Re:How Microsoft Appointed Itself Sheriff of the Internet
by tzs on Thursday October 16, 2014 @02:41PM
(#8466587)
> Yeah, there's really no excuse for not talking to the people at the company first. The only reason I can fathom would be that if Microsoft suspected the owner of No-IP to be actually involved with the botnet operators.
Or they knew that No-IP had long been aware of the abusive domains and had not done anything about them.
OpenDNS published a report on malware support domains in April 2013, identifying No-IP as the top provider of them [1]. No-IP posted a comment responding to that so we know they saw it.
Cisco published a report in February 2014 on dynamic DNS abuse [2], naming No-IP as a major provider for malware domains. No-IP posted a comment linking to a formal response on their blog [3].
The gist of their response is that they don't tolerate abuse, they actively work to find it and stomp it out, and they responsd quickly to reports sent to their abuse address, and they invite Cisco to send a report to their abuse address.
Ignoring well documented reports of abuse because they no not arrive via the right bureaucratic channel does not project the right image if you want to be seen as a white hat company.
Or they knew that No-IP had long been aware of the abusive domains and had not done anything about them.
OpenDNS published a report on malware support domains in April 2013, identifying No-IP as the top provider of them [1]. No-IP posted a comment responding to that so we know they saw it.
Cisco published a report in February 2014 on dynamic DNS abuse [2], naming No-IP as a major provider for malware domains. No-IP posted a comment linking to a formal response on their blog [3].
The gist of their response is that they don't tolerate abuse, they actively work to find it and stomp it out, and they responsd quickly to reports sent to their abuse address, and they invite Cisco to send a report to their abuse address.
Ignoring well documented reports of abuse because they no not arrive via the right bureaucratic channel does not project the right image if you want to be seen as a white hat company.
[1] http://labs.opendns.com/2013/04/15/on-the-trail-of-malicious...
[2] http://blogs.cisco.com/security/dynamic-detection-of-malicio...
[3] http://www.noip.com/blog/2014/02/12/cisco-malware-report/