×

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!

Reports of IE Hijacking NXDOMAINs, Routing To Bing

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the if-I-want-bing-I-will-type-bing dept.

Internet Explorer 230

Jaeden Stormes writes "We just started getting word of a new browser hijack from our sales force. 'Some site called Bing?' they said. Sure enough, since the patches last night, their IE6 and IE7 installations are now routing all NXDOMAINs to Bing. Try it out — put in something like www.DoNotHijackMe.com." We've had mixed results here confirming this: one report that up-to-date IE8 behaves as described. Others tried installing all offered updates to systems running IE6 and IE7 and got no hijacking.
Update: 08/11 23:24 GMT by KD : Readers are reporting that it's not Bing that comes up for a nonexistent domain, it's the user's default search engine (noting that at least one Microsoft update in the past changed the default to Bing). There may be nothing new here.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

230 comments

Verizon does it for me... (4, Informative)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030613)

So it looks like its not Microsoft's fault in -my case-.

Re:Verizon does it for me... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030959)

And... Comcast does it for me...

Re:Verizon does it for me... (2, Informative)

DaHat (247651) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031105)

I just noticed comcast doing it to me this morning as well... odd thing was it would redirect www.pleasedonthijackthis.com but not pleasedonthijackthis.com.

Call me crazy... but I do not use www's unless I have to!

Re:Verizon does it for me... (1)

dch24 (904899) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031303)

So how long until Comcast sues Microsoft for using "bundling" to catch this revenue stream?

Standard IE functionality...? (5, Informative)

pjotrb123 (685993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030989)

Most if not all versions of IE (6+, and probably older ones too) have a feature called search from address bar [sevenforums.com]. With this setting enabled, anything typed in the address bar which does not resolve to a website, is passed on to the default search engine, whichever that may be.
Perhaps a recent update turned this feature ON for people who had it turned OFF? But the feature itself is most definitely not new or news.

Re:Verizon does it for me... (1)

ericlondaits (32714) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031047)

My IE8 redirected to Google.. I guess it's because of the Google Toolbar, although it was disabled.

Not working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030615)

Not working here :(

Ridiculous (1, Insightful)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030627)

IE cannot "hijack" NXDOMAIN, because it's not an ISP.

Re:Ridiculous (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030701)

More kdawson FUD?

Re:Ridiculous (3, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030829)

First, I think you mean "because its not a DNS."

Second, of course it could.
It could point all IE traffic to a Microsoft-run DNS that hijacked NXDOMAIN.

Whether it actually *does* or not is a different story.

Re:Ridiculous (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030883)

*sigh* All you had to do was copy and paste his "it's" and you failed to do that. Even if you were more right, I'd rather side with him since he can spell.

Re:Ridiculous (3, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030993)

Its really nothing worth getting upset about. Lot's of smart people mix that one up.

Re:Ridiculous (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031009)

No, they don't. There's nothing to mix up. They aren't interchangeable terms and they have vastly different meanings.

Re:Ridiculous (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030947)

Well even more to the point IMO: IE isn't "hijacking" NXDOMAIN because IE is the program you're requesting the domain from. Saying IE is hijacking your domain query is a little like claiming the normal pilot of a plane is hijacking it whenever he flies. No, he's not, he's the pilot. It's kind of his job.

What I mean is, if I dropped to the command prompt and typed "nslookup [whatever]", is IE changing the results that I get? If not, then it isn't really fair to say they're "hijacking" anything. If you're typing a domain into your address bar of your browser, and you want something to figure out what you're trying to type and possibly redirecting to a search engine, then the browser is the appropriate place for that to happen. The complaints about DNS "hijacking" is because it's being done by the DNS server and not the browser, but the browser is actually the right place for this to happen.

Now maybe they should offer the option to turn this on or off, but really as long as they're respecting your choice in search engines, I don't think there's a problem. It's a little like complaining that Firefox's Awesome Bar tries to guess what sites you're trying to find.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031237)

If I get on a commercial plane that is instructed to go to New York, and the pilot takes me to Cuba, that pilot has hijacked that plane. Even if I misspelled New York when I bought my ticket.

Re:Ridiculous (0, Redundant)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030957)

IE cannot "hijack" NXDOMAIN, because it's not an ISP.

Perhaps, but Microsoft can use its control of IE to artificially pad the number of hits to bing.com. That way users who had no intention of visiting the site will be taken there anyway. It's not so unreasonable to describe this as "hijacking" of traffic. Your computer is yours, is it not? Shouldn't it only go to a Web site when you decide that you want it to, and not when someone in marketing decides it'll drive traffic to a site? Sorry but you really seem to be quibbling about semantics, as though semantics had any power to make this an ethical or desirable feature.

It seems that the reports of this behavior are not terribly consistent. So as to whether or not I know for sure that this is going on, I have to say "I don't know." What I will say is that this kind of disrespectful treatment of users, the blatant disregard of their free choices, is par for the course for Microsoft and is a major reason why I refuse to use their software. It's certainly believable that they would do this. It means they view users as objects, as means to an end, and feel free to direct users' equipment and 'Net connections in any way that suits their marketing purposes. That is how you treat furniture, not human beings. In the face of that, I consider IE's "non-ISP" status to be not just a moot point, but a distraction.

Re:Ridiculous (0, Flamebait)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031031)

It's their product, and if you input an invalid URL...their product directs you to their search engine to allow you to search for whatever it is you are looking for. How in the fuck is this wrong?

Re:Ridiculous (3, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031171)

Because somehow on Windows 7, Firefox is doing the same thing now, and Google is the default search engine.....

Re:Ridiculous (1, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031247)

It's their product, and if you input an invalid URL...their product directs you to their search engine to allow you to search for whatever it is you are looking for. How in the fuck is this wrong?

I already answered your question and described what I think is wrong with such practices. If you disagree with my answer, please tell me why you disagree and what part of my reasoning seems invalid to you. An emotive restatement of the question doesn't contribute much.

To me, this would be a legitimate practice PROVIDED that they first ask the user. Ideally, this feature would be off by default, the user would first enable the feature and would then get to choose the search engine that it uses. I'd have no problem with that.

What I think is unethical is if no such question is asked and Microsoft just decides for you that every little typo means you really wanted to do a Bing search. Do you really think that sort of "creative interpretation" of your actions sets a favorable precedent? Microsoft clearly gains from this because they are trying very hard to promote their search engine, while the user either has a dubious benefit or has to suffer a needless annoyance. I don't use use Microsoft software, but if I did, I most certainly would not be paying them for the "privilege" of being a bargaining chip in their struggle to compete with Google. Perhaps other people don't mind being used in such a demeaning fashion, but I certainly don't and have never consented to it.

If Bing is successful and gives Google a run for their money, it needs to be because of its merits. It should never be because Microsoft was able to leverage its marketshare in one market to dupe its users into going along with giving them undue success in another market. No one except for Microsoft benefits from that scenario. That is not the sort of competition that lets all of us enjoy better browsers and better search engines. I don't know how to make that more clear.

I'll emphasize that these reports are not terribly consistent. I don't know if this is what is going on and I'm not the sort of fool who automatically believes everything he reads. Having said that, I do know that this is the accusation being made in the summary. If it is a correct accusation, then everything I have said applies.

Who cares!?! (2, Insightful)

o TINY o (1611133) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030631)

I mean really. We can get a page telling us the site doesn't exist, or we can be re-directed to a search engine which can help us find what we were looking for. Yeah it helps pimp Microsoft, but I figure if you are using their browser, it is fair game.

Re:Who cares!?! (-1, Redundant)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030681)

I mean really. We can get a page telling us the site doesn't exist, or we can be re-directed to a search engine which can help us find what we were looking for. Yeah it helps pimp Microsoft, but I figure if you are using their browser, it is fair game.

Standards exist for a reason. If vendors behaves in a non-uniform manner then it makes the development of protocols and software much more challenging. More importantly, it stifles the entire industry.

Speaking of standards, the summary should be using example.com for their domain.

Re:Who cares!?! (4, Informative)

SBrach (1073190) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030765)

On my PC if I have bing selected as my default search engine it takes me to bing. If I have google set as my default search engine it takes me to google. I don't really see what the big deal is.

Re:Who cares!?! (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030771)

No, no it shouldn't. http://www.donothijackme.com/ [donothijackme.com] does not show up with anything, it opens up a error message reading "Server not found Firefox can't find the server at www.donothijackme.com. * Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com * If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection. * If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Minefield is permitted to access the Web."

Example.com on the other hand -is- a valid site and will return "You have reached this web page by typing "example.com", "example.net", or "example.org" into your web browser. These domain names are reserved for use in documentation and are not available for registration. See RFC 2606, Section 3." if the point is searching for an invalid site to test for this, why the heck would you use a valid site which wouldn't return the error message?

Re:Who cares!?! (2, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031113)

Actually, that domain has been registered already.

Luckily, my corporate firewall banned it (fatguyshirts) as "tasteless and offensive".

Time to change the summary, editors.

Re:Who cares!?! (2, Interesting)

Wuhao (471511) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030823)

Can you point me to the relevant RFC, or at least a standard from a recognized standards body which is being violated here?

Re:Who cares!?! (1)

Snover (469130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031063)

Actually, youâ(TM)d want to use example.invalid, since example.com is a valid domain. :)

Re:Who cares!?! (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031241)

Standards exist for a reason. If vendors behaves in a non-uniform manner then it makes the development of protocols and software much more challenging. More importantly, it stifles the entire industry.

Speaking of standards, the summary should be using example.com for their domain.

I agree fully that "example.com" really ought to be used as the example domain. That's the only thing we should actually be outraged about. In this case, a web browser handling an nxdomain result by automatically doing a search doesn't hurt anything. Doing it at the dns level hurts everything. In one case, I either use a different tool or reconfigure my existing one. In the other case, all sorts of services can potentially break.

Re:Who cares!?! (3, Interesting)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030881)

Domain hijacking is a huge deal for me. Primarily, when I'm on an internet connection that's hijacking the domain, if I type 'amazon', firefox first checks if I have an amazon in my searchdomain (ie: amazon.example.com), and if not, it tries adding a .com, then a www. and a .com... if the ISP is hijacking it, I get an answer to 'amazon' with the hijacked page. This means that I have to type the .com every time.

with a browser doing the same thing, I could be trying to connect to my primary server (wolverine) and if I mistype the webaddress, it redirects me to bing, changing my URL bar to the bing URL which means that when I've typed 'wolverine/some/really/long/path?with=variables' I have to go type that whole thing over again to correct it rather than just fixing it in the addressbar.

so, hijacking the DNS is a BITCH and is totally annoying all the time.

Re:Who cares!?! (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030973)

Of course, when you start typing wolverine/long/path/to/script, doesn't your browser autofill at least some of the domain, limiting the room for typos?

Is that considered Hijacking? (3, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030639)

I'm pretty sure that if you had the Google Search Provider add on for IE, and made it your default search provider, it would do the same? Hasn't that always been the case for Non-existant domains?

I mean, its IE, and its microsoft - all they're basically doing is providing the "Microsoft Add On" in their versions of IE.

Re:Is that considered Hijacking? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030815)

I'm pretty sure you don't know what you are talking about.

Why not TRY it in Firefox and compare results to IE like everybody else is doing?

Re:Is that considered Hijacking? (4, Informative)

Thalagyrt (851883) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030907)

I've done it in IE8. With Google as the search provider, it goes to Google. With Bing as the provider, it goes to Bing. With Yahoo as the provider, it goes to Yahoo... Hell, with eBay as the selected provider, it searches eBay. You get the picture.

Re:Is that considered Hijacking? (-1, Troll)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030995)

Proper behavior is to show a static page saying it can't be found.

Re:Is that considered Hijacking? (4, Informative)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031029)

I -DO- know what I'm talking about, and I don't know how this made news because I've had IE do this for me for at least a year as Google as my default search provider, sending me to google if I mistyped a domain name or something. And when I didn't have google set, it was "Windows Live search".

Now its Bing.

I'm pretty sure you Don't know what YOU'RE talking about, because you use Firefox and haven't kept up with IE. Just like the article.

Re:Is that considered Hijacking? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031145)

Firefox = Shows static not found page
Opera = Shows static not found page
Safari = Shows static not found page
Ancient Seamonkey = Shows static not found page

IE? FLEETINGLY shoes static page, then pops to something that on vmn.net even tho my search provider is Google.

I want to configure it to use the proper response, which is the static page ONLY.

I tried to have my Internet Exploder hijacked (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030645)

and all I got was this frosty

It is just trying to be helpful. (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030653)

It isn't actually Bing that it goes to, it is whatever your default search provider is. Now that is Bing by default, but you can change it to anything you want. IE8 asks you during setup, and you can change it later. So if you change it to Google and enter a non-existent domain, it'll send you to Google with a search for that.

Similar to how Firefox works, just in more cases. In FF, if you enter a name with no domain, it tries some popular ones like .com. If it can't find any, it then does a search in your default provider. IE is doing a similar thing, but doing the search even if you do enter a domain.

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030695)

and this made it to the front page of /. ? talk about paranoia

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030727)

But it becomes a bad thing when you do it for non-existent domains. When you type something without the domain name, its assumed you are searching for something, when you enter a non-existent domain, its sorta like dialing a wrong number. I'd rather the phone system tell me I have a wrong number rather than trying to get me where it thinks I want to go. If I call 555-555-5555 chances are I want 555-555-5555, it should not assume that I want 555-555-XXXX. When I want to go to something .com, .net, .org, or another domain, I want it it to show me the domain, if there is no domain, tell me there is no domain.

I'm not saying if it is good or not (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030745)

I'm saying what it is doing, and why. It isn't "hijacking" it is trying to be helpful to users that mistype a domain.

Re:I'm not saying if it is good or not (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031037)

I'm saying what it is doing, and why. It isn't "hijacking" it is trying to be helpful to users that mistype a domain.

If I do something incorrectly, the most helpful thing at that point is to let me see that it caused an error. The idea that an error would confuse me or be too much for me to handle and so must be avoided at all costs is a good way to prevent me from learning why my original attempt didn't work and how it may be done correctly in the future. It's also somewhat insulting. It assumes that not only am I just a "point-and-drool" type of user, but that I wish to remain that way.

I wonder if this behavior would interfere with domains that are intended to route through a VPN. If I understand it correctly, domains that are specific to the VPN would fail to resolve with an NXDOMAIN error, at which point the secondary DNS (the one belonging to the VPN) would be used that would then point to the correct internal/VPN IP address. What impact, if any, does this behavior have on remote, Web-based intranet applications?

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (1, Redundant)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030997)

Fix:

Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Search from Address Bar -> Do not search from address bar.

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (2, Insightful)

Fastolfe (1470) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031287)

But it becomes a bad thing when you do it for non-existent domains.

Why? If I mistype a domain name, and get a search results page, I know instantly what happened (I mistyped the domain name), and, odds are, the correct page that I'm looking for is in the search results (usually at the top), one click away, instead of a retype away. This is a net positive for me. Fortunately we can both have it our own way, since you can turn this feature off, right?

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030739)

But if you enter a valid URL firefox will always take you there even if there is no site, it only googles stuff if you type an invalid url, this is a fair assumption
google.cm/ [slashdot.org] google dot com goes to a google results page

it can also be disabled completely
keyword.enabled = false

You can in IE8 as well (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030813)

In the options menu there's a setting "Search form the address bar." You can change that to not submit unknown addresses. It is just the default behavior, not the mandatory behavior.

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031095)

AND THERE IS THE CRUCIAL POINT:

But if you enter a valid URL...

Same with IE. Try typing in "www.fdsgsdfgfgs.com" and you'll indeed go to Bing. Try typing in "http://www.fdsgsdfgfgs.com" and you'll get a DNS error.

I could understand the average user not appreciating the difference, but surely everyone on this site should? Certainly the sort of people who think they're clever enough to use phrases like "hijacking NXDOMAINS".

LOL! Stupid People With Mod Points (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030741)

What a dipshit. Who the fuck modded this idiot up?

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (1)

Hach-Que (1524899) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030767)

However, it only does it with Live Search. I just tested it and set my search provider to Google. It won't search Google on a non-existant domain.

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (1)

Curmudgeonlyoldbloke (850482) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030873)

It won't search Google on a non-existant domain.

Yes it will (at least here). I've no idea what you're doing that's different.

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030867)

Hmmmm, sounds informative and reasonable.... damn. So what do I do with these pitch forks, torches, hot tar, and feathers now?

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (5, Insightful)

ojintoad (1310811) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030931)

Take them to kdawson and force him to explain why I can't tag this !story since it is clearly NOT a STORY.

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (1)

Jade E. 2 (313290) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030971)

Absolutely correct. The only thing that's changed is that MS redirected auto.search.msn.com, search.msn.com, and all of live.com to bing.com. So the old MSN Live Search domain not found page (Which should be familiar to anyone who ever misspelled 'getfirefox.com' shortly after installing a new windows system) now says Bing.com instead. Everybody panic!

Re:It is just trying to be helpful. (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031261)

On top of that, it's always done this. If they'd run this article 5 years ago it would have been "Snooze, ye olde news is olde."

Confirmed (2, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030661)

IE 6 and 8 (don't use 7 anywhere). Both redirected to BING ....

The funniest thing we have ... our filter (k-12 schools) blocks BING LOL. ... here is the report ...

Category: Image Servers & Image Search Engines

Blocked URL: http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=DNSAS&q=www.DoNotHijackMe.com&adlt=strict [bing.com]

Re:Confirmed (4, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030965)

Solution:

Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Search from Address Bar -> Do not search from address bar.

Re:Confirmed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031121)

blocks BING? You also have Google blocked then?

Re:Confirmed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031301)

we block webmail.
That includes gmail.com, and live.com. It's too bad MS failed to separate bing.com from live.com, so that bing is often blocked mid-search.
Maybe they'll fix it, or maybe we'll just keep referring users to google.com
I know I'm not going to take time away from slashdot to figure out a work-around.

OMG!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030665)

So you mean to say that Microsoft is trying to use their market share to determine how people use the internet?! This is shocking to me.

Disgusting, But Totally Ineffective Microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030677)

Just look at how desperate Ballmer and Microsoft is with their crazy obsesion with Google and search:

* 150 million wasted on the latest rebranding of their failed search product. No effect on marketshare

* Mass numbers of suspicious posts on Net messageboards all parroting the same talking points: "I'm a long time Google users and I decided to give Bing a try and By Golly! I'm switching!"

* Paying floundering Yahoo to use their search engine

* Putting up fake news story items on Microsoft web pages that are really nothing more than hidden Microsoft search links attempting to inflate the search marketshare

* And now this crap

The rate Ballmer is throwing billions at their failed search efforts looks like it may actually outdo Microsoft 8 year long Xbox fiasco for.

Re:Disgusting, But Totally Ineffective Microsoft (4, Insightful)

Admodieus (918728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030933)

I thought that was the ignorance siren that I heard. Where do I start?

150 million wasted on the latest rebranding of their failed search product. No effect on marketshare

Actually, it stole a percentage point of Google's market share last month. I don't think anybody expected it to gain 70% market share overnight. Except maybe you?

Mass numbers of suspicious posts on Net messageboards all parroting the same talking points: "I'm a long time Google users and I decided to give Bing a try and By Golly! I'm switching!"

Suspicious? Really? I saw somebody the other day on a Macbook Pro using Bing willingly. It's anecdotal evidence. There's nothing suspicious about it. It happens to some people, not everyone. I'm sure there are people who used Live Search before and switched to Google or Yahoo.

Paying floundering Yahoo to use their search engine

I won't argue with the state of Yahoo, but this has the potential to double the usage of Bing, and make it a much more formidable opponent to Google. It was a good deal.

* Putting up fake news story items on Microsoft web pages that are really nothing more than hidden Microsoft search links attempting to inflate the search marketshare

Haven't seen an example of this yet. Provide one and I'll yield this point.

* And now this crap The rate Ballmer is throwing billions at their failed search efforts looks like it may actually outdo Microsoft 8 year long Xbox fiasco for.

Read the first few comments - it goes to your default search provider, which is Google if you set it to. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news for your anti-Microsoft sentiments, but the XBox division is doing pretty well for itself right now. They've made Sony a laughing stock this generation.

Re:Disgusting, But Totally Ineffective Microsoft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031167)

"Actually, it stole a percentage point of Google's market share last month."

LOL! What a fucking loser! The search marketshare graphs are all statistical flat lines. Let me guess...you won't be babbling about 'teh Bing is surging' each time the normal sampling error drops the same insignificant amount down in now will you. No you won't you fucking faggot.

"I saw somebody the other day on a Macbook Pro using Bing willingly"

LOL! Way to own yourself by your own idiotic self...

"Provide one and I'll yield this point."

No one gives a fuck about you loser. Bing is 'teh Fail' and nothing is going to salvage the stinking pile shit no matter how many times Microsoft renames it.

"but the XBox division is doing pretty well for itself right now"

OMG!

What is it now? 7 billion, 8 billion in losses since 2001? Worst console hardware ever created. Worst first party/exclusive developer lineup. Shitty 50 dollar a year online service that can't even manage to provide dedicated servers like PC and PS3 online does. Gay Nintendo Mii clones. Horrible quality sub-HD movies you have to blow your bandwidth cap downloading. Noisy as fuck. Absurdly overpriced harddrive upgrades. Laughably wimpy graphics.

No wonder the idiots at Microsoft are throwing in the towel on trying to compete with Sony and the PS3 and instead are repacking the piece of shit RRoDbox with a rip off of Sony's EyeToy type motion controls and trying to copy Nintendo and the Wii.

But the bitterness from Xbots is understandable. The 360 was supposed to be the console that finally 'got it right' LOL! Most expensive and powerful console in history at 400 dollars and the PS3 is the third fastest selling console in history, right behind the PS2 and the Wii. No wonder Xbots are shitting themselves over the 300 PS3 slim about to arrive.

At least when the RRoDbox + motion controls fails it won't be billions in losses, only hundreds of millions...

Re:Disgusting, But Totally Ineffective Microsoft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031219)

> Putting up fake news story items on Microsoft web pages

Not that hard to see for yourself. It's right there on multiple MSN pages. Links that look like Google News links that are nothing more than dummy Microsoft search links.

Talk about desperate and pathetic.

hmmm i get it on IE7 (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030693)

I get a search page on bing.com using IE7 but didn't update today :( I think i have previous updates except IE8.

IE8 Fully up to date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030705)

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

      What you can try:
        Diagnose Connection Problems

Nothing to see here. Move along !!

Bad Posts (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030717)

Yet another stupid, linkless, flamebait article.

Come the fuck on guys.

Re:Bad Posts (5, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031005)

Seriously, this is the stupidest article I've seen on slashdot in a while. I tried on IE8 on this computer and it sends me to a google search. Oh noes!!! Google and Microsoft have teamed up to hijack NXDOMAIN!

No, IE is just sending you to your default search engine. If you never use IE you probably never changed its default selection of bing/live search. And this isn't NXDOMAIN hijacking! This is an application interpreting an NXDOMAIN response and acting on it in a sensible way.... the kind of behavior that NXDOMAIN hijacking breaks. Seriously, this is a fucking stupid post.

Re:Bad Posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031245)

I've honestly more or less stopped coming here because of stories like this. I used to come here for news for nerds, and now it is just (often completely baseless and unverified) Microsoft bashing. Some of the headlines lately verge in libel.

MS Back to their old ways? (1, Redundant)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030755)

I don't know if it is just my perception, but it feels like MS is back to their old ways with a lot of their activities these days - particularly with regard to anything web facing.

After what felt like a few years of roughly being fair with things, we seem to have had a spate of underhand moves recently. Off the top of my head I can list installing firefox extensions through windows updates without asking (spooking a lot of people including myself - "1 new extension installed what? I didn't install anything"), upgrades to IE8 presenting the user with a complex series of choices - one that implies you should opt in to their accelerator program or IE8 won't install, and the other offering you an express set of installation options or else click through a large number of preference screens - while failing to mention that express settings set IE8 as the default browser.

And now (if true), engaging in DNS hijacking to drive visitors to their search site. Can they just not accept user preference at all?

Re:MS Back to their old ways? (1)

cmacb (547347) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031227)

I don't know if it is just my perception, but it feels like MS is back to their old ways with a lot of their activities these days - particularly with regard to anything web facing.

At what point did you think that they had left their old ways? The most annoying aspect of their old ways to me was that they were constantly lying about what their intentions/directions were. They did after all start working on OS/2 as the future direction for Windows. More recently they hired a single Open Source guru and did some still mysterious deals with Novell which have done more to make Novell look like Microsoft than they have to make Microsoft look like Novell.

If you don't think they intend to lie cheat and steal to beat Google then I have some property I'd like you to look at.

This is a tempest in a teacup. (2, Informative)

Hittis (28174) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030769)

IE is - as stated above - being helpfull, as a program should be. It is not a "hijacking" since the program requesting the DNS-lookup is IE. This is nothing like having NXDOMAIN, transparently, changed into something it isn't on the network-level.

In one case the program gets to decide what to do and in the other someone else is telling your program that the expected result is something else.

*mods article Overrated* (4, Insightful)

Looce (1062620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030779)

IE 6 has always been doing stuff on auto.search.msn.com if you entered URLs whose domain name didn't exist.

This is not news.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:*mods article Overrated* (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031185)

No, its not news its slashdot. The editors realized we havent gotten our two minutes of hate today. How childish and predictable. No wonder no one takes this place even remotely seriously.

OP completely misses the point... (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030789)

The problem with REAL null domain hijacking is that it breaks software. It breaks VPN clients in a BIG way as well as anything else that searches the Intranet for services. Since this is only active within the web browser and entirely possible to disable, it is far from the big hassle that ISP based hijacks are.

Firefox also does exactly the same thing. Also easy to disable.

Re:OP completely misses the point... (4, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030865)

It breaks VPN clients in a BIG way

It breaks really shittily configured VPN clients/networks in a BIG way.

WTF is your VPN doing attempting to resolve VPNed hostnames through your default ISP connection, rather than using a nameserver on the VPN? I'd fire your network security guy, before you get bitten in a big way by a DNS "MITM" - I use quotes because it's really Man In The Wrong Place At The Right Time Who Gets Lucky Because Of An Insecure VPN, but that's not quite as catchy.

Hmmmm... (1)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030805)

Using IE 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_qfe.090206-1239:
I just tried it and I got hijacked to a Google page sponsored by Dell.

My computer is a Dell.

most likely not dns hijacking (1)

mzs (595629) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030809)

IE is not DNS server. What is most likely happening is that with some registry entry a certain way and a certain set of patches, when IE gets a NXDOMAIN when doing a domain name lookup it then does a bing/google/yahoo search (depending on another registry entry for your preferred search engine). It used to show a page with a red X.

This is not DNS hijacking. If somehow Windows now had a caching DNS server that substituted a IP address that then redirected to a bing search or something of that sort, that would be DNS hijacking. This is IE the client trying to handle NXDOMAIN errors in a helpful way. Hopefully this is customizable like I expect. The only thing about this is that if the default is bing that increases exposure and ad revenue for Microsoft. It does not break the internet like DNS hijacking does.

Non-Issue (1)

ammorais (1585589) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030851)

This is a non-issue.
Why the hell this articles keep coming when there are plenty of real issues about Microsoft, IE.

No mystery here (3, Informative)

jeffcuscutis (28426) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030885)

I just tried it = www.DoNotHijackMe.com in IE8 and Google loaded.

It's caused by a setting Tools -> Internet Options -> Advanced -> Search Options and "Just Display the results in the main window" is selected. If "Do not submit unknown addresses to your auto-search provider" is selected, if it can't find an address it submits it to your default search provider.

No mystery.

Not news by any measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29030893)

First, IE has been doing this for ages. Second, this is not bad behavior. It doesn't have the downsides that an ISP hijacking NXDOMAIN does. It could even be helpful.

Is this not what you wanted? (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030963)

Every time an ISP starts hijacking NXDOMAIN responses, dozens of comments suggesting that this should not be done by the ISP but in the browser get modded +5 and are generally agreed with.

So MS made their browser do it. What is the problem?

(Other than using a monopoly in one market to get one in another.)

Re:Is this not what you wanted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031257)

Correct. The user agent (the web browser in this case) is the right place to react to NXDOMAIN. The browser has to tell the user something. Instead of just telling him "wrong domain, dumbass" it can try to be helpful and show him some search results. This is not a violation of internet standards, because the communication between the browser and the DNS server is as specified. The user interaction is not subject to RFCs.

A problem with changing the behavior in case of NXDOMAIN is Microsoft-specific because Microsoft is a monopoly and has previously been convicted of unfairly using its monopoly status to expand into new markets. If the user had previously changed the search provider or otherwise disabled the search-on-NXDOMAIN feature of the browser, then reenabling the feature or switching to Bing could be seen as leveraging the desktop OS monopoly to push Bing, which would be illegal.

MS late as usual, Time Warner doing it for a while (1)

emeade (123253) | more than 4 years ago | (#29030975)

The roadrunner search does have an opt out though.

F^(#ing morons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031085)

both comcast and M$ are hijacking me.

M$ is truly stupid in giving the following redirection from http://192.168.1.254 which is on my local subnet:
http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=DNSAS&q=192.168.1.254

F^(#ing morons.

Phishing filter? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031135)

I tried www.donothijackme1234.com and I got a pop up asking if I wanted to turn the phishing filter on (you can tell how much I use IE on this computer).

I wonder if turning that on/off makes a difference?

(I clicked "turn it off" of course)

Missing something? (1)

merlin3000 (1576087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031147)

Not only does the OP miss the point completely (since what happens is that you are rerouted to the default search engine). But Am I missing something? Using that link I I'm redirected to some fat guys shirts page.

I'm getting kind of self-conscious.

Does a helpful search for you (1)

orev (71566) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031165)

All IE is doing is performing a search for whatever you typed in, if it can't find the domain. If your search engine is set to Bing, it will search there. My search engine is set to Google, so it searches there.

Nothing to see here, other than FUD perpetrated by the ./ community.

news? nah.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031243)

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but this is not news. IE has been doing this for a very very long time.

kdawson needs to go (5, Insightful)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29031289)

Seriously, how many bad articles does this guy have to post before he gets thrown off the slashdot team?

QUIT IT ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29031311)

Slashdot is getting boring and boring with the anti-ms propaganda ! Cut the crap and quit it !

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...