Verisign says new gTLDs put millions at risk

[Arpit131]

Verisign has revived its old name collisions security scare story, publishing this week a weighty research paper claiming millions are at risk of man-in-the-middle attacks.

It’s actually a study into how a well-known type of attack, first documented in the 1990s, might become easier due to the expansion of the DNS at the top level.

According to the paper there might be as many as 238,000 instances per day of query traffic intended for private networks leaking to the public DNS, where attackers could potentially exploit it to all manner of genuinely nasty things.

But Verisign has seen no evidence of the vulnerability being used by bad guys yet and it might not be as scary as it first appears.

You can read the paper here (pdf)

Source

 

[CJ6]

But Verisign has seen no evidence of the vulnerability being used by bad guys yet and it might not be as scary as it first appears.

You can read the paper here (pdf)

Source

Yep, they haven't caught me yet.

j/k

 

[platey]

the problem with the domain industry is that icann can make a trademark infringed domain available to a gtld extension successful bidder and that isnt icann's problem - {and it should be} as no trademark infringed domain name should be made available for sale} then the problem that should exist eg trademark infringed domain names is passed to the new gtld owner {and who now owns lots and lots of trademark infringed domain names within its brand new gtld? {but its not their problem} a domain investor buys a domain {and then gets slapped with a udrp } its the domain investors problem? {no it is not}

icann should work with all the trademark association to make sure that they are not making trademark infringed domain names available for sale { because that would be allowing a customer {the domain name investor} to purchase a product {a domain name} that is not fit for purpose {as its trademark infringed domain name}

trades description etc a product must be fit for purpose

eg if you buy a bike you must be able to ride it and if you cannot because it is not built properly etc a customer can take it back and get a full refund

if a domain name is trademark infringed etc the person having bought the trademark infringed domain name should be able to contact icann and say you have made available a trademark infringed domain that i cannot use and be entitled to a complete refund by icann allowing the trademark infringed domain to return to icann who then can offer the trademark infringed domain to the trademark owner

such a simple process that exists in virtually every shop globally if you buy a pair of shoes etc or a handbag etc and its not fit for purpose etc you can take it back to the shop you bought it from and get a full refund

only in the domain name industry does a problem exist where a domain name investor having purchased a domain name that is trademark infringed faced with a problem where the domain name investor is not allowed to take it back to the shop {the registrar} for a full refund } and then the registrar return the product to the gtld owner {the wholesaler} for a full refund who in turn returns the trademark infringed domain to
{the manufacturer of domaine names} icann for a full refund} it then becomes icann's responsibility to either sell it to the trademark owner or withdraw it from sale

no where in industry is can the manufacturer of a product say thats a problem but its not our problem except in the domain name industry

and its only a matter of time before the whole chain of responsibility from the top to the bottom domain name investor is completely overhaled by the powers that be thus then giving domain name investors a right to return a trademark infringed domain name back to icann for a full refund for the cost of the trademark infringed domain name {a basic customer right globally}

google no doubt will no doubt be aware that such a problem exists and they will either have to approach the powers that be to give domain name purchasers the right or offer their customers purchasing domain names the right to a full refund if a domain name they have purchased is trademark infringed which will set a new benchmark in domain name buying standards

 

[Alice Wonder Miscreations]

new gTLDs are not putting millions at risk, they are simply exposing what was already poor network practices.

 

[platey]

new gtlds - if they are available? they should be allowed to be bought and used and or traded {without trademark search etc}

if a domain name breachs a trademark it should not be allowed to be purchased at source

it should not be the end users problem to rectify a problem that has been overlooked by icann and or the registrar

you cant just buy a house and move in 10 minutes later etc because its usually sold subject to contract but require legalities to be approved first before moving in to that home

a domain name should be sold subject to trademark clearance which should be checked at registrar before the domain name ownership is transferred to buyer not on a {its not our problem basis} which is how domain names are currently bought

a registrar's portfolio when they buy a new gtld will contain 1000's of trademark infringed domain names
within each new gtld purchased and it is the responsibility and duty of the registrar to remove trademark infringed domain names from being available to buy and whatever it costs the registrar to make sure those trademark infringed domains are removed should be added to the cost of the gtld which would increase the price of a domain name but it would mean that a person could buy a domain name with confidence that it does not infringe trademarks as currently buying a domain name at the moment is a complete gamble and it shouldn't be

the domain name industry should have to adhere to the same trading standards as shops on the high st are eg full refund if product not fit for purpose etc or return domain name and be able to choose another domain from registrar instead etc