test results of harm done by Verisign - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on test results of harm done by Verisign - TCP-IP ; I just did a test in IE6 in which I transposed two letters of a certain domain name. The transposition results in an unregistered name. When the DNS returns NXDOMAIN and MSN Search is given the request by IE, MSN ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: test results of harm done by Verisign

  1. test results of harm done by Verisign

    I just did a test in IE6 in which I transposed two letters of a certain
    domain name. The transposition results in an unregistered name.

    When the DNS returns NXDOMAIN and MSN Search is given the request by IE,
    MSN returns three possible choices. The first choice is correct.

    When the DNS returns Verisign's sitefinder's IP address, Verisign returns
    four possible choices, none of which are the correct site.

    So, Verisign has just made it harder for the customers of that domain to
    get there, because their search is inferior to MSN's.


    The second test was ssh to that domain name with the two letters
    transposed. ssh reported that the connection was refused.

    So Verisign has just misled the customers of that domain into believing
    that the system is down, rather than the fact that the name was
    misspelled.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  2. Re: test results of harm done by Verisign

    In article ,
    Mark Crispin wrote:
    >I just did a test in IE6 in which I transposed two letters of a certain
    >domain name. The transposition results in an unregistered name.
    >
    >When the DNS returns NXDOMAIN and MSN Search is given the request by IE,
    >MSN returns three possible choices. The first choice is correct.
    >
    >When the DNS returns Verisign's sitefinder's IP address, Verisign returns
    >four possible choices, none of which are the correct site.
    >
    >So, Verisign has just made it harder for the customers of that domain to
    >get there, because their search is inferior to MSN's.


    Are you used to making conclusions based on a sample of 1?

    >The second test was ssh to that domain name with the two letters
    >transposed. ssh reported that the connection was refused.
    >
    >So Verisign has just misled the customers of that domain into believing
    >that the system is down, rather than the fact that the name was
    >misspelled.


    Are you used to giving up after the first try or do you
    sometimes check your spelling when things don't work properly?


    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

  3. Re: test results of harm done by Verisign

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    > >So, Verisign has just made it harder for the customers of that domain to
    > >get there, because their search is inferior to MSN's.

    > Are you used to making conclusions based on a sample of 1?


    Please re-read the previous sentence. To help you, let me emphasize the
    phrase "customers of that domain".

    It isn't particularly difficult to try other transpositions, and determine
    how Verisign does its matching. And how it does not match.

    > Are you used to giving up after the first try or do you
    > sometimes check your spelling when things don't work properly?


    Do you deal with users very often? If you do, then why do you ask such a
    question? Help desks regularly deal with people who misspell (sometimes
    repeatedly) and fail to check their spellings. There's a form of
    cybersquatting based upon misspelled names.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  4. Re: test results of harm done by Verisign

    In article ,
    Mark Crispin wrote:
    >On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    >> >So, Verisign has just made it harder for the customers of that domain to
    >> >get there, because their search is inferior to MSN's.

    >> Are you used to making conclusions based on a sample of 1?

    >
    >Please re-read the previous sentence. To help you, let me emphasize the
    >phrase "customers of that domain".


    I feel your pain Mark and I honestly tried to recreate your problem
    and was not able to. It all worked pretty much ok for me, better
    than I had expected, as in "feature not bug". Perhaps if you
    published your data and told us what you tried I could
    reproduce it.

    >Do you deal with users very often? If you do, then why do you ask such a
    >question? Help desks regularly deal with people who misspell (sometimes
    >repeatedly) and fail to check their spellings. There's a form of
    >cybersquatting based upon misspelled names.


    My users can out-stupid your users.

    "did you check the spelling" "cut and paste it and mail
    it to me" gets said a lot.

    Richard
    no that should be dot not comma dear


    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

+ Reply to Thread