Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UPDATED: OpenSSH Domain Name Controversy

Hemos posted more than 14 years ago | from the domain-squatting dept.

The Internet 364

Bowie J. Poag was one of the folks who wrote to us about the domain name controversy regarding OpenSSH. (I've included the full letter below). They're in the interesting situation of /having/ to be a .com, because a squatter has taken the openssh.org domain name. Read the letter below - it's a stickier situation than the other squatting issues we've talked about. Update: 03/07 04:58 by E : Alex de Joode has written his own response here. I hope this can be resolved amicably.

Please be advised that OpenSSH.ORG is NOT the official domain name for OpenSSH development. The name was taken by a someone not affiliated with the OpenSSH development team when news of OpenSSH was first leaked to the community. The correct Web and e-mail address for the OpenSSH development effort is OpenSSH.COM instead of .ORG.

The OpenSSH developers wanted to register under the .ORG top level domain, traditionally meant for non-profit organisations such as OpenSSH, but the name had already been taken. They settled for the .COM in the interim.

The .ORG name is currently held by Mr. Alex de Joode <adejoode@zedz.net>, a proponent of open source cryptography who runs his own free crypto portal hosted by xs4all.nl, a well-known and respected Dutch ISP. Mr. de Joode has repeatedly refused requests to sell or turn the .ORG name over to the OpenSSH developers. This leaves us no choice but to issue this advisory.

The OpenSSH.ORG Web site currently is a blank page with a link to the official site. Please do not visit the .ORG site, nor send e-mail to anybody at the .ORG address. This is more than just a request to boycott: there could be privacy issues, possibly data mining or building a mailing list of security conscious users. We simply don't know Mr. de Joode's motives, and we recommend caution.

Any help or suggestions in breaking the deadlock are appreciated.

Regards

For the OpenSSH developers, Louis Bertrand <louis@openbsd.org>

cancel ×

364 comments

.ORG's and .COM's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221302)

Isn't this an interesting thing to read here on slashdot.org, the company with the .ORG in it's name.

Out of curiosity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221308)

Why .com instead of, say, .net? Doesn't have the same non-profit implications, but also doesn't have the commercial implications. I think of .net as being for everything that doesn't fit into .com or .org

robots look here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221331)

Since you have added a link to whitehouse.com from a highly rated site (slashdot) you are slowly making google think you want the wrong answer here...

http://www.whitehouse.gov [whitehouse.gov]

President Bill Clinton US government Washington DC capital executive branch

Thank you.

Re:openssh.net indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221332)



Millennium.

To Mr. de Joode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221333)

Mr. de Joode, rot op eikel.

Re:openssh.net indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221334)

(not the guy you're arguing with here)
annus n.
Latin for year. Hence millenium==1000 years

anus n.
Latin for anus. Hence millenium==1000 assholes

I hope this helps to clear up any lingering misunderstandings.

Moderators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221335)

this was not a troll, nor was it flamebait or off topic, if anything it was funny and some moderator had his sense of humor labotomised.

Re:You have to wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221336)

I don't know why you're marked as Troll.

Some bearded, stained T-shirt-wearing "advocate" took a break from mastrubating to show you he's displeased with the fact that you used Open Source and BS in the same sentence. At least you're marked as 3 right now, so most people think you're right.

Re:They already have openssh.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221337)

The openssh.org domain was actually regged a few days before openssh.com, even if the nsi records don't reflect that. Basically openssh's existence got leaked, and openssh.org was scooped by the zedz guy.

Re:openssh.net indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221338)

Sorry, sir, you were a helpless bystannder. (PS Millennnnium has onnly onne n. It's true. Look it up! Your bounndless perfidity notwithstannding.)

Re:Hold Your Opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221339)

Umm.. You misspelled the dudes name. It's supposed to have two n's, like the word Millennium.

Link Error (0)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221350)

The "related links" box has too much stuff, as if an anchor termination was missed.

Re:.ORG's and .COM's (0)

nerdling (72635) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221351)

I would go to clownpenis.fart, I dont know about you, but hell Id register you.fart, to have great domains like did.you.fart n stuff, that would just *kick ass* Welp its that time again folks, my once-in-a-while rant. Moderators, start your engines.

Domain squatting is for f*cking sh*theads. WTF. Why would you even *try* to steal someone's company name. Remember the Morgan Dean Whitter fiasco? Some guy registered their initials and said it was a bike company, but broke down in court and said he held it for squatting. This *MIGHT* not sound too bad of a squat, and you might even think Whitter is a bunch of *ssholes, but theres MORE. The guy, turns out, had registered like 10 other domains, DWhitter.com, etc etc, and they got mighty pissed at the fact that he blatantly was trying to rip them off.

ANOTHER THING. eBay should take down its domain auctions. They set the fscking reserves at 1,000$ so they can rake in the cash, but no ones gonna pay (well seriously pay, maybe jokingly) anything over 300$ for a domain, and only if theyre a HUUUUGE corporation who doesnt have time for court cases... damnit. I saw stuff like "abcnewsteam.com" on eBay n crap, damnit we need an anti-squatters petition. /.'ers seem to be good with petitions, we need a cover page link tho, think of what happens when we send a petition with 24,000+ signatures to ebay saying fuck squatting... egad that would be great. I would rule the world.

feh! and FEH AGAIN!

Snail Mail Protest (0)

Nezer (92629) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221353)

Why don't we organize a snail mail protest to the address listed in whois: Joode, Alex De Zaanstraat 250 AMSTERDAM, NL-1013 RZ NL

hypocrisy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221358)

You know, I always thought the common belief on slashdot was that big coorporations and companies are abusing the rights of the individual by trying to "steal" domain names that had been legitimately registered by another individual. Then some open source project group tries to bully a guy out of his domain and, we see cries of "GO OPENSSH, KILL THAT SQUATTER!" (despite the fact that someone who has a relevant use for the domain and is by no means a domain grabber is using the domain). You guys are freaking hypocrites :P

Don't restrict to com/net/org!!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221359)

The world is so much bigger. I wonder it St. Helena sells domains to non-locals.

Openssh.sh

Now that would be cool. But please, lose the idea that the net is just .com, .net, and .org.

Re:robots look here! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221360)

Since you have added a link to whitehouse.com from a highly rated site (slashdot) you are slowly making google think you want the wrong answer here...

http://www.whitehouse.gov

President Bill Clinton US government Washington DC capital executive branch

affair cigar Monica Lewinsky

I know it's kinda offtopic, but sorry, I couldn't resist ;).

-- AC

No big deal (yet) (1)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221372)

Okay, so openssh.org got taken. This happened to altavista, and countless other "big names" on the web. Some guy registers "your" name before you do, so you settle for another one.

Openssh.org looks like a harmless list of links. Of course, the intent of Mr. Alex de Joode couldn't have been that benificent since he already has freessh.org, which is no more than a list of bookmarks, as far as I can tell.

But still, ho hum. No big news here, move along. It isn't that original a name, guys. More importantly, I certainly don't want the big companies taking away our domain names because it's their trademark/copyright/whatever. A ruling in this situation would probably set a precedent that we don't want. The only option I can think of is to try to negotiate with the parties involved, which apparently hasn't worked.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

Re:Abuse of the namespace... (1)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221373)

Actually, slashdot.[cc|com|net|org] are taken. Half of them even point to slashdot!

Fortunately, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .nu, and .to are still available. Get them while you still can! ;)

barrapunto.org is "Open Resources", and BarraPunto.com is the Spanish slashdot knockoff...

dotslash.com is coming soon, and slapdash.org is still my favorite...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

Re:openssh.net indeed! (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221377)

Actually, the word you misspelled was, of all things, "millennium." Two Ls, two Ns. At least, as defined by "Noah Fucking Webster."

I could go into the history of the word and explain exactly why it's spelled that way, but I'd imagine you've already stopped reading this post so there wouldn't be much point in it anyway.

By the way, just in case you are still reading this, what is it you don't like about my writing anyway? I don't recall you ever complaining before.

Well, may lose a little Karma for this but... (1)

moonboy (2512) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221380)

Who cares? The rules are not adhered to anymore anyway. Though this may seem to be a big deal now, I think it will cease to be in the somewhat near future.

There are already many such sites out there that disregard what these extensions were set up for in the first place. There are also many sites out there that buy a ".com" address (or whatever: .org, .net, etc.) and they merely use these sites to point to another site altogether. I used to think, "what a waste of a name!" BUT, like I said, I think this will cease to be an issue in the future. Why? The net is in it's infancy, pure and simple. These .com companies are so very overvalued right now. Why is this? Well, if you have a .com at the end of your address, that automagically gets you millions more in venture capital. What a bunch of bunk! There are going to be a lot of people and companies surprised in the future when there is a big shakeout and all of this venture funding stops flowing into the valley. These companies are built on stilts (.com stilts, if you like) and when they don't put forth the numbers that is expected of them...whooooops! Those stilts are going to break in half under the shere weight of the companies they support. We all know that content is king in media. When these companies end up without any significant contribution content-wise...watch out! They are going to come tumbling down. How many really BIG pet store companies can there be on the Internet? Auction sites? Search engines? I'm sorry, I don't think that many. I think once they start falling, they are going to get bought out by the "Wal-Mart's", "Amazon's" and "Ebay's". Not that they are even guaranteed to be around.

I know that this does not have much to do with the OpenSSH controversy, I just had to get this off my chest and maybe put some things in perspective.

Re:Looks like de Joode's trying to make a point. (1)

Nathaniel (2984) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221392)

"It does not contain any scripts or applets."

You don't know that.

I am certain I can put up a page which appears to have no scripts of applets, but does server side processing.

Even if this isn't the case, there will be web log files which could be used for data mining.

Of course, this may not be happening.

Why the heck are you calling me a troll? (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221399)

I think thats complely unfair. I think my point is legitimate, especially considering recent stories like " Tux Works for Microsoft?! [slashdot.org] " where somone basically hacked a website because they didn't agree politically, then posted to SlashDot to rub it in .Ha Ha, I get it.

Where does this go from being humorous to somthing more sinister like cyberterrorism? Sure /. a site as a political stand for effect is one thing, but painting a bullseye for hackers is another.

Re:Cybersquatting makes me sick (1)

howardjp (5458) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221401)

Only if you start a coutnry whose two-letter country code is OS.

Re:Link Error (1)

Crawl (11785) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221414)

ok, so I saw what you were referring to, but before I could check it out further, I reloaded the page and it had been fixed. Looks like someone is on top of things here. :)

Re:Looks like de Joode's trying to make a point. (1)

Reject (11791) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221415)

You mean the same freessh.org which, completely coincidentally, also belongs to him? Or the not mentioning that he's also linking to Freessh.org found, say, here [deadly.org] ?

The /. article was a post taken from a mail. It's hardly fair to claim that "they" are trying to hide info without first doing a little research (and no, reading /. and the comments doesn't count).



--
Reject

@Home Proxy Servers (1)

Atomizer (25193) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221438)

The main reason to use the proxy servers is for caching. Try downloading a big file, and then when it's done do it again. The second download should be much faster, for a while. I'm sure they also track where their customers are going, but you also get a speed up on commonly accessed web sites. Oh, and you get the enhanced 128K max upload speed. It's good for you, trust them.

Someone's in Quiet (1)

jpowers (32595) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221445)

At least it has a consistent tone.


-jpowers

Re:Looks like de Joode's trying to make a point. (1)

Larry L (34315) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221447)

But it's the wrong way to approach it. There's a difference between advocacy of other projects and just plain interfering with a project by taking it's most logical domain name.

Re:Very weird... (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221449)

i dont know why the openssh guys simply dont block all requests coming through openssh.org...that will put an end to it instantly. just make the front page dynamic and block the moron.

*OTHER* squatting? (1)

Trojan (37530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221450)

What other squatting? That link is referring to Colgate vs Ajax.org which was clearly *NOT* a case of squatting, since the guy who registered Ajax.org did that for reasons that had nothing to do with Colgate. (And neither did it have to do with Ajax Amsterdam, for that matter.)

Re:At least.. (1)

ronfar (52216) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221456)

The openssh.org website isn't some Evil page that forwards you to a dozen porn sites.
Not yet, anyway.

Re:1st post (1)

Shadowcaster (58728) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221459)

You own your right hand.

Go play in the middle of a busy intersection, leave posting to people with at least a little of their mind left intact.

Re:OpenSSH dot.....umm.... (1)

Gildenstern (62439) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221460)

Yep sure is. Looks like a squatter

Re:no link! (1)

Gildenstern (62439) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221461)

www.openssh.org

www.openssh.org is running Apache/1.2.6 Red Hat on Linux

Looks good to me. Maybe we should leave this guy alone till we figure out what he is doing

Re:Is it *really* that important? (1)

Spooky Possum (80044) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221482)

In the security software game paranoia is everything. The problem here is that the obvious place to look for OpenSSH stuff (for people who are guessing) is openssh.org, not openssh.com. There is a good chance that this isn't a problem and that people who are looking will find the correct place, but what happens if openssh.org starts masquerading as the real openssh site and maybe hands out trojaned binaries or source ? Sure this can be done in many other ways, but this is the easiest. This announcement is an attempt to make sure that people know which one is "real" and to try and minimise the possibility of the above scenario happening.

Yeah, it's ridiculously paranoid, but thats the name of the game.

OpenSSH dot.....umm.... (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221485)

What, OpenSSH.cc was taken too?

Very weird... (1)

SuperG (83071) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221486)

Whatever this guy's motives for squatting, they seem to be a trifle weird. Since he's apparently into open crypto, building a mailing list of "security-minded" people could work, I guess.

Hell, he might just be hoping to have a web page with a significant amount of customer through-put of people with interest in security, and then go sell it to anti-online or something. Since the openssh.com people mention they have offered him cash, I can only surmise he's after more than they were prepared to give.

Cheers,
SuperG

Ugh! (Offtopic) (1)

blogan (84463) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221488)

Why was this moderated as Redundant? Can anyone explain the reasoning behind this? Yes, the guy's post was offtopic, but it was true. Do moderators understand the meaning of Redundant? No one else posted anything about it. This is the reason I would like to be able to meta moderate comments that I choose. The random ones lose their context when taken by themselves. There's no way to know if this was redundant weeks from now, and someone will metamoderate it as "Fair".

Re:Snail Mail Protest (1)

Nezer (92629) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221497)

Forgot to format that properly:

Joode, Alex De
Zaanstraat 250
AMSTERDAM, NL-1013 RZ
NL

Re:damn squatters (1)

AlexA (97006) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221499)

Actually, www.hotgrits.com already exists. It's some music related web site (Southern Rock Entertainment).

Squatting... (1)

IshamaelNT (103135) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221506)

I don't know about anyone else, but i don't have a huge problem with this case. If the site is a legitamate site with crypto information i don't see any reason why he should HAVE to give it up. By all means, i think that he should sell the domain for registration fees, but by no means should he be forced to give it up. As the site is now (it's simply 2 links, one to FreeSSH [freessh.org] and one to OpenSSH [openssh.com] . To me, that's simply a waste. If he wants to make a site on cryptography, take openSSH.com in place of openSSH.org, or better yet, just drop the whole thing because there isn't even a semblence of a page up there now. That's just my opinion, I may be wrong.
------------------------------------------------ ------

Re:Domain Name Squatting (1)

chris13 (108271) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221507)

Hehehe. You make it sound like people would want to go to that site in the first place. What for? To run into a few links? There's no reason for either advocating or boycotting the site. Quite pointless.

Still, I think Mr. de Joode is being quite silly as well in retaining the domain. It's not doing him any good, nor any one else in its current form.

Doesn't appear to be any clandestine HTML (1)

CunningPike (112982) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221511)

... but that could always change.

This sort of thing is bad


| What? you were expecting

Weirdness at 3 O'clock (1)

CunningPike (112982) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221512)

That isn't the HTML I saw. I do get that HTML from http://alpha.terena.nl/ (a.k.a http://www2.terena.nl/)

Are you sitting behind an enforced HTML proxy?


| What? you were expecting

zedz.org is available! (1)

perigeeV (115833) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221513)

Openssh.com could grab it and arrange for an exchange of hostages.

Re:Do you know what the "net" TLD is meant for? (1)

_Swank (118097) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221514)

BTW you ever try going to www.slashdot.com [slashdot.com] ? no? hmmm...

My bad... Re:Data mining? Looks fishy... (1)

Tyger (126248) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221519)

I forgot to account for virtual domains.. This is likely just the default page from their ISP for if it can't figure out the domain you want.

Re:Is this reallly squatting? (1)

Tyger (126248) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221520)

Boycotting may be the kneejerk /. reaction, but.. Doesn't it seem kind of pointless to boycott something that isn't really there to be boycotted?

On one hand, I can see that this is a little quick to do a boycott, and there is no reason.. But I also don't see much point in turning around and decrying people that want to boycott. Lets try and analyze the two sides of this logically:

Situation A: We assume openssh.org is evil
Reaction: openssh.org should be boycotted
End result: openssh.org ignores you too. Seeing as how it isn't getting anything out of you visiting and you aren't getting anything out of visiting, theres nothing lost.

Situation B: We assume openssh.org is just another domain that happened to be there first
Reaction: No reason to boycott
End result: Since there is really no reason to go there, I still don't visit. Seeing as how it isn't getting anything out of you visiting and you aren't getting anything out of visiting, there is nothing lost.

Is it just me, or do these two situations look rather... Err.. identical in the outcome? For Amazon or Sony I can see a boycott/don't boycott argument... But for a 2 link webpage that has no useful content on it's own? Besides, boycotting will not help the cause much. If someone stumbles across it, they probably wouldn't be boycotting it because then they would know it was useless to go there anyway and would know better.

Re:They already have openssh.net (1)

dsb3 (129585) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221522)

Anyway, what's the big deal? Even Network Solution suggests that you get all three dot com, dot net and dot org to "protect" your company. Perhaps this is because they make a bunch of money off each one and not for any other reason?

domain names (1)

aozilla (133143) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221525)

This is just another argument *against* the introduction of more top level domains. 3 major TLDs is already too many so you don't know where a site really is unless you do a search, or try all three. And any serious site winds up buying all three anyway. Just more $$$ into the hands of network solutions (and hopefully one of their competitors). And quite possibly more $$$ into the hands of lawyers and domain squatters.

Waste of domains (1)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221526)

I hate this where domains are registered in hopes that they'll sell for big money some day. There's people who pride themselves on stealing these domains. Or mistype domains like www.slasdit.org that take you to some kind of nudie site. Now I see why this would be profitable, but how can it not be a trademark viloation?

Cybersquatting makes me sick (1)

zaius (147422) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221530)

I guess I don't know for sure if this is cyber squatting or not, but it sure sounds like it. This, plus the etoy case, and then M$ and all those other disputes just really hack me off.

There was a story [slashdot.org] on /. a few weeks ago about the nice people at the .cx TLD giving free domains to open source projects. Maybe the OpenSSH developers, as well as the developers of other open source projects should take them up on it.

If open source does not take advantage of the .cx TLD, or if they withdraw their offer, I really would like to see an open source TLD, specifically for open source projects and such. Perhaps .os?

Domain Name Squatting (1)

Markar (154019) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221532)

Seems to me if a person purchases a domain name and holds it for the purpose of making a future profit, that is cyber squating. This guy is actually using the name.

If OpenSSH still wants to use a .org domain, then how about TheOpenSSH.org, or RealOpenSSH.org, there was bound to be confusion between the .org and .com names anyway. Perhaps each site could have a prominent hyperlink to the others site for those that have gotten to the wrong site unintentionally. Instead of going to war, try to coexist!

Re:That's lame. (1)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221534)

but many times the squatters use the domain ownership as a means of getting false hits for their banners or what-not.. which is very very lame.

What's worse is that many of these squatters run porn sites. Not necessarily a huge problem for your average 20-years-old-or-so web surfer, but when an elementary school student goes to whitehouse.com expecting to find one thing, but finding...ummm, another thing, that's when you have a problem. It's almost as if they're trying to take advantage of the fact that someone who is new to the internet might not know that URL != content. Taking advantage of kids like that is inexcusable.

=================================

It's making me sick (1)

smiley_all_the_way (160237) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221537)

This whole domain bs is making me sick. I don't believe in rules and regs much but there needs to be some regulation for this domain registration BS. So where's the point in some corporation registering all domains that contain their trademark(s)? As if trademarks are the only legit use of certain words. So if some company trademarks my first name I can no longer use it???? As a matter of fact my first name is a trademark. Can I sue because my parents named me before that company was founded???? Or can I no longer use my name in public without adding this stupid circled R???? And on the same token where's the decency in registering a domain name without any reason but to charge some legit user an outrageous fee. Thsi is a crime for all I am concerned and should carry a stiff penalty. I can only say check out how the Canadian registrar works. It ain't perfect but it's darn well the next best thing! I love it! Yours truly....

OpenSSH group isn't helping (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221539)

The OpenSSH group is just helping people think that domains are more important than they actually are, thereby motivating squatters further.

OpenSSH is an open source project. They aren't making any money off it. Just put everything at www.openbsd.org/openssh

People want to install OpenSSH. They will find it no matter what domain its under.

Re:Two questions... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221540)

One: why not openssh.net? I think it suits the project better than openssh.com or openssh.org anyway, given the nature of the project.
Not unless they've suddenly become an ISP.
Two: Why won't this guy just let them use the domain name? He's not using it for anything. This isn't a typical squatting case either, because he's not even trying to sell them the name. Though frankly, that frightens me even more; what could he want with the name, if he doesn't intend to sell it or to use it for a legitimate site?
Funny, I could have sworn this exact concern was raised in the article.

Perfect way to settle domain name disputes... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1221541)

I don't know what the old version looked like, but the current web page is the perfect way to settle any and all domain name disputes: Simply create a replacement for the 404 page that points to all the other domain names. Hell, you can even do similar things for email, ftp, telnet, etc. If openSSH has any complaints to make about this web page, I say they totally deserve to be a .com 'cause they're already acting like one.

Re:.ORG's and .COM's (2)

Hemos (2) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221542)

That's because .com was taken, and everyone else was already doing .coms.

Re:a slight bit of interest (2)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221547)

Yeah, and through "Network Solutions", too. Man, they're pure evil. Of course, the other "real" site is entertaining too.

Note that, to my knowledge, OpenSSH and OpenBSD both have nothing to do with "The Open Group", and that group has nothing to do with actually being open... Go figure.

[whois.corenic.net]
Registrant Todd T. Fries (template COCO-21730)
OpenBSD, the REAL open group
1523 North Pierson Apt F
W. Peoria, IL 61604 USA

Domain Name: openssh.com
Status: production

Admin Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Todd Fries (COCO-21731) todd@fries.net
+3096739259

CORE Registrar: CORE-80

Record created: 1999-10-25 08:44:41 MET by CORE-80

Domain servers in listed order:

zeus.theos.com 199.185.137.1
cvs.openbsd.org 199.185.137.3
ns0.fries.net 209.251.96.130

Database last updated on 2000-03-07 03:55:07 MET

To optimize query speed and answer correctness see the
--help option. Depending on your whois client use
whois -h whois.corenic.net HELP
or
whois HELP@whois.corenic.net

---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

Re:AltaVista.com wasn't squatting (2)

pb (1020) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221548)

I know. It was around before we knew what squatting was. I quote myself:

Okay, so openssh.org got taken. This happened to altavista, and countless other "big names" on the web. Some guy registers "your" name before you do, so you settle for another one.

Did I say squatting? I don't think so. Without following your link, I believe my description that someone took "their" name, i.e. the name that they wanted to use and thought was rightfully theirs because they were so attached to it, was correct. This doesn't take the intent of the original domain registrant into consideration.

And "squatting" is when you're using land that rightfully belongs to someone else. I don't know if this is that good an analogy in the first place, because domain names don't "belong" to anyone until they get registered. You can't squat on land that no one owns, and you definitely can't squat on land that you yourself own!

The only thing that's evil is when someone wastes a whole domain for something stupid, when it could go to something useful. That might be the case here, but let's wait and see first.

The OpenBSD community is known for their flamewars and bad feelings on both sides of the fence: that's how it was founded. This might be another one of those stupid pissing contests. And if someone flames me for saying so, I'll consider it further proof. :)
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [152.7.41.11] .

Re:That is one reason to use Google (2)

stripes (3681) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221553)

Even if I think I can guess the address Google is going to list the real site first. After all I would not want to wind up somewhere like www.whitehouse.com by accident.

Since you have added a link to whitehouse.com from a highly rated site (slashdot) you are slowly making google think you want the wrong answer here...

Incidentally (slightly OT) speaking of people tracking what you are doing and all that, what is the scoop with @HOME's proxy servers? The only reason that I can see for them wanting you to use their proxy server is to track users. And boy do they go out of the way to force people to use their proxy server!

They might want the proxy to track users, but only as a very secondary reason. The real reason is @Home has limited bandwidth to "real" national backbone ISPs, and using a local cache will help conserve that expensave (to them) resource. If they put caches close enough to the users it also reduces the load on whatever backbone they have built themselves.

AltaVista.com wasn't squatting (2)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221554)

The company that regiestered it was named AltaVista. It was poor judgment on Digital's part not to name it something with a name already in use and a domain previously registered. Though the company that did own AltaVista.com later capitalized I'm sure they also encountered way more traffic than they were planning for on their website.

Altavista Domain Story [searchenginewatch.com]

Re:Do you know what the "net" TLD is meant for? (2)

Yakko (4996) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221557)

I remember coming to the internet about 7yr ago and reading FAQs and such... then it came time for me to apply my wisdom... Boy, was I mistaken that guidelines would be heeded.

I wonder if NSI's "reserve ALL TLDs with your name on them!" marketing could have just a little to do with the squatting thing, or the inappropriateness of others' domain names (ie, a for-profit .org) ... It's a wonder that the .edu space is still straight.

(heh... I recently got marketing from NSI telling me I should "register .NET and .ORG versions of your domain" too...)

--

That is one reason to use Google (2)

tilly (7530) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221558)

Even if I think I can guess the address Google is going to list the real site first. After all I would not want to wind up somewhere like www.whitehouse.com [whitehouse.com] by accident.

Of course that means that I have to trust Google...

Incidentally (slightly OT) speaking of people tracking what you are doing and all that, what is the scoop with @HOME's proxy servers? The only reason that I can see for them wanting you to use their proxy server is to track users. And boy do they go out of the way to force people to use their proxy server!

Cheers,
Ben

Thank you. (2)

Venomous Louse (12488) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221562)


I like that one.

Re:Looks like de Joode's trying to make a point. (2)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221564)

Did a little research: (whois)

OpenSSH.com:
Record created: 1999-10-25 08:44:41

OpenSSH.org
Record created: 04-Nov-1999.

Hmm...

So how did he squat the domain and force them to register openssh.com 9 days after they registered openssh.com?

If there's a reason not to trust the whois record dates, I'll accept that as a refutation.

--Shoeboy

Re:Looks like de Joode's trying to make a point. (2)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221565)

Ah yes, but look at it this way. Say I have a project called freessh and I want to increase traffic. I know that people looking for an open source ssh program are (assuming they're too stupid to use a search engine) most likely to type openssh.org or freessh.org or gnussh.org. So for 15 bucks I go register openssh.org. That's legit right?
Now the openSSH groups argument rests on the claim that he registered it after learning of the existence of the openssh team. This info was apparently "leaked" rather than released. So it may be that Mr. de Joode had never even heard of the openssh project. Until we hear from Mr. de Joode, our only source of info is a group that has attempted to play to the paranoids in the audience with a load of security/privacy FUD.
--Shoeboy

no link! (2)

Pope (17780) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221567)

NO! Don't provide free links to the site in question [openssh.org] because he's probably using Open Source software and the Slashdot effect won't work!!! ;)

Pope

At least.. (2)

Tarnar (20289) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221571)

The openssh.org website isn't some Evil page that forwards you to a dozen porn sites.

It's squatting, but not malicious squatting.

Controversy? (2)

delmoi (26744) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221573)

Uh? how can there be a controversy if this is the first publisized information about it? Maybe if there's a huge comment thread, but...

This is just like the traditional media, hyping non-events in order to get people interested.

[ c h a d o k e r e ] [dhs.org]

Changed Webpage (2)

pirodude (54707) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221588)

Looks like he changed his website:

<html>
<head>
<title>www.openssh.org</title>
</head>

<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
text="#000000"
link="#000000"
vlink="#000000"
hlink="#000000"
alink="#000000"
>

<table align="center"
border="0"
cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0"
width="525">

<tr>
<td colspan="1" align="middle">
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
For information about free ssh implementations<BR>
please goto: <a href="http://www.freessh.org">http://www.freessh.o rg</a>
</td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="middle">
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
For information about OpenBSD' OpenSSH implementation<BR>
please goto: <a href="http://www.openssh.com">http://www.openssh.c om</a>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

I'm perplexed (2)

Durinia (72612) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221591)

Why would a proponent of open cryptography want to mess with the OpenSSH project? This is the fundamental question.

The only thing I can really see as a motive is the suggestion that the article makes - that he may be collecting information.

Does anyone else know what the purpose of this stand-off might be??

Find a name where you can get com, org, and net... (2)

liberty! (80607) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221595)

The lesson here is to be silent about your naming plans for your new site until you act, and then snag the big three, com, org, and net, all at once. That is exactly what we had to do... and our organizational name was not confirmed until we knew we had the three doman names locked up. Perhaps our final name of freeio.org was not our first choice, but all three were available, and it was descriptive of what we do - GPL hardware designs.

Live and Learn...

-- The easiest way to lose your freedom is to fail to exercise it! --

kernelnotes vs linuxhq all over again? (2)

Rares Marian (83629) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221596)

What a putz.

Rename to Open-SSH.org or TrueSSH.org and be done with it.

First things first (2)

jmp (84073) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221597)

I guess the lesson is, register the domain name, then announce the project/company/whatever.

Stay one step ahead of the parasites.

What? No link? (2)

blogan (84463) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221598)

If there's one thing to be learned, providing an actual link to http://www.openssh.org [openssh.org] will allow us to, as a community, Slashdot them (it brings in the people to lazy to type in the address)! But on a more serious note, he does provide a link to openssh.com. He doesn't try to deceive anyone.

Re:That's lame. (2)

FoulBeard (112622) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221605)

WTH: This guy is just running his own site he got the name first, and he isnt squatting per say. The article noted that he works with encryption stuff, maybe he plans to use that site for some of his work. Wasnt there just this huge fiasco about etoy.com, It seemed that the slashdot community was behind etoy.com.
I could understand if he was squatting to get money but it doesnt look like this guy is out to make money off of the deal, he just registered the site. Just becuase OpenSSH wants the site doesnt mean that it deserves to get it. I *hate* doman squatters, but this seems like a legit use of the domain registration service. Is he trying to exhort money out of OpenSSH?
Anyway we have to be fair, and it sound like this guy is being fair.

Data mining? Looks fishy... (2)

Tyger (126248) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221606)

I decided to check out the HTML myself without a web browser, and I didn't see a link to the official website.. This is the HTML I got back (Superflous
s removed):

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>www2.terena.nl</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" LINK="#CCCCCC">
<CENTER>
<IMG SRC="/html/lame.gif" border=no>
<a href="mailto:webmaster@alpha.terena.nl">webmaster@ alpha.terena.nl</a>
</CENTER>
</BODY>
</HTML>

Perhaps it shows different content to different web browsers?

Additionally, the image /html/lame.gif was lacking.

Re:OpenSSH dot.....umm.... (2)

Tyger (126248) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221607)

OpenSSH.cc? You mean OpenSSH is out of the Cocos Islands?
Seriously though, the whole marketing of the .cc domain is laughable. They play radio ads on the station I listen to (For those of you who don't know, it's spot.cc [spot.cc] )
Their ads state stuff like "When .com was new, domains like business.com went for millions of dollars" and they are touting .cc as being the new .com - I mean, come on, it's just a regional TLD that sold out, not the best thing since sliced .com! But that is another can of worms.
I suppose I should make this on topic... The .cc TLD, despite having recently sold out, is not free from squatters, and many big companies have gotten .cc domains just to protect themselves.. Hmm, I wonder if slashdot.cc is taken.

That's lame. (2)

res0 (132546) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221608)

Domain squatters are the plague of the internet nowadays. Sometimes the media reacts a bit too harshly, but there are enough top-level domains out there to get around the squatters, but many times the squatters use the domain ownership as a means of getting false hits for their banners or what-not.. which is very very lame.

DNS is already permanently ruined (2)

rambone (135825) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221609)

Almost every conceivable useable combination of characters has been reserved by someone using it, misusing it, or squatting on it.

Its been like this for a while and there isn't any going back. The best you can hope for is industry wide rules banning overt squatting (i.e., taking a domain name and then not applying it to a site for a year), or a rash of new TLDs to free up demand.

I'm personally looking for new TLDs - any type of squatting rule is likely to choke cyberspace in ridiculous lawsuits.

Do you know what the "net" TLD is meant for? (2)

rambone (135825) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221610)

"net" was traditionally intended for use by network service providers. Your useage is no less an abuse than "slashdot.org", another ridiculous misuse of the namespace.

Re:.ORG's and .COM's (2)

rambone (135825) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221611)

That's because .com was taken, and everyone else was already doing .coms.

Not that it really matters now. You could call this site clownpenis.fart and people would still come in droves.

Re:Cybersquatting makes me sick (2)

zaius (147422) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221612)

OpenSource Land?

Re:Looks like de Joode's trying to make a point. (3)

rlk (1089) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221613)

openssh.org does not attempt to set a cookie. It does not contain any scripts or applets. Its HTML is perfectly vanilla, and it doesn't even have any meta tags to redirect search engines. It also contains a link to openssh.com.

Certainly looks harmless enough to me.

Two questions... (3)

Millennium (2451) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221614)

One: why not openssh.net? I think it suits the project better than openssh.com or openssh.org anyway, given the nature of the project.

Two: Why won't this guy just let them use the domain name? He's not using it for anything. This isn't a typical squatting case either, because he's not even trying to sell them the name. Though frankly, that frightens me even more; what could he want with the name, if he doesn't intend to sell it or to use it for a legitimate site?

Abuse of the namespace... (3)

Millennium (2451) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221615)

"net" was traditionally intended for use by network service providers.

Yes, and I've only seen one ISP (UUNet) which actually uses that as their primary address. Many of the other big ISP's hold on to the .net TLD, but it's nothing more than a redirect to the .com address, which is by your definition another "ridiculous misuse of the namespace."

Your useage is no less an abuse than "slashdot.org", another ridiculous misuse of the namespace.

What, then, would you suggest Slashdot's URL be? "Slashdot.com" doesn't fit, because Slashdot isn't really a commercial venture (the ads notwithstanding). "Slashdot.net" doesn't work for the reasons you just said. "Slashdot.gov" and "slashdot.mil" are obvious problems as well.

That's the major problem with TLD's; there aren't enough of them. Then again, that's because they were created in a time when no one had really come up with the idea of personal Websites or Weblogs or anything like that. If the slashdot.org name is an abuse of the namespace, it only goes to show that the problem is with the namespace itself, not the users. The namespace needs to be changed to reflect the times. Until it is, there's nothing that can be done, and .net still fits the project better than .com does.

what are you referring to? (3)

pnevares (96029) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221622)

A search for OpenSSH? [google.com]
A search for Open SSH? [google.com]
A search for "OpenSSH"? [google.com]

None of them return the actual site near the top, neither the .org or .com varieties.

Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".

openssh.org owned by replay/zedz.net (4)

bbk (33798) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221624)

The guy who registered openssh.org runs the zedz.net site, which hosts the replay redhat crypto archives (good place to get .rpms of security software). They used to be at replay.com before replaytv bought the domain from them.

The Zedz guys seem to be pretty good people as far as free software goes. Makes you wonder what they plan to do with the domain, and why they set it up as a forwarder to openssh.com

This reminds me of the whole LinuxHQ/Kernelnotes.org fiasco...

Is it *really* that important? (4)

smoondog (85133) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221626)

Ok, so some jerk has taken a name that really shouldn't be his. This would be a non-problem if nobody cared. I'm just not sure that being a *.com, *.org or a *.net really means much anymore. /. is under a publicly traded company (andover.net), is that necessarily the right place for a *.org? (see nobody really cares...) I think Openssh is just fine as a .com and I don't think it to be a big deal. Why not be openssh.net? That seems appropriate, too. If you are really doing great stuff for a .org domain name, people will know, whether or not it is a .org or a .com


-- Moondog

a slight bit of interest (4)

karmatrip (114613) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221628)

strange. look what whois turned up:

Registrant:
Open SSH Project (OPENSSH2-DOM)
Zaanstraat 250
AMSTERDAM, NL-1013 RZ
NL

Domain Name: OPENSSH.ORG

Odd.and the page is simply a link. Looks like this guy registered the domain name for the project. We need some more information on what this guy is doing before an honest opinion could be made.

You have to wonder (5)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221631)

In this case at least, some of the blame lies with the OpenSSH project noy claiming the domain before announcing their project. I mean really, what does it cost? A whopping $15/yr to register?

Whats even worse is that this story posted on Slashdot could be interpreted as a veiled threat. Not cool. I'm all for OpenSource but this subtle bullying is BS in my book.

Yawn (5)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221632)

Situation: Some guy has registered openssh.org and is pointing to the groups real site. He won't sell or give it away and he doesn't appear to be using it.

Conclusion: WE MUST BOYCOTT!!! He might be doing something awful!!!

Am I the only one who doesn't understand this response? I think the motives of OpenSSH.com in posting this warning are every bit as strange and unfathomable as Mr. de Joode's in grabbing the site.
(Sorry for injecting a touch of sanity into a /. discussion, I won't ever do it again.)
--Shoeboy

Looks like de Joode's trying to make a point. (5)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221633)

Check out the site [openssh.org] . Looks like Mr. de Joode just wants to make sure that freessh.org and other free (beer) ssh projects are easy to find as well. Maybe a bit unfair to be claim jumping the domain, but it's hardly evil. Odd how the warning never mentioned that he was advertising competing projects. I guess the openssh guys wanted to hide that fact. (Which is probably why they say "Don't visit, he's tracking you!")
--Shoeboy

They already have openssh.net (5)

shon (20200) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221634)

Take a look at the whois records:

$ whois openssh.com@whois.corenic.net
Registrant Todd T. Fries (template COCO-21730)
OpenBSD, the REAL open group
Record created: 1999-10-25 08:44:41 MET by CORE-80

$ whois openssh.net@whois.networksolutions.com
Registrant Todd T. Fries (template COCO-21730)
OpenBSD, the REAL open group
Record created on 16-Nov-1999.

$ whois openssh.org@whois.networksolutions.com
Registrant:
Open SSH Project (OPENSSH2-DOM)
Zaanstraat 250
AMSTERDAM, NL-1013 RZ
NL
Record created on 04-Nov-1999.

Looks to me like the "real" OpenSSH Project registered the dot com first, this other guy grabs dot org, then they got dot net. So why did they grab dot com first? Looks like they screwed themselves.

Anyway, what's the big deal? Even Network Solution suggests that you get all three dot com, dot net and dot org to "protect" your company. Only dodgy purists still stick to the old conventions.

Why even publicize this at all? All the documentation and downloads will use whatever the official openssh URL is anyway. The web already has a way of routing around misinformation.

Also, do open source project automatically have a right to the dot org? I think this is presumptuous. What makes any project "the official" openssh project other than when it becomes the de facto standard? Maybe this guy has a right to create another open source or proprietary "openssh" package.

Is this reallly squatting? (5)

p0six (23324) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221635)

Most people on the thread so far has been very much on the side of the OpenSSH. However, I don't think that what this other guy is doing is wrong in the very least. He is not trying to make a profit. He is not trying to blackmail or exhort anything from the OpenSSH group. He was there first, and if he wants to keep the name, the more power to him. He doesn't necessarily have to do anything with it. I mean, if he wanted to, he could just put up a html document saying "This is my page."

Just because the OpenSSH group happens to have want the name does not mean that they have a right to that name. I think that it is in very poor taste to boycott the OpenSSH.org. It seems almost arrogant in fact, to presume that just because Mr. Alex de Joode does not wish to deal with them with regards to the domain name, that he has ulterior motives. A simple message warning people that OpenSSH.org is not affilated with the OpenSSH group would have surely sufficed.

Re:Is this reallly squatting? (5)

RovingSlug (26517) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221636)

I agree 100%.

The post by the OpenSSH developers strongly implies they think they are solely entitled to OpenSSH.org. Wrong. Are we so quick to forget eToys.com versus etoy.com? Were no lessons learned?

It is unethical for a group to bully others just to acquire an asset. Mr. Alex de Joode has done nothing wrong except to own something the OpenSSH developers want. The OpenSSH developers should be reprimanded for believing they have some right to demand that Mr. Alex de Joode "sell or turn the .ORG name over to the OpenSSH developers." Shame on them.

Hold Your Opinions (5)

Bob Uhl (30977) | more than 14 years ago | (#1221637)

Let's not jump to conclusions here. This sounds suspiciously like one of those personality conflicts which are all too common nowadays. It could be that either or both players are acting in ill will, or it could eb that each thinks ill of the otehr but neither is bad from our perspective.

For that matter, if Mr. de Joot has simply not replied to any emails, it may be that he has passed away (don't laugh; it happened to Duane Blehme, a Macintosh shareware programmer years back).

It would seem to me that the wise things to do is to wait and hear from both sides. Remember the Uruguayan Linux fiasco awhile back? We don't really want a repeat of that hysteria, do we?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...