[IP] Response to PFIR Public Call For Data Regarding VeriSign
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Response to PFIR Public Call For Data Regarding VeriSign
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: lauren@xxxxxxxx
Dave,
You asked me for a quick preliminary survey of the kinds of
responses being submitted to the recent PFIR "Public Call For Data"
( http://www.pfir.org/statements/vs-call-for-data ) regarding the
impacts of VeriSign's "Site Finder" and the firm's sudden and drastic
changes to the global .COM and .NET DNS environment.
Here's a thumbnail view (not in any particular order) of the
categories, for IP if you wish.
- Anger, Indignation, etc. Many of these can be loosely
sorted into the "Who appointed VeriSign to be God?"
category. A range of broad technical, operational, financial,
and related concerns were raised, many focusing on the perceived
abuse by VeriSign of their privileged position as the U.S.
government-appointed guardian and monopoly operator of the
.COM and .NET domain registry systems. Concerns were expressed
regarding what is seen by many as anticompetitive and unfair behavior
relating to the effects on persons using Web browsers around
the world. Anger was common over VeriSign's trying to turn
all unused .COM and .NET domains into a profit center, especially
given VeriSign's special position.
Some persons also included suggested remedies and punishments for
VeriSign's behavior, many of which were highly imaginative, and
some of which would probably be exceedingly painful and
potentially disfiguring.
- Broad Impacts on HTTP and DNS-based systems. In addition to the
obvious effects of Site Finder on humans using Web browsers,
VeriSign's actions have apparently had a dramatic effect on all manner
of other applications that use the Internet, including a vast number
that depend on HTTP protocols and DNS for their operations.
This includes everything from complex point-of-sale applications to
networked printers.
The lack of consultation and warning by VeriSign regarding the
impact of their changes disrupted the operations not only of deployed
systems, but has necessitated massive changes in both operational
applications and others under development, reportedly at great
expense in many cases. VeriSign seems to have taken the attitude
that the only "real" application for HTTP/DNS is folks surfing
the Web. That may be the only one they really care about, but
it is obviously but a fraction of the operational universe for
these systems.
- E-Mail Disruptions and Effects. The negative effects on anti-spam
systems has been widely discussed. The impact of mistyped e-mail
addresses that formerly were locally handled but that now must
connect to the "faked" VeriSign mail servers has been dramatic.
E-mail queues grew enormously after the VeriSign "surprise" and
in many cases have remained many times their pre-"V-Day" levels.
Local efforts to block VeriSign's Site Finder IP addresses have
been time consuming and costly, and have sometimes had unexpected
and negative side-effects of their own. Many ISPs have had to
expend large sums to immediately install additional mail handling
capacity. For smaller ISPs in particular, already fighting
the impact of spam, this has been particularly devastating.
- Only the U.S. and English Language Matters? Some non-U.S. users
have expressed indignation that VeriSign would take it upon
themselves to effectively bypass non-U.S.-based systems in place
to provide Web surfers and others with appropriate error
information in locally-expected languages. It was pointed
out that even the Internet Explorer "no such domain" search
features (which can be easily and completely disabled by users,
in contrast to Site Finder) is normally configured by each user
to function in a local language and is totally under user control.
Many persons also submitted estimates regarding what they thought Site
Finder had cost them or their firms. Some consultants noted that the
situation was generating them extra work trying to fix their
clients' systems that were broken by Site Finder, but they also
felt that this was not the way they really wanted to be finding more work.
It seems reasonable to extrapolate from the sorts of numbers being
reported that VeriSign's changes to create their new profit center
have likely collectively cost the Internet's users untold
millions of dollars. Related time costs, lost productivity, and
monetary costs are continuing to pile up every day as users, ISPs,
and many others all continue to grapple with the situation that
was thrust upon them so suddenly and unexpectedly.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@xxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org
Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet
Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/