Security Registrars
Panix's domain name Hijacked
posted by michael on Monday January 17 2005, @06:29AM

NW writes "According to a CNET story, a Slashdot post and Panix.net, the main domain name of Panix, an ISP in NYC, has been transferred under strange circumstances to someone else without their permission. There is also a second report of a similar incidents at the same registrar. Verisign has refused to help so far."

Editor's note: It's fixed now.


What Is Afilias Hiding? | Panix hijack: more details  >

 
  ICANNWatch Login  
Nickname:

Password:

[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

 
  Related Links  
· VeriSign/NSI
· N.Am Network Operators' Group
· ICANN
· NW
· a CNET story
· a Slashdot post
· Panix.net
· a second report
· has refused to help
· It's fixed now.
· More Security stories
· Also by michael
 
Panix's domain name Hijacked | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 2 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Not the biggest theft
by GeorgeK on Monday January 17 2005, @09:58AM (#14621)
User #3191 Info | http://www.kirikos.com/
A bunch of other domains were stolen too, as I discussed on the GA list [icann.org], that had significantly more traffic than Panix does (i.e. a top 2000 Alexa site with 500,000+ visitors/day). The key one is being returned now (nameservers restored), but more work needs to be done in order to have registrars be proactive on these issues.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
PANIX issue not the registry's fault
by GideonsLastSon on Monday January 17 2005, @05:31PM (#14622)
User #3824 Info | http://icannwatch.jothan.at/start.php
Stating that Verisign 'would not' help may cast a negative light on them where it is not deserved in this situation, and may be somewhat distortive.

It would seem to me more appropriately stated that Verisign 'could not' help, as they would be restricted from stepping in and helping without creating huge liability for themselves the way that the policies work.

This was clearly an issue in the registrar channel, both in cause and in remedy, stemming from the new transfer rules.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]


Search ICANNWatch.org:


Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml.