So Verisign are screwing us over again then?
 

So, Verisign think that just because they run .com and .net, they can take advantage and use the root servers to serve all *non-existent domains* in a manner which a) breaks the fundamentalities of the DNS; b) increases their visibility/accessibility/awareness in order to promote the sale of such domains; c) increases the simplicity for spammers to 'authenticate' their originating domain; d) overrides current configuration possibilities which allow users to define their own search engine for domains that cannot be resolved by their browsers; I could go on... but check this out:

All your web typos belong to us (tm)

For a more defined picture, read:

Verisign's Wildcard A Records Breaking the Internet

So, what are ISPs doing about this? Most appear to be in complete disagreement with the launch of this 'service' and are implementing methods to prevent their users from being taken down this route...
But whilst they may do this, the problem is not being fixed, they're simply replacing the wrongdoings of Verisign with their own messages to the people - although some are providing links to more popular web search engines, such as Google. It's not even as if the Verisign provided search engine is any good... To read an opinion and complaint aired by a UK ISP, read:

I T Consultancy Limited †“ Formal Complaint to ICANN

... and what can you, the end user of the Internet do to air your dissatisfaction of the way in which Verisign are blatantly manipulising their position? ... Well... there is an online petition currently doing the rounds:

Stop Verisign DNS Abuse

It also appears that the Internet Architecture Board [IAB] were consulted on this back in January, yet ICANN and Verisign appear to have taken no notice...

Request for Advice on VGRS IDN Announcement

What happens next is anyone's guess, but Verisign are certainly becoming even more unpopular by the day...

Discuss...

:devsmoke:

Next up: .co.uk and .ca.

It's already broken the email validation script I have on my site :mad:

Duncan

Hahaha... :geez: Nah, I have to disagree... Nominet UK do a splendid job, they work in the interests of their member community, which means that they listen to those that know... unlike Verisign ... </*********!>

:devsmoke:

I notice ntl has now applied the patch that disables Verislimes wild carding. Well done ntl ;)

Errr... and your evidence of this is?? Please explain?

:rolleyes:

The only 'reasonable' patch is to apply the latest version of BIND in the DNS servers, which includes the update to resolve only delegated domains.

See: ISC BIND

Seems like Verisign are intent on pursuing with this madness:

Response to ICANN

Hmmm... Russell Lewis versus Vint "the Daddy" Cerf! I wonder who'll win :shrug:

Errr... and the memo from Rusty to colleagues at Verisign is surely a joke too:

Users Vote with their mouses

How can they proclaim such a success when users have no choice but to be directed to the service if they mis-type a domain?
... and have you read the T&Cs for the service? How can they expect one to not use a service on the basis that one does not agree with the T&Cs when one has absolutely no choice in the matter.

I agree in principle for there to be a more accessible web for those that mis-type domains, but fundamentally breaking the DNS is just plain wrong. :mad:

Things like this should not happen - you should *NOT* get an authoritative response for NoneXistant DOMAINs!!

; <<>> DiG 2.0 <<>> ewfweifhwoeih.com any
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; Ques: 1, Ans: 1, Auth: 13, Addit: 13
;; QUESTIONS:
;; ewfweifhwoeih.com, type = ANY, class = IN

;; ANSWERS:
ewfweifhwoeih.com. 900 A 64.94.110.11

;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
com. 172800 NS g.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS h.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS d.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS j.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS i.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS l.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS b.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS e.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS a.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS k.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS f.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS c.gtld-servers.net.
com. 172800 NS m.gtld-servers.net.

;; ADDITIONAL RECORDS:
g.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.42.93.30
h.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.54.112.30
d.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.31.80.30
j.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.48.79.30
i.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.43.172.30
l.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.41.162.30
b.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.33.14.30
e.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.12.94.30
a.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.5.6.30
k.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.52.178.30
f.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.35.51.30
c.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.26.92.30
m.gtld-servers.net. 172800 A 192.55.83.30

;; FROM: grex.cyberspace.org to SERVER: default -- 127.0.0.1
;; WHEN: Tue Sep 23 19:04:31 2003
;; MSG SIZE sent: 35 rcvd: 483

Compare this to .uk

; <<>> DiG 2.0 <<>> @ns1.nic.uk. verisignarestupidmuppets.co.uk. any
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 10
;; flags: qr aa rd; Ques: 1, Ans: 0, Auth: 1, Addit: 0
;; QUESTIONS:
;; verisignarestupidmuppets.co.uk, type = ANY, class = IN

;; AUTHORITY RECORDS:
co.uk. 172800 SOA ns1.nic.uk. hostmaster.nominet.org.uk. (
2003092301 ; serial
7200 ; refresh (2 hours)
300 ; retry (5 mins)
2419200 ; expire (28 days)
172800 ) ; minimum (2 days)

;; FROM: grex.cyberspace.org to SERVER: ns1.nic.uk. 195.66.240.130
;; WHEN: Tue Sep 23 19:06:31 2003
;; MSG SIZE sent: 48 rcvd: 115

Spot the difference??

<clue> check the status field of both DiGs...</clue>

As per my previous post, Nominet UK are sound <Hi gang! :D> - and are not looking to implement any kind of wildcard system:

Nominet Statement

Which is pleasantly re-assuring :devsmoke:

i think the 'cybersquatting' argument is an interesting one...
given that in the US people have ( I believe ) been forced to hand over domain names that are typos of trademarks, how does this realate to the verisign thing, arent they essentially 'Typo - squatting' or is the fact that they try and point you in the right direction a mitigating circumstance...

what if two companies ... called FredIndustries and FriedIndustries are competitors ( crap example ) and one has a .com registered and the other doesnt...this thing would be cybersquatting one and also redirecting to a competitor...

i hope they lose there 'licence' for this...it is blatant abuse...
and the argument that microsoft do it in IE is weak ...yes, but they do it at the CLIENT after receiving a non existant response...AND you can turn it OFF ...

the yes vote is by me and it was accidental *sobs*

Well some one is now sueing veri"sigh" nice reading

http://www.whois.sc/news/2003-09/verisign-sued.html