GoDaddy takes away domain use from owner when asked to do by MySpace! Awful...

[woeger]

GoDaddy yanked a person's domain from resolving without any notice (per the account owner) for content on the domain that MySpace objected to. No court order - nada, just from a complaint.

This is a free speech issue and in my opinion shows just how anti-customer rights Godaddy is. See more on this NEWS.COM article about Godaddy's action concerning this one domain:

http://news.com.com/GoDaddy+pulls+s...laints/2100-1025_3-6153607.html?tag=nefd.lede

All GoDaddy customer should take this as a warning shot about how Bob Parson's company will apparently not be looking out for them and their interests, but rather bowing to companys' requests to deactivate or perhaps even delete domains. Your domains do not appear to be safe at GoDaddy...

I recommend switching any domains of value to another registrar that cares about your domain ownership rights ASAP (such as Moniker or other reliable registrars).

 

[Damion]

You're right Wendy, this type of information needs to be taken down.
The things that bolders me about Godaddy is that is has been done so abruptly as if there was such a big urgency to do so.

Since there wasn't really, the Seclist.org is not the only website where this information could be found but other websites as well, which in fact do it intentionally in opposite of the site owner of Seclist.org which wasn't even aware of this.

And you're absolutely entitled to your opinion Wendy Everybody is for that matter

 

[HeavyDuty]

"Please don't take things out of context."

I didn't, the thread is about GD and Fyodor. GoDaddy is on US soil and the TOS is written around US law. So yes, contrary to your opinion, there is the potential for repercussions. It's that whole 'guilt by association' thing.

I guess since Fyodor operates a 24/7 user submittable web site he should have it monitored on a 24/7 basis. If someone would have answered the phone when GD called it would be a non-issue today.

Scammers, spammers and law breakers have an extremely short life expectancy at GoDaddy. As it should be. I wouldn't do business with a Registrar who turned a blind eye toward such matters.

 

[JimCato.com]

hmmm what would happend if the password of facebook was posted on myspace and myspace gurus wasent to get hold of, hehe and if the domain myspace where hold at Gd???

If Gd would do the samething they would get sued..

 

[Damion]

thanks for your post at 12.42 because i had no idea what you were saying at 12.35. actually i don't think i completely understand 12.42 either.

now we already know that what gd did is completely legal,
1) but how is what gd did unethical??

i like how you play on the technicality of who uploaded or provided the list to seclists.
2) but is the owner not ultimately responsible for what is on his/her website??

and sure of course myspace should take responsible action for its members.
3) but doesn't one of those actions include telling gd about the published passwords??

three answers please. and please try to keep them relatively short.

I presume you are refering to me Shockie?
Since the timezones are different then mine Would be best to post the post numbers

1:but how is what gd did unethical??

Unethical in the sense that removing the Seclist.org is only one of many and by doing so not all made a difference. To grant the owner a little more time and respect to reply to them. There was no urgency so why the extreme rush?


2: but is the owner not ultimately responsible for what is on his/her website??
But why the rush?

3: but doesn't one of those actions include telling gd about the published passwords??

That course of action by Myspace was not responsible, it was incompetent and unnecessary.

I didn't, the thread is about GD and Fyodor. GoDaddy is on US soil and the TOS is written around US law. So yes, contrary to your opinion, there is the potential for repercussions. It's that whole 'guilt by association' thing.

I guess since Fyodor operates a 24/7 user submittable web site he should have it monitored on a 24/7 basis. If someone would have answered the phone when GD called it would be a non-issue today.

Scammers, spammers and law breakers have an extremely short life expectancy at GoDaddy. As it should be. I wouldn't do business with a Registrar who turned a blind eye toward such matters.

Once more you are referring to another issue and taking things out of context .
My initial comment was aimed at Shockies unfair statement that it was the idea of the owner of Seclist.org to decide to publish the information thus on purpose.

Your comment:

The web site owner is responsible for the web site content. Period. If he/they chose to operate it unmonitored and unmoderated then they've taken a very irresponsible business approach.

is totally irrelevant to Shockies unfair statement and my reply to this.

And you're right, the website owner is responsible for it's content and that's another issue which i agree with you but that is apart from the fact of socalled intend...placing the content on purpose.

This is not the case.

The owner was unaware of it and which i only indicated to comment to Shockies comment that it was done on purpose by saying THEY had the bright idea.



@JimCato.com

I was just about to say this.
And is a good question for HeavyDuty

 

[shockie]

my bad, i thought that all forum postings went by forum default of -5 gmt, didn't know vbulletin adjusts. i didn't know that fyodor didn't personally publish the list, however what heavyduty says hold true (basically implying that the owner is ultimately responsible):

I guess since Fyodor operates a 24/7 user submittable web site he should have it monitored on a 24/7 basis. If someone would have answered the phone when GD called it would be a non-issue today.

I wouldn't do business with a Registrar who turned a blind eye toward such matters.

if you were a website owner who had some questionable activity you would, lol

3: but doesn't one of those actions include telling gd about the published passwords??

That course of action by Myspace was not responsible, it was incompetent and unnecessary.

mmm i disagree. telling gd is more responsible and competent than not telling them.

it seems the issue now is that the rush or urgency that myspace/gd moved at is what makes their action unethical. they did the right thing, but at the wrong time. so what was the timeline as to how things happened? how much time actually went by between emails, calls, etc?

and i guess more of a subjective question: what would've been an acceptable timeframe (24 hours, 48 hours, etc)?

 

[Damion]

my bad, i thought that all forum postings went by forum default of -5 gmt, didn't know vbulletin adjusts. i didn't know that fyodor didn't personally publish the list, however what heavyduty says hold true (basically implying that the owner is ultimately responsible):

I agree, the website owner is responsible and i am sure if the owner was reached at the time he would immediately complied with their request.
The thing where a lot of people take issue with including myself is that GD did not give enough time to let the site owner react.

The site owner had only 1 minute to one hour to comply depending on whose story you would want to believe as described here
http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/803

and here is a link at the bottom of the page for a supposed timeline, i can't listen in because my speakers are broken so i can't confirm this.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/gd-voicemail.wav

The consensus is though that it was at the most one hour.

Only one hour? The information was available for days already, as if it really would make a difference to give it some time to let the site owner respond.

That is just disrespectful towards the customer and unethical in my opinion.

A quote from the author from the first link:

I belong to a couple of private groups that request domain shutdowns frequently, based on phishing sites, botnet C&Cs, and sites hosting malware being used to infect new victims. These are what I would tend to call legitimate reasons to shut down a domain. How long do you think it usually takes the group to have a domain shut down? Even for the most responsive registrars, it frequently takes several hours. How do we get the 1 minute turnaround, GoDaddy? Where’s the form we fill out?

Even for cut and dry cases like this it takes overall more time to get a result.

Also from the site owners site:

http://seclists.org/nmap-hackers/2007/0000.html

I woke up yesterday morning to find a voice message from my domain
registrar (GoDaddy) saying they were suspending the domain
SecLists.org. One minute later I received an email saying that
SecLists.org has "been suspended for violation of the GoDaddy.com
Abuse Policy". And also "if the domain name(s) listed above are
private, your Domains By Proxy(R) account has also been suspended."
WTF??! Neither the email nor voicemail gave a phone number to reach
them at, nor did they feel it was worth the effort to explain what the
supposed violation was. They changed my domain nameserver to
"NS1.SUSPENDED-FOR.SPAM-AND-ABUSE.COM". Cute, eh?

Great move from Godaddys part don't you agree
Just shut the person down and don't give a F about their site being live or not.
Should your site also have a commercial purpose you could lose some business because of this and GD doesn't even give you the chance to comply or reply for that matter to whatever was troubling them.

You just get shut down and that's it - Not even unethical but inmensly frustrating i can imagine as well.

if you were a website owner who had some questionable activity you would, lol

You mean if i was a domain registrar and i had a customer who had questionable activity

I wouldn't turn a blind eye, i would take time to evaluate the situation and given 48 hours in this case to let the site owner respond - 48 hours is a overall acceptable amount of time to receive a response and is a fair amount of time given.

mmm i disagree. telling gd is more responsible and competent than not telling them.

You have every right to do so

It's just that in my opinion MySpace is running behind the facts. The facts in this case the knowledge that a password list is in the open and no measures are being taken on site to prevent any unauthorised user account access.

It's common sense that when a list is on the net it safe to assume that is not the only place where the list is to be found. So MySpace should be closed down immediately to PREVENT unauthorized access to their user accounts.

What they did now is bring more awareness to the situation (It is to be expected that such abrupt actions by GD to a popular site like Seclist.org is not going to be unnoticed) and therefor it was not competent but clearly incompetent.

If you know a password to one of your important email account is compromised and posted on the internet what would you do first?

A:Change your password immediately as soon as you can?
B:Or contact all the sites (that you know of at least) to remove the postings?

The competent thing to do is to change your password immediately right
I'm 100% sure that is what you would have done if your password was compromised.

That is not what MySpace did evidently...well in this case they can't change passwords but they can sure as hell prevent unauthorized access by locking everything down. But they didn't...

Incompetent in my opinion and according to common sense.

 

[dotnom]

Damion common sense is not so common afterall

Don't loose your time with this topic
People who adore GoDaddy will still use him
People who understand the risk and know the net will act accordingly
Everybody must use the thing between his ears

I guess next will be the security sites with the program exploits, they are dangerous too

 

[shockie]

"neither email... nor phone..." i find it hard to believe that someone as bright as fyodor can't hit reply or find a gd support number. was his site down or was his internet down?? lol

given the choice of a or b, i would choose both. even after changing my pass i would want those sites down. a lot of people don't login to myspace or check their emails every day (believe it or not), and that should be factored in to the equation as well. so should myspace wait until 80% of members change their pass, or 90%? tough call. easy call though, is to implement part b immediately.

 

[Damion]

"neither email... nor phone..." i find it hard to believe that someone as bright as fyodor can't hit reply or find a gd support number. was his site down or was his internet down?? lol

I'm sure he managed to get someone on the phone but you're missing the point here, as he described no contact information was provided at all in the correspondence he received.
That's not how you do business.

given the choice of a or b, i would choose both. even after changing my pass i would want those sites down. a lot of people don't login to myspace or check their emails every day (believe it or not), and that should be factored in to the equation as well. so should myspace wait until 80% of members change their pass, or 90%? tough call. easy call though, is to implement part b immediately.

Both?

I guess you don't fully understand the procedure i laid out for you.
All accounts are locked and need to be reactivated again.
It's not essential if MySpace users are checking their email on a daily or whatever timely periodic basis.

I have enjoyed the discussion and by judging the facts given by Godaddy and Fyidor and seeing the overall difference in opinions on these facts this thread was and is quite interesting to see the overall diversity of opinions.

Thank you all for participating :tu:

 

[shockie]

in the message link above the gd person left contact info...

 

[Damion]

The wav. file you mean?

Did they leave a general phone number or a direct number?
I'm curious about that?

 

[shockie]

i think it was an email. so... they did leave correspondence or whatever. sure it's not bp's cell but business-y enough.

 

[Damion]

Business-y?

Leaving a phone number is the appropriate course of action in this matter not an email.

 

[shockie]

should've been more clear. what i meant was the gd rep who left the message (.wav) gave the email address where he can contact gd.

 

[Damion]

So an email, not very appropriate but so is the whole handling of GD...
Thanks for mentioning though

 

[Archangel]

So you're trying to tell me that a huge list of myspace usernames and passwords made publicly available should be protected under freedom of speech rights?



Ugh.

They did not "take the domain away"... they just made it so the information that was published was not publicly available - until it was removed.

I see very little harm it it.

I haven't even bothered to read all of this thread. The site did ILLEGAL activity and thus was dealt with. Is the OP trying to imply that a site which showed its readers how to build explosives should remain online unless the owner removed the material? Or rather, are you saying it's wrong to remove access to such sites for the welfare and security of the people? You, the OP, are pretty damn retarded. "Free speech is free speech!" This is 2007, not 1700. Stop being so ignorantly passe. Anyone with common sense (and the power) would have done the same.

 

[Erdy]

There are some companies who hide behind their terms and conditions to screw costumers whenever they have a problem with the big players. For instance paypal is such a company. If there is an issue with a credit card company they never protect their costumer's rights. They have their terms and conditions. Sometimes these terms can be very unethical, wrong or unreasonable. All this doesn't matter as the users have agreed to them.

Godaddy is such a company as well. Their code of ethics is to screw the small guy to make the big guy happy.

How can they get away with this? I think it's because people don't care enough about it. Because both companies are in the U.S. I don't mean to say the average American is ignorant but obviously there are lots of people out there who don't understand what is lawful.

There is a small difference between the terms but lawful and legal are two different things. Something might be not illegal but still it can be unlawful.

There are some other registrars who follow Godaddy's lead on taking similar actions. There was recently a topic about a registrar who asked model's age's on a adult website. They where not sure if the girls were 18. They wanted id's to be faxed to them. Those girls were maybe 17 or 16 so it's the registrar's business to request id copies.

Because the Bush Administration is so ****ed up they are trying to make it appear normal to force legal but unlawful practices especially to the Internet which is one different world on its own with its own way of existence.

Instead realizing that civil rights are taken away one by one it surprises me to see people running around and shouting, "it's legal, it's legal".

 

[ofclean]

Something might be not illegal but still it can be unlawful.

Excuse my outburst, but WHAT THE F*** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

 

[Erdy]

Something that is legal can be unlawful according natural law.

 

[ofclean]

Yes, but there isn't a difference between those two words. Something can be "illegal" according to natural laws, too.

Either way, what is wrong about agreeing to a contract? I don't understand what your problem is.

Just wondering: I'm not a fan of Bush (he's not capitalist), but what was your jab at him about?

 

[Erdy]

If this incident had happened in a EU country then there would be much more opposition. Like-minded people to Bush Administration know very well they will receive only support for such unlawful actions. They are acting in such a way because they have found the right atmosphere.

 

[Archangel]

There are some companies who hide behind their terms and conditions to screw costumers whenever they have a problem with the big players. For instance paypal is such a company. If there is an issue with a credit card company they never protect their costumer's rights. They have their terms and conditions. Sometimes these terms can be very unethical, wrong or unreasonable. All this doesn't matter as the users have agreed to them.

Godaddy is such a company as well. Their code of ethics is to screw the small guy to make the big guy happy.

How can they get away with this? I think it's because people don't care enough about it. Because both companies are in the U.S. I don't mean to say the average American is ignorant but obviously there are lots of people out there who don't understand what is lawful.

There is a small difference between the terms but lawful and legal are two different things. Something might be not illegal but still it can be unlawful.

There are some other registrars who follow Godaddy's lead on taking similar actions. There was recently a topic about a registrar who asked model's age's on a adult website. They where not sure if the girls were 18. They wanted id's to be faxed to them. Those girls were maybe 17 or 16 so it's the registrar's business to request id copies.

Because the Bush Administration is so ****ed up they are trying to make it appear normal to force legal but unlawful practices especially to the Internet which is one different world on its own with its own way of existence.

Instead realizing that civil rights are taken away one by one it surprises me to see people running around and shouting, "it's legal, it's legal".

If this incident had happened in a EU country then there would be much more opposition. Like-minded people to Bush Administration know very well they will receive only support for such unlawful actions. They are acting in such a way because they have found the right atmosphere.

No offense but your diction is improper -- and although EGO (everyone's got opinions), you don't seem to have a point.

There is no difference between "illegal" and "unlawful." Both words are used to describe an illicit situation. You might find www.m-w.com to be of help to you.

You are one of those common idiots who automatically point a finger at Bush and the White House without having a reason to. You assume Bush is "F***ing" everything up? Sorry to hurt your feelings but the poor Democrats have been doing the same. I'm saying this more bipartisan than anything but Bush has been screwing us over just as much as Clinton, just as much as Carter, just as much as Nixon...

If you cannot justify yourself, please do not post in namepros again. Ever.

And back to your earlier question: How can Godaddy get away with it? Because we agreed to their practices when we accepted their ToS while signing up for them. And when they do "unlawful" things, they squirm away from trouble on the age-old principle of "big fish eats little fish." Think about it.

 

[ofclean]

If this incident had happened in a EU country then there would be much more opposition. Like-minded people to Bush Administration know very well they will receive only support for such unlawful actions. They are acting in such a way because they have found the right atmosphere.

You are being meaningless now. Every time you get called out on something, you just change it around. What kind of "support" could Bush even give?

And again, if two parties agree to something, why is it "unlawful" to follow through with the agreement? And what natural law is being broken?

 

[Erdy]

There is no difference between "illegal" and "unlawful." Both words are used to describe an illicit situation. You might find www.m-w.com to be of help to you.

Of course there is. "Lawful" has secondary meanings and it implies something that is within the harmony or within the nature of the law. On the other hand the terms legal and illegal have a stronger reference to written rules.

You are one of those common idiots who automatically point a finger at Bush and the White House without having a reason to.

You are being meaningless now. Every time you get called out on something, you just change it around. What kind of "support" could Bush even give?

Same answer: The reason is that, from a conservative point of view, they have started a fight against sex and gambling and this had an influence on the overall mental environment. I think people in US have become more afraid to speak out and less willing to fight for their rights.

You assume Bush is "F***ing" everything up? Sorry to hurt your feelings but the poor Democrats have been doing the same. I'm saying this more bipartisan than anything but Bush has been screwing us over just as much as Clinton, just as much as Carter, just as much as Nixon...

I don't know Carter but Bush is nowhere similar to Clinton. He is similar to Nixon on being obsessed for more power. I think there is also something else that makes him unique. His main focus has always been to use the military strength to gain more control over the world. He doesn't mind creating excuses for such aims. This approach alone is telling that he isn't very wise. There are other and more efficient ways to control if you want to control something.

If you cannot justify yourself, please do not post in namepros again. Ever.

You can do better than this. You don't have to get so angry. I'm not running after making unfounded accusations. I'm behind my arguments and I try to explain them as best as I can.

And again, if two parties agree to something, why is it "unlawful" to follow through with the agreement? And what natural law is being broken?

There are many that I can see. Firstly, Godaddy acts according espionage to make the third party happy. They are not acting because the rules tell them to do so but they are acting because they want to and only after they act they say it's within the rules anyway.
This espionage strategy opens up to many loopholes. Theoretically there could be a companyA who adds some unwanted content to companyB's website and then turns around and reports it to the registrar who have no power to make an investigation.
In this case the registrar has no way to know who put that content there. What they can do in this case is to contact companyB and let them know about the content.
Secondly, it is injustice what Godaddy is doing. Not only they use their power wrongly but also they use is unfairly. We all know that if it hadn't been myspace this would never happen.

 

[tjoseph]

I think that Damion's analysis that the cat was out of the bag and a few more hours wouldn't have made a difference is accurate. Myspace should have suspended the accounts affected not shut down the other site.

Tom