Registrars Listed as Bad by Knujon or LegitScript in their Latest Report

Post Reply
nova7
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:32 pm

Registrars Listed as Bad by Knujon or LegitScript in their Latest Report

Post by nova7 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:22 pm

Registrars listed as a bad registrar in the latest report by [url=http://knujon.com t=_self]Knujon.com[/url] or [url=http://blog.legitscript.com t=_self]LegitScript.com[/url]:

List of the registrar websites:

List of domains/hosts


bizcn.com
cnobin.com
china-channel.com
chinaspringboard.com
corenic.org
directnic.com
dncholdings.com
dynamicdolphin.com
enom.com
internet.bs
joker.com
momentous.ca
moniker.com
net4.in
net-chinese.com.tw
netlynx.com
onlinenic.com
opensrs.com
ownregistrar.com
realtimeregister.com
Rebel.com
resell.biz
resellerid.com
todaynic.com
ukrnames.com
urlsolutions.org
webnic.cc
yournamemonkey.com

alphacentauri
Posts: 3291
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:52 pm

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by alphacentauri » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:17 am

That's a pretty indiscriminate list. It includes registrars suspected of being controlled by the Russian Business Network, registrars that knowingly host and protect illegal websites, and registrars that would have shut down scam websites had Knujon actually notified them of the issue. It also includes registrars whose ownership or business model has changed during the past few years. You need to actually link to evidence for each case.

nova7
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:32 pm

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by nova7 » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:28 am

AlphaCentauri,

My comments on each of the listed registrars:

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/bizcn.com/comment-41240746
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/bizcn.com/comment-47133101
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/bizcn.com/comment-48791141
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/cnobin.com/comment-51181565
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/china-channel.com/comment-46586097
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/chinaspringboard.com/comment-48964873
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/corenic.org/comment-41046062
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/directnic.com/comment-37880062
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/dncholdings.com/comment-51174605
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/dynamicdolphin.com/comment-41025570
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/enom.com/comment-37937442
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/enom.com/comment-48847033
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/enom.com/comment-52358685
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/internet.bs/comment-41046082
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/internet.bs/comment-52533457
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/internet.bs/comment-52358721
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/joker.com/comment-15671410
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/joker.com/comment-51175453
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/momentous.ca/comment-38071294
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/moniker.com/comment-38437470
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/net4.in/comment-41046142
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/net-chinese.com.tw/comment-41046358
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/netlynx.com/comment-37880018
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/onlinenic.com/comment-48818885
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/onlinenic.com/comment-41046154
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/opensrs.com/comment-51181157
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/ownregistrar.com/comment-38071186
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/realtimeregister.com/comment-37880126
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/realtimeregister.com/comment-56366585
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/rebel.com/comment-51174649
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/resell.biz/comment-41033018
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/resellerid.com/comment-41046170
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/todaynic.com/comment-48817829
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/todaynic.com/comment-48288209
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/ukrnames.com/comment-45899014
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/ukrnames.com/comment-46585985
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/urlsolutions.org/comment-41046198
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/webnic.cc/comment-51181649
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/yournamemonkey.com/comment-50298125








Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by Jazspeak » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:56 pm

<quote user="alphacentauri">
" You need to actually link to evidence for each case."
[/quote]

Echo that.

I would also draw attention to the posting at https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/30150-registrars-with-a-majority-of-spamvertised-domains-as-listed-at-uribl-com?comment=178486#comment-178486

Jazspeak
Posts: 7295
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:20 pm

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by Jazspeak » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:00 pm

<quote user="nova7">
"...comments on each of the listed registrars"
[/quote]

Scorecard comments do not constitute evidence, and referencing a potentially flawed blacklist does not constitute evidence either. How many of those on the list are false positives? How have you checked the accuracy of the blacklist?

LegitScript
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:51 am

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by LegitScript » Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:29 pm

We should probably comment on this.

This list does identify some of the Registrars that LegitScript has noted concerns about in years past, but it doesn't capture the current state of affairs. One of our goals a few years ago was to change the overall culture of how Registrars respond to rogue Internet pharmacy complaints. In early 2009, there wasn't a single Registrar that would suspend a domain name engaged in rogue online pharmacy activity on that basis. (They'd do it if you could prove spamming or phishing, etc., but not on the basis of the public health threat caused by unapproved drugs, no prescription required, being a fake pharmacy without required licenses, that sort of thing.)

That's changed. Many of the Registrars that formerly were "Registrars of choice" for rogue Internet pharmacy networks have 100% compliance in response to our requests. eNom, Internet.bs, GoDaddy, Dynadot, Name.com, the list goes on: all are doing a terrific job suspending and locking domain names that LegitScript identifies as rogue Internet pharmacy websites. Some of these Registrars weren't doing this in the past, but they are now. Whatever our concerns were in the past (on rogue pharma, at least), they no longer exist.

But there are still Registrars that are turning a blind eye to the misuse of their Registration platform by rogue Internet pharmacy networks, including some on that list, but definitely not all of them. The predictable result of the gradual change in culture in the Registrar community that we're seeing is a "clustering" at a few "safe" Registrars. We've started publishing a monthly update on our data at blog.legitscript.com. But even here, we're seeing positive steps: two, and possibly three, of the Registrars on our current "top ten" list have agreed, just in the last few days, to be responsive to our notifications and suspend domain names.

If the compliance community uses sticks, we should use carrots, too. Whatever the concerns about some of the Registrars might have been a few years ago, for example, I think it's probably important to offer praise where praise is due and make sure that the compliant Registrars on that list aren't associated with those that aren't.

We're going to try to keep on publishing our monthly data as a way of highlighting where the rogues are clustering and as a way of encouraging Registrars on the list to reconsider how they apply (or aren't applying) their Terms and Conditions, but also as a way of praising and commending the Registrars that, whatever our concerns in the past, are now doing a great job. Our rough assessment is that compliant Registrars account for roughly 70% (maybe 75%?) of domain name market share, so we're hopeful that in a year or so, there will be "no safe place" left for rogue Internet pharmacies (since, if they cluster at just two or three Registrars, that probably won't be sustainable for those Registrars for a variety of reasons).

nova7
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:32 pm

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by nova7 » Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:13 pm

All,

Not to list these registrars is to say that the work of LegitScript naming their monthly data, Knujon publishing it's list, URIBL giving percentages, and even Spamhaus going so far as to report do-not-route or peer a particular registrar, is in essence meaning distrust in there listings. Personally, I have trust in their work with a dose of skepticism (there are bad registrars that are not comparable to the good registrars).


nova7
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:32 pm

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by nova7 » Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:36 pm

I've reviewed the list to remove registrars that are from preceding LegitScript reports so long as they aren't Knujon-listed (for other spam beyond only pharmaceutical domain name registrations). Some other registrars have been removed for erroneous inclusion.

nova7
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:32 pm

RE: Registrars Listed in the Last Three Years as a Rogue Registr

Post by nova7 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:20 pm

<quote user="alphacentauri">
...evidence for each case.
[/quote]

dynamicdolphin:
cafech.net ( http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=whois&host=noontheircloth.net ; Updated Date: 24-sep-2012)
SURBL listed since 12/19/2012. Shown here: www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/noontheircloth.net

ukrnames:
gifst4xmas.com ( http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=whois&host=gifst4xmas.com ; Updated Date: 26-nov-2012)
SURBL listed since 11/26/2012. Shown here: www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/gifst4xmas.com

internet.bs
cocoonnetsy.com ( http://network-tools.com/default.asp?prog=whois&host=cocoonnetsy.com ; Updated Date: 07-dec-2012
SURBL listed since 12/10/2012. Shown here: www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/cocoonnetsy.com







Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests