[145091] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Nxdomain redirect revenue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Schiller, Heather A)
Tue Sep 27 12:34:43 2011
From: "Schiller, Heather A" <heather.schiller@verizon.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>, "nanog@nanog.org"
<nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:34:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4E818FFE.70908@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Paxfire gets sued:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking=
-users-search-queries.html
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/08/38796.htm
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390529,00.asp
Paxfire files counter suit:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110809/17305215460/paxfire-responds-says=
-it-doesnt-hijack-searches-will-seek-sanctions-against-lawyers.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/03371515808/paxfire-sues-lawyers-=
individual-who-filed-class-action-lawsuit-over-its-search-redirects.shtml
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/9/prweb8765163.htm
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:william.allen.simpson@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 4:58 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Nxdomain redirect revenue
On 9/26/11 4:29 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Is this with strict NXDOMAIN rewriting, or were existing names=20
> redirected as well? (AFAIK, most platforms do the latter, hijacking=20
> bfk.de, for example.)
>
Has anybody tried bringing a criminal complaint for interference with compu=
ter (network) data?
Certainly, hijacking google.com NS records to JOMAX.NET would be a criminal=
interference. After all, that's all DNSsec signed now, isn't it?
Arguably, substituting a false reply for NXDOMAIN would be, too.
It's time to find a champion to lead the charge. Maybe Google?
