New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
The evidence seems to be against the malware people. I am not contesting that, however, the action taken (giving the domains to Microsoft) is not meant to stop malware, nor to control it, no reasonable techie person would ever believe that, it is only for the judges, and there is the BS. If Microsoft intended to fight malware would have made an OS which cannot be infected OR, given free effective tools to people to defend against it. It is just wasting the money people pay for a broken os to show it does something, namely seizes some domains and traffic. It is like saying that we need to cure the flu by taking out the lungs since they are the most infected. No doctor will believe that, but a judge might think it is the appropriate action.
This remembers me a litigation like this:
Lawyer: So, when you performed the autopsy you were not sure the victim was dead.
Doctor: I was as reasonably sure as I could be in this profession. The victim's brains were in a separate jar on another table.
Lawyer: In other words, you were not completely sure.
Doctor: Actually, it might be possible that victim is right now acting as a lawyer in this building.
I'm sorry for the people who had legit services running with the dynamic DNS domains.
The list of malware spreading domains is huge. Good thing they took them down finally.
Feel free to insert barrel in mouth and squeeze the bang button
That Microsoft Security Essentials or whatever that scans for known malware. Duh.
"An OS which cannot be infected" you mean like the fake malware crap that fools Mac users into installing it? How about we start rounding up people who get infected by malware and viruses then throw them into a bottomless pit
With this attitude you have, we should throw you in first to soften the fall for everyone else. Maybe we will find a use for you instead of getting all these snide and rude comments you've been posting on here.
Ohh my, do you now even start in this thread to bring up completely unrelated "topics"?
As @doughmanes already pointed out, there is such a tool (and who said it needs to be free in the first place?).
Not even going to comment on such an absurdity of a comment ....
I got hit by this. Once I figured out what was happening, I hard-coded my ip address in the places where I need it, but it will be a pain now to change it everywhere, every time my home ip address changes (usually at least a few times a month).
I hope they get the domains back online quickly.
Now, now. Lets not overdue the situation. I'm sure collateral damages as the people eating at the same tim on that resturant while taking out the suspected terrorist is accepted.
I'm not sure anyone would go so far to take out every visitor who has been there since the opening.
I read it as you are bringing sarcasm to the table, some people go very far (some way to far) to prove their point.
From what I read, MS seized the domains that had the word Microsoft in them. That action brought down the whole/parts of the no-ip network since No-ip used those domains for their nameservers.
I would have done the same if it was my company name used that way.
Unless no-ip was willing to pay a hefty amount of cash every month as royalty.
With the speed of internal communications in organizations large as MS I wouldn't be surprised if MS contacted No-ip last year or even 5 years ago regarding the domain names.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnope, read again. The no-ip domains never used anything Microsoft-related in their naming. "MICROSOFTINTERNETSAFETY.NET" is just what they got (forcefully) pointed at by MS themselves after being seized.
Then I read it wrong.
Just lost three routers.... god damn
I am sure @doughmanes and others will be pleased finding out at least 4 more sources of malware have been terminated... Err... Moved, I mean.
Actually, everyone is followed and filed and if it looks like the suspect looked more towards someone, will be taken out to Guantanamo or some other place where the law and constitution does not apply. The good boys must justify the money they got.
There is sarcasm there, though, a few years ago it would outraged anyone, now anything goes as long as it looks like something was not right there. But noip cooperating with those guys? Sure, kill the restaurant owner too since he fed the suspect and profited from his money intended to kill americans. Well, at least in his case it would work. The war on drugs kills way more people than the drugs ever did if we include the crime wave generated by the fact they are illegal, accidental deaths because people cannot do it under supervision and many other "collateral" and not important things as long as we are tough on the drugs that kill our kids, forgetting that the kid supervision and education is our job in the first place. Same as with child porn, everything in the name of the kids, direct our rage generated from incapability to act as parents towards random targets, related or not with the issue. Screw law, screw democracy, screw human rights, screw constitution and privacy.
Do you really think that Microsoft would have succeeded in a case against google? No, it is the little guys that suffer two folds, once because they are destroyed with this, second, because they pay for it through their taxes. The giants dont pay the taxes, they take money from the governments.
I got it working again by switching to the ddns.net domain, at least for now.
Don't agree with control of the domains being transferred to Microsoft so they can direct traffic towards the domains towards their servers. Like saying 'hey victim, that criminal smashed your car in with a crowbar, so here is the crowbar to use as you wish'.
I was affected... In my eyes the domains shouldn't have gone to MS. NO-IP should have paused the subdomains spreading crap.
If you were hit move to another domain and do a mass find and replace.
https://gwych.uk/web-security/no-ip-domains-seized-by-microsoft/
Microsoft should improve their QA and stop distributing crap software, instead of trying to seize legitimate domains.
It would be too much to ask if they could fix the Outlook platform too.
Agreed, however they allegedly wouldnt.
What worries me more is not even that the domain was delegated (at least DNS-wise) to the plaintiff, but the case proves once more how vulnerable US administered top-level domains are. They simply went straight for the registry.
I don't see the point of arguing this since it won't change anything.
OK sorry I forgot this is LET.
Long life for go.ro
True, on the other hand, this is the nature of a forum to discuss issues - even those one cannot personally influence. Whats not necessary is bashing, but then, yes this is LET.
Well, Microsoft says:
And No-IP says:
It seems that there is a legal process and anti-abuse system in place to deal with abusive subdomains. It's not at all clear if Microsoft followed that process to take down the abusive subdomains or not.
From what's being said, it sounds like Microsoft just expected that No-IP would find and terminate the abusive accounts all by themselves without any complaints being filed. That seems pretty messed up to me.
Does this move open up Microsoft to potential liability for causing public safety issues for thousands of legitimate users whose security cameras they may have effectively disabled?
What we need is a decentralized distributed alternative to DNS.
Why the hell people should ask permission from Microsoft and from the US government when they want to give their router at home a domain name on the internet.
RDS has own service and you can set it up in their control panel, you can have it without any client, it will automatically update when you connect. This is how most dynamic IP operators should do. go.ro is short enough and I like it a lot.
This ^^^ .
No one can do that because of the nature of software itself. Hardening doesn't mean it can never have flaws or impossible to hack.
All a company can do is be proactive in protecting what they can (and there's merits in both closed and open software design). If MS found a no-ip site with nameservers that could point others to a malicious site, it would be criminal if MS ignores it, not the other way around.
No it would not. In fact, because MS touched it, they are now responsible for all of it. Since they chose to get involved with No-IP's domain management, they now have to handle not only dealing with the malware that was associated with it, but also the clients that were not abusing the service. All those pissed off clients that were kindly minding their own business until Microsoft stuck its big head in their faces.
Political much? To the point that you argued MS's case for them?
Let's put it this way, if Microsoft wasn't snooping around No-IP's domains and nameservers in the first place, they would not discover domains pointing to malicious software. However, because they did decide to play big brother, they discovered things that they feel obligated to remove. It was not their business with what No-IP's domains lead to. They chose to butt into it. They also then chose to bypass contacting No-IP and went straight to court to obtain control of No-IP's domains. Maybe they should stop trying to focus on blaming other people for promoting malware, and start focusing on designing better operating systems.
subdomains, of which microsoft claimed to spread malware using no-ip services: http://www.noticeoflawsuit.com/docs/Appendix A to Second Amended Order.pdf
Or if malware operators weren't cache poisoning...