's up with the whois spam for google.com?
123-reg.co.uk

Re: What's up with the whois spam for google.com?

#2

Post by philwelch » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 1:26 AM UTC

This is old news, microsoft.com had the same crap for years.

Re: What's up with the whois spam for google.com?

#3

Post by acangiano » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 1:58 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #2

This is old news, microsoft.com had the same crap for years.

And Amazon, and Yahoo, and other popular domains. The problem is that InterNic should not sit and quietly accept this kind of abuse.

Re: What's up with the whois spam for google.com?

#4

Post by philwelch » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 2:08 AM UTC

acangiano wrote: post #3

philwelch wrote: post #2

This is old news, microsoft.com had the same crap for years.

And Amazon, and Yahoo, and other popular domains. The problem is that InterNic should not sit and quietly accept this kind of abuse.

Honestly, any regulatory scheme over subdomains would be even worse than this "abuse".

Re: What's up with the whois spam for google.com?

#5

Post by jonah » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 2:34 AM UTC

Often used for phishing. "Login to your account: http://google.com.adsfjk.asdf.asdfpuiasdf/soasdf.html blah blah."

Re: What's up with the whois spam for google.com?

#6

Post by there » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 2:58 AM UTC

jonah wrote: post #5

Often used for phishing. "Login to your account: http://google.com.adsfjk.asdf.asdfpuiasdf/soasdf.html blah blah."

hardly. these are registered nameservers showing in whois and have nothing to do with random subdomains.

Re: What's up with the whois spam for google.com?

#7

Post by acangiano » Sat, Jul 10, 2010, 4:17 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #4

acangiano wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Amazon, and Yahoo, and other popular domains. The problem is that InterNic should not sit and quietly accept this kind of abuse.

Honestly, any regulatory scheme over subdomains would be even worse than this "abuse".

Subdomains are not the problem. The issue is that these are registered namesevers, as pointed out by "there" below.