[HN Gopher] Zoom outage caused by accidental 'shutting down' of ...
___________________________________________________________________
Zoom outage caused by accidental 'shutting down' of the zoom.us
domain
Author : RVRX
Score : 587 points
Date : 2025-04-17 00:55 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (status.zoom.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (status.zoom.us)
| RVRX wrote:
| "This block was the result of a communication error between
| Zoom's domain registrar, Markmonitor, and GoDaddy Registry, which
| resulted in GoDaddy Registry mistakenly shutting down zoom.us
| domain. "
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Something is fishy about this. A communication error would not
| result in a domain being placed on hold. On hold is usually the
| result of a legal order or in the case of the .us TLD a nexus
| compliance violation. I've transferred thousands of domains
| from assorted dodgy registrars into MarkMonitor and can not
| even imagine a scenario where a miscommunication results in a
| domain being placed on hold.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Correctness doesn't scale. If something has six nines of
| reliability, you'll probably never see the one-in-million
| outlier yourself. But if the other side deals with a million
| requests a month, they are a common occurrence.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Yeah I'm not saying errors don't happen. I've been called
| into gazillions of them including many that _" should not
| happen"_. Those make for the best root cause analysis and
| after action reports.
|
| Rather this does not sound like a communication error
| unless they are leaving out a lot of critical details and
| context or the domain management interface has been de-
| frictioned and dumbed down too much.
| pigbearpig wrote:
| Could it have been something as simple as "hey, zoonn.us is
| violating Zoom's copyright, please block it" and then someone
| typos "zoom.us".
| megamike wrote:
| oops rolls eyes
| system2 wrote:
| Someone in the Zoom company management forgot to update the
| billing credit card for that domain, I bet you $1000. Happens all
| the time with our clients.
| adrr wrote:
| They don't use normal registrations. Anyone with any size is
| using MarkMonitor and do monthly billing and have a dedicated
| person. No credit cards.
| be_erik wrote:
| I was really hoping to find out they were hosting their DNS on
| GoDaddy. I still want it to be true.
| johncolanduoni wrote:
| If only it were so, then they would have kind of deserved it.
| TIL GoDaddy wormed it's way into administering the .us TLD on
| behalf of the federal government.
| jsheard wrote:
| That makes two reasons to avoid .us domains, the other being
| that you're not allowed to redact the WHOIS information on
| those.
| neodymiumphish wrote:
| This shafted me hard when I registered the domain I used to
| research and write a company blog post
| (https://www.guidepointsecurity.com/blog/tunnel-vision-
| cloudf...).
|
| I'll never deal with a .us domain again, even if it means
| missing out on a good text string.
| riffic wrote:
| wormed it is
| johnklos wrote:
| GoDaddy is the registrar. They (Zoom) host their DNS using
| Amazon.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Amazing how many service outages are caused by doing business
| with GoDaddy.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Also after dividing the number of outages by the number of
| customers?
|
| I'm not a customer (wouldn't buy my domain overseas) and have
| no solid opinion on GoDaddy besides that I hate the name. I
| hear the horror stories also. I'm just wondering if this is a
| knee-jerk reaction
| hypercube33 wrote:
| I've used about 12 registrar's and dns providers and they are
| trash top to bottom - literally the worst and most difficult
| to do everything from basic setup to how they do things just
| plain weird compared to other hosting providers. They also
| aren't the cheapest option so other than brand recognition I
| don't get why people use them.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Let's not get carried away.
|
| Network Solutions still exists.
| hinkley wrote:
| Here's something you all need to learn about site (or for
| that matter, tool) reliability:
|
| Nobody gives a shit about how many good outcomes between
| incidents there are. They care about how many good hours
| happen between incidents, and they care how big the incidents
| are.
|
| So if you make a tool that your coworkers use 5 times as much
| as the old process, that tool better make things at least 6x
| more stable or people will start talking about how the
| process fails 'all the time'.
|
| "all the time", as near as I've been able to figure out,
| after people have been yelling at me, my team, or a team I'm
| privy to, is not "every day". No, all the time just means
| that it happens every couple of weeks and one time happened
| twice in one day, twice in consecutive days, or with two
| customers in rapid succession. Usually the day they're
| screaming about.
|
| So if you're doing that thing every day all day long, where
| you used to do it rarely, but you made some progress on
| making it more frequent, nobody cares that it's every 100th
| run that fails, when it used to be every 10th. They just see
| the drama has gotten more frequent (and nowhere near as
| frequent as their narrative says, but you've already lost
| that argument)
| toast0 wrote:
| Sure, but probably when zoom got the zoom.us domain, Neustar
| was running the .us registry. Godaddy acquired Neustar's
| registry business in 2020 when everyone was busy looking at
| other things.
| RVRX wrote:
| The domain status on the whois record was "serverHold" earlier in
| the day
| autoexec wrote:
| Markmonitor and zoom are both terrible companies so I can't feel
| bad about this
| __float wrote:
| What's wrong with Markmonitor? They don't have nearly the
| customer base of Zoom (where I can relate to any complaints,
| I'm sure)
| autoexec wrote:
| They've earned themselves a reputation for sending false DMCA
| notices.
|
| https://www.inquisitr.com/markmonitor-sends-false-
| copyright-...
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/record-labels-defeat-false-dmca-
| tak...
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/court-dismisses-charters-claims-
| of-...
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/hbo-wants-google-to-censor-hbo-
| com-...
|
| https://torrentfreak.com/after-4-years-copyright-holders-
| sti...
|
| They haven't even always been good to their own clients:
| https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-lawfirm-defrauded-
| right...
| voxic11 wrote:
| Can you explain what that last article has to do with
| MarkMonitor? To me it just sounds like MarkMonitor once
| bought a company from a law firm which was sued for fraud 5
| years after the sale was completed. So it doesn't appear
| that MarkMonitor was in any way related to the fraud which
| occurred.
| autoexec wrote:
| Good call out! If Schluter didn't continue doing work for
| DtecNet after the sale to MarkMonitor then we can't
| really blame MarkMonitor for the things he was doing 5
| years later.
| nickvec wrote:
| Curious what your rationale is for Zoom being a terrible
| company? I don't disagree.
| autoexec wrote:
| I decided zoom was a bad company very early for security and
| privacy reasons
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/8/20687014/zoom-security-
| fla...
|
| https://citizenlab.ca/2020/04/move-fast-roll-your-own-
| crypto...
|
| The endless stream of news on privacy problems and
| vulnerabilities that have come to light since then have only
| made me feel better about that initial opinion.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/08/zoom-data-mining-for-ai-
| te...
|
| https://www.tomsguide.com/news/zoom-security-privacy-woes
|
| https://cybersecuritynews.com/zoom-app-vulnerability/
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/15/zoom_privilege_escala.
| ..
|
| https://gbhackers.com/zoom-security-update-patches-
| multiple-...
|
| https://thecyberexpress.com/multiple-zoom-vulnerabilities-
| de...
| johnisgood wrote:
| Since parent (autoexec) has provided links to all of these
| claims, do not let it go to the down-vote hell and disappear.
|
| Why Markmonitor is terrible:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43712299
|
| Why Zoom is terrible:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43712438
|
| If you think it is not enough to call them terrible, reply to
| these comments as to why not.
| ajdude wrote:
| A few years ago I had a .us TLD. I eventually decided that I
| probably shouldn't be reliant on a country code for my domain,
| it's the same reason why I don't use .io
|
| I'm not saying that this couldn't have happened with a gTLD But
| why put your brand at the mercy of a government like that?
| jsheard wrote:
| > it's the same reason why I don't use .io
|
| Dodged a bullet there given that .io is at risk of being
| discontinued altogether. It hasn't been decided yet, but better
| to not have that dangling over your head.
| eli wrote:
| I don't think that's a real risk
| jsheard wrote:
| It wouldn't be the first time a ccTLD has been retired
| after its country ceased to be, though it would be the most
| disruptive given how popular it is, hence the uncertainty
| as to what they'll do this time.
| sgarland wrote:
| If I were Mauritius, I would be hitting tech companies
| left and right to secure a permanent income stream.
|
| You guys want to kick indigenous people off their land
| for military bases? Enjoy your new bill for .io domains.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| The Chagossians are not by any meaningful standards
| indigenous. The land was uninhabited when George
| Washington was rebelling against the British. If the
| Chagossians are indigenous so are old stock white
| Americans.
|
| And Mauritius have treated the Chagossians like dirt for
| decades, with no signs of that changing.
|
| None of this is to deny the Chagossians were extremely
| ill treated by the British, but the idea that the
| Mauritanians have any interest in the welfare of the
| Chagossians is ridiculous.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I have some sympathy for your position, but I'll add that
| the prevailing moral opinion seems to be "whoever got
| there first is the rightful owner". Of course you have to
| allow for armchair ethnologists not being particularly
| good at distinguishing between similar groups and later
| revisionism.
|
| A lot of Pacific islands territories have complicated
| histories like this (e.g. Hawaii, New Zealand), but the
| focus usually ends up on whatever bastards most recently
| took over from the previous bastards (relative levels of
| bastardy notwithstanding).
| Sunspark wrote:
| Absolutely. For example, the Maoris are not the original
| indigenous. What happened to them you may ask? They
| became literal dinner for the Maoris. This has happened
| elsewhere too. True original indigenous are rare.
|
| The thing with the island of Diego Garcia is quite
| strange and I strongly suspect there is corruption
| involved. The UK wishes to divest itself? Instead of
| holding an auction where the rest of the planet can bid
| on purchasing the territory, the UK decided that
| Mauritius would take it (who doesn't really want it) and
| to entice them, the UK is going to PAY Mauritius to take
| the territory and leave the base alone. The amount is
| PS90 million annually, adjusted for inflation for 99
| years.
|
| This is a lot of money, why not just NOT turn it over and
| not have to give away PS90 million a year for a century?
| So, it begs the question.. is someone from the UK side
| benefiting from this no-bid deal?
|
| Give the island to me, and I won't charge the UK to have
| the base.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Hopefully that doesn't happen as not everyone who uses a
| .io is a tech company. I've been using a .io domain for
| my personal email for something like a decade now, when I
| just thought "oh that's a cool TLD" and had no idea it
| was even a country TLD. I don't much relish the idea of
| getting soaked for money to stick it to the man when I
| haven't done anything morally wrong.
| seszett wrote:
| That territory is not going to "cease to be", it's just
| going to change hands. The uncertainty was entirely
| created as an easy way to get views.
| xp84 wrote:
| You can bet it wouldn't be actually discontinued, but you can
| bet when/if the UK gives away the island to Mauritius or
| whatever, they'll lease the rights to the highest bidder, and
| those people will be free to extort everyone with a valuable
| .io domain.
| j45 wrote:
| This news to me, thanks for sharing.
| ryan29 wrote:
| It's going to be interesting to see what they do. One of the
| core arguments when claiming the domain industry enjoys a
| competitive market is that switching costs are bearable and
| that switching TLDs is an option if registries increase
| prices too much.
|
| So ICANN has a non-trivial choice to make. Either they
| maintain the position that switching costs are bearable and
| let .io disappear, or they admit that TLD switching is
| impossible and save .io, which will make it hard to argue the
| threat of (registrants) TLD switching keeps the industry
| competitive.
| lucb1e wrote:
| What TLD is not subject to a country's laws? .aq? .su?
|
| Edit: .eu might be an even better candidate for this
| requirement, but you can ask British former domain owners how
| that worked out
|
| gTLDs just subject you to an _additional_ layer of
| incompetence, namely from the company running it. The
| government where they 're located can still come knocking. It's
| also not like e.g. .nl is run by the Dutch government
| officials, it's a nonprofit started by some people in the 80s
| iirc
| bongodongobob wrote:
| It's the specific country being referenced, I think.
| swores wrote:
| They wrote that they were talking about country code TLDs
| vs not, not about US vs. other countries. (Which is what I
| would've said too, it's a more general point than thinking
| about anything specific to one country.)
|
| Ironically that one country happens to be the one that also
| controls gTLDs like .com, as others have pointed out, so
| arguably .us is the one ccTLD that isn't any more or less
| likely to be reliable.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Presumably the idea is that fabricating a legal offense to
| shut down a ccTLD would be easier than it would be for
| regular TLDs.
|
| I don't know if that's actually the case, I've heard some
| shady sites are using .su(Soviet Union) to avoid judicial
| actions.
| belorn wrote:
| gTLDs are regulated by ICANN. As much as an organization can
| achieve to be a global multistakeholder group, at least the
| intention is to be global.
|
| ICANN have a mostly hand-off approach to ccTDLs. The
| intention is that each country decide on their own
| regulations and management when it comes to their country
| code specific domains.
|
| .nl is a very special case, and it is true that the Dutch
| government was not involved. .nl was the first country code
| TLD created outside of the US, when the domain system still
| was part of ARPANET and operated by the United States
| Department of Defense. .nl was then transferred to a
| foundation 10 years later, and that's where ownership now
| resides.
|
| ccTLDs are somewhat of a mess. Many are created in
| universities, then transferred to a company or foundation.
| Others were sold to companies from the start. In some cases,
| government have sold their ccTLD to other countries.
|
| .se for example was created in a Swedish university, and then
| later the government took possession of it (or the university
| gave it to them, can't really say). Now there are laws that
| explicitly defines how it should be used and governed, which
| then a non-profit foundation manage the implementation.
| agwa wrote:
| > _gTLDs just subject you to an additional layer of
| incompetence, namely from the company running it._
|
| ccTLDs also have to be run by some organization, which is
| often a private company. Maybe the country's oversight over
| this organization is better than ICANN's oversight over gTLD
| operators. Maybe it's not. Historically, the worst technical
| incidents have occurred at ccTLDs.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| > But why put your brand at the mercy of a government like
| that?
|
| Literally every single TLD is administered by a government.
|
| .com itself is under jurisdiction of USA and operated by
| Verisign
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| > Literally every single TLD is administered by a government.
|
| False. I'm not sure what you're trying to assert, but
| governments don't necessarily need to control/admin gTLDs,
| and as far as ccTLDs go, they're under jurisdiction of the
| corresponding nation, usually, but they're going to be
| "administered" by a tech company that holds a contract.
|
| Anyway, ".com" does indeed answer to U.S. jurisdiction,
| despite being technically a gTLD, but registrations are not
| restricted to US-based entities. The main things that keep
| ".com" associated with the USA include the history/legacy of
| this quintessential "original" domain, as well as a general
| support from major countries that provide a "second-level"
| commercial domain, such as ".co.uk".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
| nottorp wrote:
| > ".com" does indeed answer to U.S. jurisdiction
|
| ... which is a problem lately ... and may have been even in
| the past for some niches ...
| johnisgood wrote:
| What about .name?
| areyourllySorry wrote:
| also verisign. https://icannwiki.org/.name
| ryan29 wrote:
| > .com itself is under jurisdiction of USA and operated by
| Verisign
|
| Barely. The NTIA gave up all their leverage over .com in
| 2018. The only thing the US can do at this point is let the
| cooperative agreement auto-renew to limit price increases.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the US withdrew from the agreement
| altogether at this point. Then .com would fall under the
| joint control of ICANN and Verisign.
| omcnoe wrote:
| Zoom are already at the mercy of the government by virtue of
| being incorporated in the US, and having the majority of their
| staff there. "Generic" TLD's like .com come under US purview
| also anyway.
| deepsun wrote:
| .us is more special, e.g. the owner should be a US entity,
| and must be public (Private Domain functionality is disabled
| for .us).
| SkyeCA wrote:
| > But why put your brand at the mercy of a government like
| that?
|
| I tend to trust my government (Canada) and I appreciate that
| WHOIS information is hidden by default for .ca domains. I live
| here and always will so it seems fit to use the national TLD
| for representing myself and my work.
| varun_ch wrote:
| same here with .ch! I trust Switzerland's stability way more
| than I'd trust any business or country. I'm not actually sure
| if there's any ccTLD more trustworthy. (yes I know that the
| TLD is 'managed' by a private company but still)
| tephra wrote:
| IIRC CIRA who is the delegated ccTLD manager of .ca is not a
| government entity (this is quite common in the ccTLD space
| actually, a lot of ccTLD are being managed by foundations or
| non-profits).
| stackskipton wrote:
| This smells like something happened with MarkMonitor, they
| accidently flagged zoom.us as brand spoofing and filed copyright
| complaint with GoDaddy who runs .us TLD. GoDaddy suspended the
| domain per the complaint.
| lolinder wrote:
| It's possible, but MarkMonitor is Zoom's registrar, so there
| are plenty of other ways for a miscommunication between
| MarkMonitor and GoDaddy to cause this. Copyright complaints
| would be a more reasonable theory if MarkMonitor were mentioned
| and didn't have any other involvement.
| stackskipton wrote:
| I guess but if MarkMonitor accidently suspended it, it would
| be ClientHold but it was widely reported it was showing as
| ServerHold.
|
| ServerHold is used with Registry (GoDaddy in this case) is
| disabling vs ClientHold is when registrar is pulling the plug
| (MarkMonitor)
|
| So what would have MarkMonitor said to GoDaddy to cause them
| to ServerHold a domain?
| altairprime wrote:
| At one point on a trip to Hawaii I was detained in my room
| by hotel security for fifteen minutes after requesting a
| room key to replace the one I lost.
|
| It turns out that they had typo'd 12 into the request type
| field instead of 1, and type 12 was "Covid lockdown
| protocol with security enforcement" leftover from 2020 and
| latent in their systems.
|
| Depending on MarkMonitor have chosen to integrate with each
| other to handle the sort of trademark management that is
| MarkMonitor's premium offering, either _or_ both parties
| _could_ have simply been off-by-one or typo'd in a
| transaction to cause this. It's absolutely plausible to
| create a confusing nightmare outcome with a one-byte error.
| (And we're having quite incredible cosmic rays today, so I
| hope they're using ECC RAM!)
| Alupis wrote:
| If this is the case, then it seems to be a very clear-cut
| example as-to why we should reject these sort of automated
| "take downs". They can and are abused, including copyright
| violations on Github, YouTube, etc.
|
| Since when did we accept, as a society, guilty until proven
| innocent? I recognize GoDaddy is not the government - but this
| is unacceptable. A human spending 3 seconds looking at the
| domain would understand it's a false-positive and should not be
| removed.
| selcuka wrote:
| > Since when did we accept, as a society, guilty until proven
| innocent?
|
| At least since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
| layman51 wrote:
| I don't know if I'm misremembering, but I remember getting
| automated service emails about how Zoom.us will be a deprecated
| domain in favor of Zoom.com
|
| When this outage happened, I assumed that they finally "made
| the switch" over but something went wrong.
|
| Something I heard is that there was a Twitter account @zoom_us
| that was also deleted today.
| xyst wrote:
| Zoom, a multibillion dollar corporation, uses the shit tier of
| all companies, _GoDaddy_, for their registrar?
|
| What a blunder.
| lucb1e wrote:
| That's not the registrar, that's the registry
| londons_explore wrote:
| GoDaddy runs the .us TLD. You cannot avoid them if you want
| that TLD
| Geezus_42 wrote:
| You can avoid them by not using the .us TLD.
| film42 wrote:
| Zoom CEO: Hi, we'd like an SLA credit for the global outage you
| caused our company.
|
| GoDaddy: I am so sorry about that. I can offer you a one-time
| coupon for $10 off your next purchase or renewal. Would you like
| me to apply this to your account?
|
| ---
|
| Most companies just hope an apologetic zoom call is enough to
| retain your business, and most of the time it works. Not enough
| has been written about the asymmetry of your SLA credits to your
| revenue impact for a given vendor outage and how that should
| guide your build vs buy decision framework.
| mikeocool wrote:
| You probably don't want to optimize for the SLA credit making
| up for a significant part of your lost revenue -- because that
| would mean when things are operating normally, you don't have
| much of a profit margin.
|
| SLA's are generally more helpful for getting out of long term
| contracts with unreliable vendors than actually making up for
| revenue lost during an outage.
| kevincox wrote:
| SLA credits are an incentive for the service provider not
| making up for lost revenue from the outage.
|
| If you have 100% SLA credit under 99% availability you can't
| aford to be less than 99% available and I know that your SLA
| means something to you, not just an aspirational bullet
| point.
| Geezus_42 wrote:
| Why would you use godaddy for a service as large as Zoom? They
| have been garbage for years. The way they locked out their ACME
| api for anyone but top tear clients sealed the deal for me. I
| would never trust them.
| Geezus_42 wrote:
| I just remembered, they also can't do DKIM correctly. What
| good is a DNS provider that can't follow standards?
| technion wrote:
| Companies as big as zoom are still perfectly capable of
| having a high level VIP decide "we're going to use GoDaddy
| because I saw their Superbowl ad".
| 0x0000000 wrote:
| They don't use Godaddy directly. Godaddy is the registry for
| .us. Zoom's registrar is MarkMonitor, who appear to be at
| fault for this outage.
| sgarland wrote:
| Never heard of MarkMonitor before. Not a great start.
|
| I had Google Domains for years, until they abruptly and
| bizarrely abandoned it, then I left for Porkbun. Never had
| a problem with either of them. I get yearly auto-renewal
| notices. Everything works, and it's very boring, which is
| precisely what I want from a registrar.
| dewey wrote:
| That's because you are maybe not in the market for
| MarkMonitor. If you check the whois for any global brands
| chances are they are held by MarkMonitor. Just like you
| don't use EY as your tax advisor.
| sgarland wrote:
| Genuinely, I don't understand how anything other than
| uptime matters for a domain registrar.
|
| What services are they offering that makes them
| attractive to corporations?
| reilly3000 wrote:
| They generally do full service brand monitoring to
| protect IP and maintain continuity. You would outsource
| monitoring for trademark infringement to them, and be
| certain that domain renewals are done perfectly for a
| portfolio of high value domains.
| lolinder wrote:
| Which is why this outage is so weird: the entire point of
| paying MarkMonitor is ensuring that absolutely nothing
| goes wrong with a very fraught process, and they seem to
| have just taken down one of the biggest brands they
| support.
| throwanem wrote:
| Precisely. You pay a company like this the nosebleed-
| inducing fees they charge so that this exact event never
| happens. That assurance, and not the mechanics of domain
| registration or canned web searches or whatever else, is
| their product.
|
| It's like, as I'm sure I'm paraphrasing from something I
| read God alone knows how many years ago, if your
| publicist lets you walk into a press event with a giant
| blob of snot hanging out of your nose. There surely is a
| reason why that error occurred, and it probably is at
| least a pretty good reason. But no one is very surprised
| to see the intro invite from your _new_ publicist.
|
| It isn't a relationship you blow up on a whim, but Zoom
| that can't route call traffic is Zoom that's not
| generating revenue, and while the reputational impact is
| negligible if it happens once, it had _really_ better
| happen _only once._ Zoom is the incumbent; no one
| remembers they were revolutionary once, now everyone only
| notices the parts they don 't like. (Being a skilled but
| politically naive sysadmin is much the same.)
|
| Basically, this is why Ma Bell - which had about the only
| stronger possible "uptime" expectation, in that no one
| uses Zoom for 911 - was so uptight you couldn't even plug
| in a modem until about five minutes before divestiture,
| and specified everything down to the number of turns in
| the splices their technicians made. There was a fad among
| programmers, when I was a child, to consider such
| practices stodgy.
| macintux wrote:
| Obligatory Indiana Bell building rotation link.
|
| https://www.archdaily.com/973183/the-building-that-moved-
| how...
| throwanem wrote:
| I did not know that story!
|
| What a paragon of engineering.
| slyall wrote:
| The are supposed to also filter things like complaints.
| If somebody complains I'm sending spam and I only pay
| $20/year then my registrar might lock my domain and then
| I have to work to get it back online.
|
| Mark Monitor will apply a lot more filtering to
| complaints.
|
| Ironically this is allegedly what happened in this case,
| a complaint about the domain got it taken offline.
| toast0 wrote:
| Like others said, uptime for a registrar barely matters.
| For an important domain, I don't want anything to change,
| and if the registrar is down, nothing will change, so
| that's good.
|
| What MarkMonitor can provide is things like facilitating
| RegistryLock, which makes it even harder for changes to
| be made. And account reps that know what's going on. I
| hate working with account reps, but if they're
| knowledgable and easy to work with, it's ok.
|
| They do some trademark monitoring (thus the name), if you
| want to get your own related app taken down from Google
| Play :p (I'm not bitter, it was amusing). And presence
| services if you need to hold a domain in a weird location
| that wants a presence, they can probably arrange it,
| which is handy at times.
|
| I'd love to know more details on this incident,
| MarkMonitor had a bulletproof reputation as a registrar
| that won't fuck up. Godaddy doesn't, but then I didn't
| realize they had taken over the contract for .us
| kryptiskt wrote:
| They can offer humans in the loop, and those cost a lot.
| Like, a real live human will contact you and ask if you
| really want to transfer microsoft.com to Shady Shell
| Company (Bermuda) Ltd. Porkbun's pricing model is less
| attractive when your domains are worth billions to you.
| the-rc wrote:
| MarkMonitor has been around forever. It's used by many of
| the largest companies. I remember quite a few Google
| outages that could be tracked down to MM issues.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| I worked at a company that used MM and was involved in
| some of the domain work.
|
| One of the really nice things about the service is they
| handle a lot of the general business continuity and
| security stuff that can really suck with traditional
| registrars. One of their main lines of work is they'll
| work with you to resolve tld-squatting and typo-squatting
| by working directly with the registrars.
|
| Even before an infinite number of vanity or scammy tlds
| started showing up it would be pretty difficult to find
| <your-growing-unicorn-startup>.biz to add to your
| portfolio of domains since the owner may just have
| forgotten to update their email in their registrar and
| were coasting on a 10 year registration. Maybe the squat
| was intentional and it's now a 1:1 replica of your
| homepage with a phishing or other credit card scam going.
| Stuff like that really sucks to do yourself while
| handling your other responsibilities. MM was pretty
| successful at getting in touch with the owners in the
| first place and having the registrar yank and transfer in
| the latter case. YMMV of course.
|
| Once a lot of tlds started showing up, and especially the
| porn related ones, they worked with the new registrars
| directly (like GoDaddy in the .us case here) in the
| "sunrise period" to make sure something like google.xxx
| doesn't become a front page article about an actual porn
| site (in case you're wondering, that one doesn't go
| anywhere at all). Your other options are to work directly
| with each registrar or ICANN.
| throwanem wrote:
| Oh, I didn't know they'd been around since '99. They
| called me on behalf of a Hollywood titan about one of my
| hobby domains, which happened to partially coincide at a
| dictionary word with one of their client's trademarks,
| some time around 2006. I don't recall that the
| approximate paralegal I spoke with actually identified
| the company; I never forgot the call, but hadn't thought
| to check who manages the studio's own domain. Go figure.
|
| I found them surprisingly easy to deal with, and happy to
| have me on record that my toy domain had nothing to do
| with either their client or any money. I assumed as long
| as that remained the case I would never hear from them
| again, and for the decade or so longer I kept the domain,
| that was exactly how things went.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I may be wrong but I think I saw MarkMonitor changing
| hands a year or two ago so the MarkMonitor of today might
| not be at the same level and quality of service as
| before.
| throwanem wrote:
| Yeah, in 2022 acquired by some kind of sketchy rollup of
| lots of legacy/web-1.0 firms or what remained of them, it
| looks like.
|
| Oh, well. It's been a long time since I was so naive as
| not to do a quick informal trademark/brand search before
| I register a new domain, so I don't really expect to hear
| from them again any time soon, either.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| I'd argue the ability of a private company to exert
| control over all TLDs on the behalf of their clients is
| indicative of a problem in the domain registrar system.
| Not a "service"
| subscribed wrote:
| No, Mark Monitor have requested the correct change (EPP
| status code `ServerUpdateProhibited), GoDaddy messed it up.
|
| (I'm not affiliated with either, but happen to know the
| technical details of the outage)
| SahAssar wrote:
| Could you let us know how you know the technical details?
| Is there some public info the rest of us haven't been
| clued into?
| signal11 wrote:
| From the linked article
|
| > This block was the result of a communication error between
| Zoom's domain registrar, Markmonitor, and GoDaddy Registry,
| which resulted in GoDaddy Registry mistakenly shutting down
| zoom.us domain.
|
| Markmonitor is used by some fairly large corps and web
| properties. It'll be interesting to find out exactly what
| this miscommunication was.
| pavelstoev wrote:
| Can't have an apologetic zoom call when zoom is down ...
| crazygringo wrote:
| If there were symmetry, then renewing the domain would cost
| millions instead of $20 or whatever it is, to cover the
| payouts. Is that what you want?
|
| If it is, you can buy custom insurance for the event from an
| insurance company, and pay the same kind of yearly fee.
|
| And remember that with build vs buy, what you build will often
| be worse than what you buy, because at least what you buy is
| getting bugs fixed from bug reports across the world from other
| customers. An internal tool will rarely be as stress-tested and
| battle-hardened as what you can buy.
| kemals wrote:
| ThousandEyes analysis of the outage:
| https://www.thousandeyes.com/blog/zoom-outage-analysis-april...
| bo1024 wrote:
| Thanks, this is really helpful. I had not even realized that
| every DNS query for .us (for example) goes through a single
| root registry before going to the actual nameservers.
| hanikesn wrote:
| It's usually cached
| gwbas1c wrote:
| The article lists a lot of facts, but it doesn't actually
| explain what happened.
|
| IE, it explains what DNS is, but it _doesn 't explain why the
| outage happened._ Instead, it merely gives a timeline with a
| lot of context that's useful for someone who's still learning
| about what DNS is and how it works.
| master_crab wrote:
| It's always DNS!
| imglorp wrote:
| It's not DNS There's no way it's DNS It was DNS
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Paradoxically, productivity spiked.
| rajeshvar wrote:
| Flush the cache instructions were posted under zoom.us :)
|
| https://status.zoom.us/incidents/pw9r9vnq5rvk
| gblargg wrote:
| I thought it was funny that they posted information about the
| outage on the same domain that had the outage.
| agos wrote:
| having a status page on the same domain seems... unfortunate.
| Other big players have it right, see githubstatus.com
| kevincox wrote:
| But please also make status.github.com redirect there or I
| won't know how to find it.
| jetsnoc wrote:
| They need to implement secondary and tertiary domains--with
| diverse registrars and hosting infrastructure--for the Zoom
| client's calling home. Maybe even a fallback anycast ip address
| for service discovery. Given how much companies like mine pay for
| service, it's reasonable to expect that level of engineering
| foresight. But hindsight will do--let's get it fixed. #HugOps to
| all employees working overtime and taking care of this.
| macintux wrote:
| It certainly was frustrating that the status host was also in
| the zoom.us domain.
| Animats wrote:
| That seriously devalues MarkMonitor's services. MarkMonitor
| claims to be a "an ICANN-accredited registrar and recognized
| industry leader since 1999". The whole point of paying for
| MarkMonitor is that they're an expensive service for valuable
| domains and are not allowed to screw up. GoDaddy should not be
| involved here at all.
| Maxious wrote:
| GoDaddy runs the root dns for .us
| dawnerd wrote:
| Wait really? I use a .us domain for personal stuff, that..
| makes me want to reconsider.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Also .us domains don't have who is privacy.
| gerdesj wrote:
| Please don't keep us in suspense ... who is privacy?
| stwrzn wrote:
| They probably meant "whois privacy"[1] (without the
| space). Whois is basically a way to get information about
| a domain name (and many other stuff). Whois privacy just
| ensures that your address, name and other stuff is not
| public.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_privacy
| imcritic wrote:
| They were probably joking when they asked that question.
|
| Your reply doesn't seem sarcastic, so I take it you
| genuinely r/whoosh'ed (that's a reference to a subreddit
| about situations where someone is acting clueless).
| stwrzn wrote:
| I know ;) Some people still value an explanation though.
| 0_gravitas wrote:
| Realistically, I don't think HN is the place for those
| kinds of jokes, which are best kept for reddit/twitter.
| kitchi wrote:
| Yeah I'm increasingly seeing these reddit-style low
| effort jokes on here, hopefully it's transient as folks
| acclimatize to the culture and customs here.
| lazide wrote:
| Yeah I found that out when I stupidly used my real
| contact info, and ended up getting spammed all to hell.
| talideon wrote:
| WHOIS privacy isn't a registry-level service. It's a
| registrar-level service.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| It's both. Some domains do not allow WHOIS privacy (.us
| is one of them), some have it built-in, while most don't
| care and registrars can fill in with fake data.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| > GoDaddy runs the root dns for .us
|
| .us is not the "root DNS" and your misidentification is
| muddying the waters.
|
| .us is a TLD (Top-Level Domain) and more specifically, a
| ccTLD (cc = 'Country Code').
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us
|
| And the English Wikipedia says that its registrar is a
| subsidiary of GoDaddy named "Registry Services, LLC".
|
| The root DNS servers and registry are _not_ run by GoDaddy or
| a subsidiary.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_name_server
|
| They are operated by important entities. Not companies that
| release sexy commercials featuring Danica Patrick. I keep
| getting confused between GoDaddy and Carl's, Jr.
| bawolff wrote:
| I think its clear from context they mean the .us TLD, and
| not the root zone, since obviously it wouldn't make sense
| to talk about the root zone for .us.
|
| Its also very reasonable to use the more well-known name of
| the parent company to describe sonething done by its
| subsidary.
| mentalgear wrote:
| GoDaddy is the rot of us domains, besides being rotten
| culturally as well
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I understood what you meant. I can understand why someone
| would want to clarify the terminology for those who don't
| know DNS well.
| TheDong wrote:
| MarkMonitor isn't at fault here.
|
| If you register a ".ps" domain, it doesn't matter if you use
| MarkMonitor or Namecheap, they can't help you when the ongoing
| genocide results in the removal of Palestine as a country and
| ".ps" no longer is a valid country code top level domain.
|
| Similarly, if you register a .us domain instead of a ".com",
| ".net", or ".org", MarkMonitor can't help you when GoDaddy
| inevitably screws up.
|
| History has borne this out: .com domains are well-managed.
| ccTLDs like '.io', '.su', and '.fj' have all had significant
| security or availability issues because they're run by "eh,
| whoever the hell the country picks" with no standards.
|
| Financially, a proper gTLD also can't raise prices unilaterally
| and weirdly, while if you pick a ccTLD, the country has free
| reign to arbitrarily change prices, delete your domain, take
| over your domain, etc etc.
|
| Do not use a ccTLD.
| chrismorgan wrote:
| >>> _This block was the result of a communication error
| between Zoom's domain registrar, Markmonitor, and GoDaddy
| Registry, which resulted in GoDaddy Registry mistakenly
| shutting down zoom.us domain._
|
| That sounds like MarkMonitor is at least partly at fault
| here.
| NewJazz wrote:
| I mean, one person is saying what to do and the other
| person is doing it. And the person doing things is taking
| down zoom.us... Also knowing who godaddy is and what they
| do...
| subscribed wrote:
| Mark Monitor have issued a correct request for the
| `serverUpdateProhibited`, but GoDaddy changed the code to
| `serverHold` instead.
|
| 100% on the GoDaddy staff.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > Mark Monitor have issued a correct request for the
| `serverUpdateProhibited`, but GoDaddy changed the code to
| `serverHold` instead.
|
| I'm curious about where are you seeing what Mark Monitor
| requested? It doesn't appear in the official status
| update. Is this public information formally posted
| somewhere we can all see?
| Hackbraten wrote:
| There are countries whose ccTLD registrars are impeccably
| well-run and have been for decades, such as DENIC, the entity
| that oversees the .de ccTLD.
|
| If you're based in Germany, I don't see a reason why you
| would want to avoid .de domains.
| immibis wrote:
| Them being subject to the pretty draconian laws of Germany
| is a minus for most people if they had no other reason to
| have to follow those laws (such as not being in Germany).
| moe_sc wrote:
| Mind ellaborating what draconian laws you are talking
| about?
| immibis wrote:
| If it's not strictly non-commercial then you have to
| publish your fill name and home address prominently on
| it. You can't say anything insulting about anyone, even
| if true. And you can't criticize what Israel did because
| it's considered antisemitism.
| lxgr wrote:
| > If it's not strictly non-commercial then you have to
| publish your fill name and home address prominently on
| it.
|
| Under German law, as far as I understand this is true for
| publications "addressed to a German audience" regardless
| of your domain's TLD, your server location etc.
| lxgr wrote:
| Somebody that is based in Germany (which is what GP was
| recommending .de for) is usually subject to German law,
| due to... being in Germany.
|
| And conversely, when _not_ based in Germany, you 'd need
| a proxy Administrative Contact anyway. (Registrars can
| probably provide that for you, but it seems like asking
| for trouble.)
| chrismorgan wrote:
| > _Financially, a proper gTLD also can 't raise prices
| unilaterally and weirdly, while if you pick a ccTLD, the
| country has free reign to arbitrarily change prices, delete
| your domain, take over your domain, etc etc._
|
| Look into what's happened with pricing on domains like .org
| and .info. They're increasingly absurd, with the restrictions
| on price increases that once were there largely being
| removed, at the pushing of the sharks that bought the
| registrar. Why are these prices increasing well above
| inflation rate, when if anything the costs should go _down_
| over time? Why is .info now almost twice as expensive as
| .com?
| agwa wrote:
| Although the .org price caps are gone, the registry has to
| raise prices uniformly for all domains. They can't target
| popular domains for discriminatory pricing. ccTLDs can.
| ryan29 wrote:
| > They can't target popular domains for discriminatory
| pricing.
|
| That's not completely accurate. Section 2.10c of the base
| registry agreement says the following in relation to the
| uniform pricing obligations:
|
| > The foregoing requirements of this Section 2.10(c)
| shall not apply for (i) purposes of determining Renewal
| Pricing if the registrar has provided Registry Operator
| with documentation that demonstrates that the applicable
| registrant expressly agreed in its registration agreement
| with registrar to higher Renewal Pricing at the time of
| the initial registration
|
| Most registrars have blanket statements in their
| registration agreement that say premium domains may be
| subject to higher renewal pricing. For registry premium
| domains, there are no contractual limits on pricing or
| price discrimination. AFAIK, the registries can price
| premium domains however they want.
| agwa wrote:
| You omitted key portions of that section. Here's the full
| quote (emphasis added):
|
| > The foregoing requirements of this Section 2.10(c)
| shall not apply for (i) purposes of determining Renewal
| Pricing if the registrar has provided Registry Operator
| with documentation that demonstrates that the applicable
| registrant expressly agreed in its registration agreement
| with registrar to higher Renewal Pricing at the time of
| the initial registration of the domain name _following
| clear and conspicuous disclosure of such Renewal Pricing
| to such registrant_
|
| Furthermore:
|
| > _The parties acknowledge that the purpose of this
| Section 2.10(c) is to prohibit abusive and /or
| discriminatory Renewal Pricing practices imposed by
| Registry Operator without the written consent of the
| applicable registrant at the time of the initial
| registration of the domain and this Section 2.10(c) will
| be interpreted broadly to prohibit such practices_
|
| Yes, premium domains can be priced higher, but the
| Renewal Pricing has to be "clear and conspicuous" to the
| registrant at the time of initial registration. Are you
| aware of any litigation related to this?
| electroly wrote:
| GoDaddy Registry operates the .us registry. You cannot have a
| .us domain without their involvement. Consider whether you
| wanted a .com domain instead (which is operated by Verisign).
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| zoom.com is an audio equipment manufacturer, which was there
| before zoom.us.
|
| I guess that's what happens where they had to accept
| substandard domain, because they were unwilling to be
| creative about their name.
| redbell wrote:
| But the dot com domain is now owned by _Zoom
| Communications_ or just Zoom (as we know it). If you type
| "zoom.us" in your browser, you will be redirected to
| https://www.zoom.com/
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| Incidentally, Zoom seems a terrible name for a video
| conferencing app - anyone know why they chose it?
| thund wrote:
| Subjective, Zoom is a pretty cool name
| j45 wrote:
| One guess - fast video.
| j45 wrote:
| Added context: Zoom delivered a step change in video
| conferencing quality for the many, vs the few, and in a
| lot of ways did seem to force others to be better.
|
| During the pandemic many people used zoom more than their
| cell phones.
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| I immediately agreed with this, but at the same time it's
| not "fast" is it? It's higher quality or more reliably,
| something like that. But emotionally I agree it does feel
| "faster".
| j45 wrote:
| Fair point - it's smoother video that gives a better
| quality experience.
|
| The speed of starting a call sometimes could take a bit
| more but once established was higher quality than the
| alternatives at the time.
| eesmith wrote:
| The Wikipedia editors know, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
| /Zoom_Communications#Early_year... :
|
| > In May 2012, the company changed its name to Zoom,
| influenced by Thacher Hurd's children's book Zoom City.
|
| It cites https://vator.tv/2020-03-26-when-zoom-was-young-
| the-early-ye... where Jim Scheinman says:
|
| > "I loved this fun little book as much as my kids, and
| hoped to use the name someday for the perfect company
| that embodied the same values of creativity, exploration,
| happiness, and trust. And the name works perfectly with a
| product that connects us visually to one another and that
| always works so fast and seamlessly."
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| The reference to "Zoom City" is from an article published
| in 2020. It seems like a remarkably fitting ret-conning
| of what is probably a very boring branding decision.
| eesmith wrote:
| What would be the point of ret-conning some other
| decision?
| JadeNB wrote:
| > In May 2012, the company changed its name to Zoom,
| influenced by Thacher Hurd's children's book Zoom City.
|
| To save people the agony of visiting Wikipedia for
| themselves to check, changed from Saasbee. Which, good
| call.
| bakuninsbart wrote:
| It is a one-syllable word, easy to pronounce in many
| languages, quite distinct from other words and brands,
| and can easily be turned into a verb.
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| Why does that make it a good name for video in
| particular?
| racked wrote:
| Why does it have to be -- ever "googled" something? ;-)
| andylynch wrote:
| Cameras often have zoom lenses for close ups.
|
| Fits great with the idea of bringing people together with
| video.
| Hobadee wrote:
| Verbing your nouns is a great way to lose your trademark.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| When they came up with it that would be a best case
| scenario.
| Talanes wrote:
| Are there any actual recent examples of this? The major
| examples I've always heard are solidly in the 20th
| century. It's not like Google has had any problem holding
| their trademark.
| skywhopper wrote:
| It's all relative. Is "Webex" better? "Skype"?
| "BlueJeans"??
| rhubarbtree wrote:
| Fair. They are worse.
| moomin wrote:
| Especially Skype, which is getting shit down. In favour
| of Teams, which is so much worse it's hard to describe.
| lambdaone wrote:
| That's a really fantastic typo. I know it was
| unintentional, but still...
| cute_boi wrote:
| We use Skype and it is worst atm. Skype freezes every
| minute.
| disillusioned wrote:
| BlueJeans is one of those absolutely catastrophically
| stupid branding decisions. There's just........ no
| justification. It's confusing at best, and abbreviated as
| BJ at worst.
| thih9 wrote:
| > zoom.com is an audio equipment manufacturer
|
| False, the audio equipment manufacturer uses:
| https://zoomcorp.com/
|
| The https://zoom.com domain shows content from the video
| chat platform.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They did buy zoom.com from someone in 2019, though, for
| $2M.
|
| https://domainnamewire.com/2019/03/23/did-zoom-
| pay-2-million...
| lakkal wrote:
| Interesting. I used to buy Zoom modems in the 80s-90s
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_Telephonics), but
| apparently they have nothing to do with either of the
| other two Zoom companies mentioned here. I had
| occasionally wondered but never looked into it until now.
| polynomial wrote:
| Back in the day, wasn't it either Zoom or Hayes?
| kevinmhickey wrote:
| Don't forget US Robotics
| dtgriscom wrote:
| I always assumed that Zoom reacted to security/privacy
| concerns about its association with China by getting a
| "*.us" domain that sounded very United States.
| jsheard wrote:
| AFAICT they've used that domain since day one, so
| probably not.
| zeristor wrote:
| Maybe it's just simple word play of "Zoom us" as in call
| us. As opposed to "Zoom me" which might be just for one
| person rather than group chat.
| mikedelfino wrote:
| Do English speakers pronounce .us domains as dot us
| instead of dot u s?
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| Dot yoo ess. Source: am European.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Me too: 'you ess' (British)
| pasc1878 wrote:
| Noting that we British would always call our country "you
| kay" so .us would be derived from that. I suspect similar
| reasoning from Europe.
| wyclif wrote:
| I also say 'dot you ess' and I was born in the USA.
| williamscales wrote:
| It would only be pronounced as "uhhss" as part of a
| domain hack. Otherwise "you ess". Source: am from USA.
| RIMR wrote:
| Zoomus
| Fokamul wrote:
| Maybe after recent US events, everything will move to .ru
| TLD
| CPLX wrote:
| They've had zoom.com since at least 2019 or so. It used to
| just be a redirect to Zoom.us though they've made a switch
| since then.
| yahoozoo wrote:
| This is ... Zombocom.
| op00to wrote:
| You can do anything at ZomboCom.
|
| Anything at all.
|
| The only limit ... is yourself.
| redbell wrote:
| > The whole point of paying for MarkMonitor is that they're an
| expensive service for valuable domains
|
| A while ago and, out of curiosity, I did a Whois Lookup to see
| what big tech companies are using as their domain registrar and
| found that Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Tesla, Netflix and
| Shopify are all using MarkMonitor. On the other hand Apple uses
| "Nom-iq Ltd. dba COM LAUDE", Meta (and its children) uses
| RegistrarSafe and Nvidia uses SafeNames.
| taspeotis wrote:
| > COM LAUDE
|
| Someone had fun with that one.
| jenny91 wrote:
| RegistrarSafe is a registrar spun up by Meta for precisely
| the purpose of guarding their own domains and isn't open to
| external customers.
| conradev wrote:
| Many of those also run their own gTLDs, too: .apple, .google,
| etc
| snowwrestler wrote:
| That's interesting, Apple used to use CSC, which is the
| "other" big corporate registrar, competitor to MarkMonitor.
| ValveFan6969 wrote:
| Agreed. This is a whole lot of screw ups that I would have
| expected from the indie company down the street, not an ICANN
| accredited registrar. It's pretty pathetic when it takes public
| pressure for the ICANN to finally start doing their goddamn
| job.
| renegade-otter wrote:
| These big companies spend tens of millions on homegrown
| tooling, even their own languages and databases, but they can't
| assign one dev to write a domain-monitoring tool?
| lazide wrote:
| It's one of those 'this problem is so simple, our big
| corporation cannot hope to solve it' type of problems.
| dewey wrote:
| You are thinking like a developer. In reality that means that
| now they are responsible for it, if MarkMonitor messes
| something up they can use their relationship to all the
| registrars to fix the problem and MarkMonitor is on the hook
| in case anything goes wrong.
|
| This is a better situation to be in than some internal
| tooling that failed to notify someone because it got
| forgotten after the developer left.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Because it's cheaper and more reliable to outsource that to a
| company specializing in it.
|
| If one dev had written it, how many times would that tool
| have failed by now? When the original dev left the company a
| decade ago, the tool has been transferred between teams six
| times, it failed a migration and the email address it used to
| send errors to no longer exists so nobody noticed, and it's
| literally gotten lost in the shuffle?
| zippergz wrote:
| Markmonitor is much more about the people and service behind
| it rather than the software. To replace markmonitor you don't
| need a dev to write a tool. You need a dev to write a tool,
| and then a team of people who build relationships with
| everyone in the domain world and are available 24/7 to make
| calls and deal with issues if they come up.
| debarshri wrote:
| I guess they are paying markmonitor because of their ability to
| reach out to Godaddy and get stuff resolved.
|
| Imagine being a small startup with a similar problem. Godaddy
| will not even entertain you.
| thayne wrote:
| Well, another point of MarkMonitor is to get access to ccTLDs
| with requirements that are more difficult for you to meet
| yourself. Like needing to have a physical address within the
| country. MarkMonitor has offices in a bunch of countries just
| to meet that requirement, so they can sell ccTLD domains to
| customers.
|
| The legality of that system seems a little questionable to me,
| but IANAL.
| youworkwepay wrote:
| NoDaddy!
| udev4096 wrote:
| What do relatively large corporations use for their authoritative
| nameserver? Do they use PowerDNS, knot, bind, or just use the
| registrar's nameservers?
| jedberg wrote:
| Google runs their own, Facebook runs their own, Amazon used
| AWS, Microsoft uses Azure. Netflix uses AWS.
|
| Most likely all are running some version of Bind, or something
| custom.
| bc569a80a344f9c wrote:
| And if you're wondering about the hidden authoritative
| servers (that the company uses to generate and administer the
| zones then synced to a global DNS provider such as the ones
| you listed) two rather popular products for companies that
| aren't also cloud providers are Infoblox and BlueCat.
| iqandjoke wrote:
| It should not cause issue as your company should have BCP on this
| and can switch to other conferencing service.
| ro_bit wrote:
| 4 hour catastrophic outage because of a shitty domain registrar
| makes me wonder if zoom will be switching critical services to a
| different tld sooner or later as a result of this
| Symbiote wrote:
| Maybe they will use multiple domains.
|
| See for example that AWS Route53 uses com, org, net and uk
| domains for the nameservers.
| 18172828286177 wrote:
| Godaddy is such an incompetent organisation. Should not be
| allowed to administer anything of importance.
| nom wrote:
| It's easy to blame GoDaddy, but 'miscommunication' takes two.
|
| You pay Markmonitor a shitload of money to make sure this
| doesn't happen. They should have dedicated people at GoDaddy
| and direct communication channels.
|
| This is a significant fuckup on Markmonitor's part, even if
| GoDaddy did something different than was requested from them.
| Hobadee wrote:
| I can guarantee you that miscommunication doesn't always
| require 2 people.
|
| Source: Have been _OH SO EVER PRECISCE AND EXACT_ in my
| communication with certain idiots, and they still screw it
| up. Several instances of "put this here carefully", only to
| return and find it all the way across the room upside-down
| and broken, come to mind.
| subscribed wrote:
| Mark Monitor have correctly asked for
| `serverUpdateProhibited`, GoDaddy changed the code to
| `serverHold` instead.
|
| I don't know why you're trying to spin it as Mark Monitor
| fault.
| hinkley wrote:
| Who knew a company who ran ads with women dressed like Hooters
| waitresses would turn out to be a fucking clowncar. I mean what
| are the odds?
| Fokamul wrote:
| Lol, they use GoDaddy? Aka scammers and racketeers? Aaah .us TLD,
| too bad they have control over it.
| gameshot911 wrote:
| Noob here: could this issue have been worked around if you had a
| personal list of the IP addresses that the domain resolved to?
| natebc wrote:
| Most DNS issues can, yes. Your hosts file is going to be thick
| though, and a pain to keep up to date ;P
| blueflow wrote:
| > Your hosts file is going to be thick though, and a pain to
| keep up to date
|
| I'm guessing you already know, but for the others: This is
| precisely what the DNS protocol was created for.
| Galatians4_16 wrote:
| This wouldn't happen if it were distributed or decentralized like
| pre-MS Skype used to be.
| brongondwana wrote:
| This kind of possibility is why Fastmail purchased fastmail.com
| and migrated away from our old 'fastmail.fm' domain. .fm was
| cool, but we ran into a couple of outages on the .fm servers
| meaning we went offline. No such issues since we've been on .com.
| lrvick wrote:
| To try to convince my employer at the time to drop Zoom, I
| decided to see how many security vulns I could find in 2-3 hours.
|
| Found 12 confirmed bugs in that window using only binwalk and
| osint.
|
| The worst was that I noticed the zoom.us godaddy account password
| reset email address was the personal gmail account of Eric S
| Yuan, the CEO.
|
| So, I tried to do a password reset on his gmail account. No 2FA,
| and only needed to answer two reset questions. Hometown, and
| phone number. Got those from public data and got my reset link,
| and thus, the ability to control the zoom.us domain name.
|
| They were unable to find a single English speaking security team
| member to explain these bugs to, and it took them 3 months to
| confirm them and pay me $800 in bug bounties, total, for all 12
| bugs.
|
| The one bright side is this did convince my employer to drop
| them.
| jaxefayo wrote:
| How long ago was this? A few years ago they were hiring
| aggressively for security team members in the US, including a
| dedicated fuzzing team. I'm guessing this was from early on
| when Zoom was just getting popular?
| lrvick wrote:
| About 7 years ago
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| Back in 2008, when my fiancee invited me to visit Catalonia, I
| was in the market for transatlantic airline tickets. And I'd
| never flown internationally before, and I applied and obtained a
| US Passport, and I figured out with my father how to get a
| Travelex prepaid debit card with Euros loaded, and my fiancee was
| prodding me anxiously about buying a ticket, and I eventually
| threw caution to the wind and flew on an airline called "ZOOM".
|
| Now "ZOOM" was supposedly based in Canada and they were
| supposedly giving bargain-basement fares to Americans as well,
| from select origins to select destinations. All I needed to do
| was to get to Lindbergh Field (San Diego International) and ZOOM
| Airlines would fly me to London Gatwick. And their aircraft had
| cute friendly livery with big "ZOOOOOOOOM" lettering on the side.
| And the price was totally cheap.
|
| Well they did their job fine; I landed in Gatwick, took a train
| to Heathrow, and flew on Iberia into and back out of Barcelona.
| Unfortunately, before I departed, my father phoned my fiancee to
| break the news that "ZOOM Airline" was bankrupt, and all their
| flights were grounded. They had run out of fuel in Scotland, and
| nobody would top up the tanks. My return ticket from London to
| San Diego was worthless.
|
| So Dad puts me on a British Airways flight and I got home safe.
| But from August 2008, or before, I have harbored a visceral
| animosity towards any foreign actors named "ZOOM".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-17 23:01 UTC)