Index of Concerns as to VeriSign
Site Finder
The Deployment of VeriSign "Site Finder"
and ISP Response
VeriSign's
Site Finder service
has been controversial for a number of reasons, discussed in recent weeks on
numerous bulletin boards, mailing lists, blogs, and other fora. This document
attempts to index and organize such concerns, providing appropriate citations
where helpful.
- Unexpected consequences on web browsing.
- Due to Site Finder, users receive VeriSign web pages when they request
nonexistent .COM and .NET sites, and these error pages replace the ordinary
error messages provided by Web browsers. Users might prefer their browsers'
ordinary messages -- which might be customized, for example, to match
users' preferred languages -- or users might otherwise disfavor change.
- Site Finder also brings inconsistency to users' browsing experiences
-- causing .COM and .NET to offer different error messages than other
TLDs. (Example: www.anonexistentdomain.info,
www.anonexistentdomain.com)
- Decreases in web browsing speed. Site Finder result pages are large,
typically roughly 17KB. So much data can take a noticeable amount of time
to transmit, particularly for users with dialup or satellite connections,
or for connections via wireless devices. Receiving Site Finder pages can
also entail additional costs for those users whose Internet access fees
turn on the amount of data retrieved.
- Addition to browser history of mistyped domain names. With Site Finder
in place, web browser software has no way to know that a given domain
was in fact nonexistent, leading only to Site Finder error content, and
that the domain therefore should not be included in the browser's history
or "AutoComplete" suggestions. If the nonexistent domain comes
alphabetically before its correctly-typed variant, AutoComplete will therefore
suggest that nonexistent domain -- meaning Site Finder essentially disables
the AutoComplete function. (Slashdot
comment)
- Unexpected consequences on other Internet applications
trying to determine whether a given domain name leads to a "real"
site.
- Causing email to be bounced where, prior to Site Finder, it would have
been properly delivered. (Paul
Vixie on backup
MX servers)
- Increases in delay before error messages are returned by network diagnostic
tools like FTP, PING, and TRACERT. (Richard
Smith on Why
Site Finder is Breaking MS Outlook, Outlook Express)
- Delay before receipt in error messages by popular email programs.
(Why Site
Finder is Breaking Windows Networking Utilities)
- Erroneous and counterintuitive error messages from email programs (Why
Site Finder is Breaking Windows Networking Utilities), and
error messages not
in a user's native language.
As to these problems, VeriSign recommends that "application
developers should consider taking appropriate corrective actions."
(Site
Finder Application Developer's Guide, page 6)
- Unexpected consequences on Internet infrastructure
and systems.
- Effects on mail filtering systems. Many mail filtering systems check
for the existence of an email message sender's purported domain name in
order to support an inference as to whether a piece of mail has been forged.
(Mail from, say, dkjadjask@djjsjkdka.com is likely spam, if djjsjkdka.com
doesn't exist.) Due to Site Finder, some filtering systems conclude that
all domains exist, rendering this method of filtering ineffective. (IAB
Architectural Concerns on the Use of DNS Wildcards)
- Effects on monitoring systems. Many host monitoring services check for
the existence of a domain name, host name, web site, or other service
in order to monitor the performance and uptime of such services. Due to
Site Finder, these monitoring systems tend to conclude that services are
operational even when they are not. (IAB
Architectural Concerns on the Use of DNS Wildcards)
- Effects on SOAP communications between automated systems on the Internet.
(Verisign
DNS Changes & Soap over HTTP, Details)
Here too, VeriSign recommends that software authors take "appropriate
corrective actions." (Site
Finder Application Developer's Guide, page 6)
- Unexpected consequences for trademark holders and
those who seek to protect their distinctive marks and Web sites. In the past,
a trademark holder could be confident that requests for a Web site would only
provide Web content if the corresponding domain name had been registered.
But with Site Finder, all Web site requests in .COM and .NET yield results,
causing concerns of dilution and confusion for firms that had previously taken
solace from the fact that the names at issue had not been registered. This
concern is particularly pronounced as to domains that have previously been
the subject of UDRP, ACPA, or other disputes. John
Berryhill describes this problem, and offers additional details and specific
examples, in a submission
to the International Trademark Association's
TMtopics list.
- Transmission of personally identifiable information
to Site Finder, and possible tracking of such information.
- Effect on privacy of web browsing. Site Finder receives and, by examination
of the code of the pages returned to users, appears to track information
about a user's Web browsing. All information described below is sent to
Omniture through a "web bug"
(JavaScript code), which provides tracking services to VeriSign. (Site
Finder Is Leaking Data)
- Site Finder sets a cookie on a user's computer, sufficient to track
that user over time.
- When a user requests a Web site on a nonexistent domain name, Site
Finder tracks the name of the site requested.
- If the user requests a specific directory and file on the site, Site
Finder tracks this information also.
- When a user sends a HTTP GET to a nonexistent site, as might take
place in case of a typo in a site's HTML code, Site Finder tracks this
information.
- Site Finder receives email addresses of users who attempt to send mail
to invalid domain names, as well as the email addresses of their intended
recipients. (Site
Finder: The Technical, Legal & Privacy Concerns) However,
according
to VeriSign staff, Site Finder does not store or track these addresses.
- Unexpected implementation. Site Finder's
introduction came as a surprise to users, network operators, and Web site
administrators.
- To the extent that advance preparations could have mitigated the harms
described above, such measures were impossible for lack of notice.
- To the extent that regulatory authorities or competitors might have
sought to prevent the introduction of Site Finder, whether through contractual
provisions or through legal remedies, such measures were also impossible
in advance.
- Upstaging other companies' business models.
- Site Finder reduces web traffic to MSN,
whose MSN Search service previously provided error messages to users of
Internet Explorer who
requested nonexistent domains.
- Site Finder competes directly with firms including Netster,
Ultimate Search, and others
to register expiring, unused, or otherwise undesired domains, earning
revenue from users' visits and click-throughs. Site Finder has a significant
advantage over these firms, in that they must register and pay for the
domains on which they offer sponsored links and other content, while Site
Finder obtains this traffic without fee. However, this factor is somewhat
mitigated by the ability of Netster and kin, upon payment of an ordinary
domain name registration fee, to obtain any .COM or .NET domain that is
not currently registered and that is therefore displaying Site Finder
content.
- Impermissible use of VeriSign market position.
VeriSign's contracts to run the .COM and .NET registry do not anticipate VeriSign
operating a Site Finder service, nor do they anticipate VeriSign receiving
the profits accruing from such a service. To the extent that the negotiated
registry prices reflect a reasonable profit to VeriSign, any additional profits
to VeriSign above and beyond the negotiated prices constitute a windfall not
anticipated by the contracts. (Lauren
Weinstein on VeriSign Profits)
Last Updated: October 7, 2003 - Sign
up for notification of major updates and related work.