[–] philwelch 16y ago ↗ This is old news, microsoft.com had the same crap for years. [–] acangiano 16y ago ↗ And Amazon, and Yahoo, and other popular domains. The problem is that InterNic should not sit and quietly accept this kind of abuse. [–] philwelch 16y ago ↗ Honestly, any regulatory scheme over subdomains would be even worse than this "abuse". [–] acangiano 16y ago ↗ Subdomains are not the problem. The issue is that these are registered namesevers, as pointed out by "there" below.
[–] acangiano 16y ago ↗ And Amazon, and Yahoo, and other popular domains. The problem is that InterNic should not sit and quietly accept this kind of abuse. [–] philwelch 16y ago ↗ Honestly, any regulatory scheme over subdomains would be even worse than this "abuse". [–] acangiano 16y ago ↗ Subdomains are not the problem. The issue is that these are registered namesevers, as pointed out by "there" below.
[–] philwelch 16y ago ↗ Honestly, any regulatory scheme over subdomains would be even worse than this "abuse". [–] acangiano 16y ago ↗ Subdomains are not the problem. The issue is that these are registered namesevers, as pointed out by "there" below.
[–] acangiano 16y ago ↗ Subdomains are not the problem. The issue is that these are registered namesevers, as pointed out by "there" below.
[–] jonah 16y ago ↗ Often used for phishing. "Login to your account: http://google.com.adsfjk.asdf.asdfpuiasdf/soasdf.html blah blah." [–] there 16y ago ↗ hardly. these are registered nameservers showing in whois and have nothing to do with random subdomains.
[–] there 16y ago ↗ hardly. these are registered nameservers showing in whois and have nothing to do with random subdomains.
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 23.6 ms ] thread