Latest news of the domain name industry

Recent Posts

Laughable security report labels Google Registry “shady”

Kevin Murphy, September 1, 2015, Domain Registries

A report by security company Blue Coat Systems today denounced new gTLDs as “shady” and recommended organizations think about blocking the “shadiest” ones entirely.

The study classified “tens of millions” of domains requested by users of its censorware service according to whether they had content that posed a security risk.

It found that nine new gTLDs and one ccTLD scored over 95% — that is, 95% of the domains in those TLDs requested by its customers were potentially unsafe.

But its numbers, I believe, are bollocks.

My main reason for this belief? Blue Coat has ranked .zip as “100% shady”.

This means that, according to the company, every single .zip domain its customers have visited is either spam, malware, a scam, a botnet, suspicious, phishing or potentially unwanted software.

The problem is that the entire .zip zone file currently consists of precisely one (1) domain.

That domain is nic.zip, and it belongs to Google Registry. This is a pre-launch TLD.

As far as I can tell, Google Registry is not involved in distributing malware, spam, phishing, etc.

Nevertheless, Blue Coat said network administrators should “consider blocking traffic” to .zip and other “shady” TLDs.

The top 10 list of the worst TLDs includes .country, .kim, .cricket, .science, .work, .party, .gq (Equatorial Guinea) and .link.

That’s a mixture of Afilias, Minds + Machines, Famous Four and Uniregistry. The common factor is the low cost of registration.

The full Blue Coat report, which can be downloaded here, does not give any of the real underlying numbers for its assertions.

For example, it ranks .review, one of Famous Four Media’s portfolio, as “100% shady” but does not reveal how many domains that relates to.

If its customers have only visited 10 .review domains, and all of those were dodgy, that would equate to a 100% score, even though .review has over 45,000 domains in its zone.

At the other end of the table, .london’s score of 1.85% could have been positively affected by Blue Coat customers visiting a broader selection of .london domains.

The company claims that the report is based on “tens of millions” of domains, but I’d hazard a guess that most of those are in .com and other more established TLDs.

That’s not to say that there’s no truth in Blue Coat’s broader assertion that a lot of new gTLDs are full of garbage — do a Google search for .review sites and see if you can find anything worth looking at — but I don’t think its numbers are worth the pixels they’re written with.

Afilias wins $10m judgment in Architelos “trade secrets” case

Kevin Murphy, August 25, 2015, Domain Services

Afilias has won a $10 million verdict against domain security startup Architelos, over claims its flagship NameSentry abuse monitoring service was created using stolen trade secrets.

A jury in Virginia today handed Afilias $5 million for “misappropriation of trade secrets”, $2.5 million for “conversion” and another $2.5 million for “civil conspiracy”.

The jury found (pdf) in favor of Architelos on claims of business conspiracy and tortious interference with contractual relations, however.

Ten million dollars is a hell of a lot of cash for Architelos, which reportedly said in court that it has only made $300,000 from NameSentry.

If that’s true, I seriously doubt the four-year-old, three-person company has even made $10 million in revenue to date, never mind having enough cash in the bank to cover the judgment.

“We’re disappointed in the jury’s verdict and we plan to address it in some post-trial motions,” CEO Alexa Raad told DI.

The lawsuit was filed in January, but it has not been widely reported on and I only found out about its existence today.

The original complaint (pdf) alleged that three Architelos employees/contractors, including CTO Michael Young, were previously employees or contractors of Afilias and worked on the company’s own abuse tools.

It claimed that these employees took trade secrets with them when they joined Architelos, and used them to build NameSentry, which enables TLD registries to monitor and remediate abuse in their zones.

Architelos denied the claims, saying in its March answer (pdf) that Afilias was simply trying to disrupt its business by casting doubt over the ownership of its IP.

That doubt has certainly been cast, though the jury verdict says nothing about transferring Architelos’ patents to Afilias.

The $5 million portion of the verdict deals with Afilias’ claim that Architelos misappropriated trade secrets — ie that Young and others took work they did for Afilias and used it to build a product that could compete with something Afilias had been building.

The other two counts that went against Architelos basically cover the same actions by Architelos employees.

The company may be able to get the amount of the judgment lowered in post-trial, or even get the jury verdict overturned, so it’s not necessarily curtains yet. But Architelos certainly has a mountain to climb.

Web.com hacked, 93,000 cards stolen

Kevin Murphy, August 19, 2015, Domain Registrars

The credit card details of 93,000 Web.com customers have been stolen by hackers.

The name, address and credit card number of the affected customers were accessed. The verification numbers (from the back of the cards) were not stolen.

Web.com said the attack was discovered August 13 and has been reported to the proper authorities.

Network Solutions and Register.com, its leading registrar businesses, were not affected, the company said.

It has 3.3 million customers. Those whose details were stolen have been emailed and will receive a letter in the mail.

The company said it will provide affected customers with a year of free credit monitoring.

World’s fourth-largest bank dumping old domains in switch to dot-brand gTLD

A French bank appears to be the first major company to commence a permanent switch from a legacy TLD to a new dot-brand.

BNP Paribas, the fourth-largest bank in the world, is dumping its .fr and .net domains in favor of .bnpparibas for customers in its domestic market, where it serves close to eight million retail banking customers.

Visitors to the .fr and .net domains are directed to a landing page that informs them that mabanque.bnpparibas (“mybank.bnpparibas”) is the company’s new domain.

BNP Paribas

The new dot-brand site appears to be a fully functional online banking service, not just brochureware.

It’s the ninth most-visited new gTLD domain name, with an Alexa rank today of 6,005, climbing the ranks every day.

As it’s a redesigned web site, customers are able to switch back to the familiar .net site (Alexa rank: 2,543) if they wish.

The domain was registered in January and BNP Paribas began a transition campaign in April. The transition away from the .net and .fr domains appears to have started at some point over the last month, but there hasn’t been a great deal of media coverage.

The .com domain is still live, serving Anglophone customers.

The mabanque.bnpparibas site leaves little doubt about the reason for the transition (translated with Google’s assistance):

BIZARRE, THIS ADDRESS WITHOUT .FR OR .NET? IS IT SECURE?

YES, A 100% SECURE SITE!

Any address ending with .bnpparibas is managed by BNP Paribas and has an advanced security certificate. Even more reliable, this new extension now acts as a signature.

Of course the architecture https and the padlock are still on your URL bar, confirming that the connection is secure.

So you can browse and view your accounts in all serenity!

BNP Paribas is a bit of a big deal, the fourth-largest bank in the world, managing assets of $2.5 trillion.

It’s bigger than Barclays, which earlier this year said it intends to transition away from .com and .co.uk to .barclays. The .barclays and .barclaycard sites are still just brochureware, however, with no transactional features.

Other dot-brands have launched sites at their new gTLDs, but .bnpparibas is the first transfer of a fully transactional web site from a legacy TLD to a dot-brand I’ve seen.

The Chinese conglomerate CITIC dumped its .com for .citic last September, but soon switched back.

Donuts: glitch revealed price we would pay for gTLDs

The recently discovered security vulnerability in one of ICANN’s web sites revealed how much Donuts was willing to pay for contested gTLDs at auction.

This worrying claim emerged during a meeting between registries and the ICANN board of directors at ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires yesterday.

“We were probably the largest victim of the data breach,” Donuts veep Jon Nevett told the board. “We had our financial data reviewed numerous times, dozens of times. We had our relative net worth of our TLDs reviewed, so it was very damaging information.”

He was referring to the misconfiguration in the new gTLD applicants’ portal, which allowed any user to view confidential application attachments belonging to any applicant.

ICANN discovered the problem in February, two years after the portal launched. The results of a security audit were revealed in late April.

But it was not until late May that it emerged that only one person, dotBerlin CEO Dirk Krischenowski, was suspected by ICANN of having deliberately viewed data belonging to others.

Nevett said communication should have been faster.

“We were in the dark for a number of weeks about who saw the data,” he told the board. “That was troubling, as we were going to auctions in that interim period as well.”

Donuts, which applied for over 300 new gTLDs, is known to have taken a strictly numbers-driven approach to string selection and auction strategy.

If a rival in a contention set had known how much Donuts was prepared to pay for a string, it would have had a significant advantage in an auction.

In response to Nevett’s concerns, ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade said that ICANN had to do a thorough investigation before it could be sure who saw what when.