Re: GoDaddy.com shuts down entire data center?
Here's the story on the big outage. http://marc.perkel.com/index.html Here's another recorded conversation. (Can you do this in NJ?) http://marc.perkel.com/audio/godaddy2.mp3 The GoDaddy folks are well trained. Kudos. -M<
Doesn't this fall under bad things happen. Hopefully it is very clear to all on NANOG that DNS changes can have unforeseeable consequences, because of the nature of the delegation in the DNS. As such pulling DNS records (or zones) you don't fully understand the usage of, as a response to a security/spam problem, is generally a bad idea. That said ultimately a decision has to be taken, relative benefits versus risks. I'm very grateful someone arranged that all records used by the "MINIT" trojan now point to an RFC1918 private address space*, having found infected boxes failing to download their payload as a result. However pulling DNS records probably doesn't belong in the hurly burly of front line support. Simon *Anyone going to check how many DNS servers are still caching "asfasf.ath.cx", to tell how many boxes "nearly" downloaded the payload? In the style of the Sony DRM fiasco measurement.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Here's the story on the big outage.
http://marc.perkel.com/index.html
Here's another recorded conversation. (Can you do this in NJ?)
http://marc.perkel.com/audio/godaddy2.mp3
The GoDaddy folks are well trained. Kudos.
While I do believe that GoDaddy appears to have some sloppy policies and procedures, if you listen to both conversations, you will find that GoDaddy followed a procedure to deal with the issue, and the caller patently refused to follow it. In my opinion, the caller is just grandstanding, most likely for dramatic effect. I counted over 15 different times when the staff at GoDaddy explained that he needed to follow a specific procedure outlined in an E-mail, and they offered to re-send it as many times as he needed and to whatever E-mail address he wanted. During the conversation, the caller claims that the owner of the Datacenter is too busy trying to move domains to respond to the E-mail that would allow him to resolve the entire issue. If this is the case, then this is really poor priority management, and if what GoDaddy indicates in the call is true (Several warnings and notifications of pending suspension) then I have to wonder what nectartech management was thinking? Furthermore, the caller identifies himself in his blog as a "professional asshole", and based on the recorded calls, I have to agree that he has earned his title. -- Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place! KP-216-121-ST
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Here's the story on the big outage.
http://marc.perkel.com/index.html
Here's another recorded conversation. (Can you do this in NJ?)
http://marc.perkel.com/audio/godaddy2.mp3
The GoDaddy folks are well trained. Kudos.
[ snip ]
Furthermore, the caller identifies himself in his blog as a "professional asshole", and based on the recorded calls, I have to agree that he has earned his title.
As you dig deeper into his site you find out that he does this often for the recorded calls. He's got quite a few to AT&T and MCI stored. There's enough there that GoDaddy ought to inquire as to the legality of him taping their call without consent. I don't think the fact that GoDaddy stated they may record is protection for both, but IANAL. This has been debunked well enough to be non operational so we better stop talking about it before we all start getting kook calls and end up as recordings on a website. ;-) -M<
uOn Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 10:20:23AM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
As you dig deeper into his site you find out that he does this often for the recorded calls. He's got quite a few to AT&T and MCI stored. There's enough there that GoDaddy ought to inquire as to the legality of him taping their call without consent. I don't think the fact that GoDaddy stated they may record is protection for both, but IANAL.
Federal law prohibits private recording of phone calls in the absence of consent from at least one party to the call. Since the caller in this case presumably consented to the recording he was doing, no federal law was broken. Whether or not GoDaddy's "we may record" statement constitutes consent is irrelevant because their consent is not required. Most state laws are similar to the federal law. Some states, though, require the consent of all the parties to the call. It's not clear what law applies on interstate calls between states with dissimilar laws. In particular, if the caller is in a one-party state and GoDaddy is in an all parties state, then he is potentially violating the law in the all-parties state. Any attempt to prosecute such violation would likely be challanged on the grounds that it was an interstate call so only federal law applies (that is, that the existance of the federal law automatically preempts state law on any interstate call), or on the grounds that there isn't sufficient relationship to GoDaddy's state to allow that state to prosecute the caller. (Put another way, the argument would be that State X is not entitled to regulate what individuals in State Y do with their own phones in State Y, even when they are calling people in state X.) And, of course, if an all-party law were held to apply to this case, then he could argue that he consented and GoDaddy's "we might record this call" constituted consent for him to record it. In short, if he and GoDaddy are both in the same state, and it's an all-parties state, he probably broke the law (unless he successfulyl argues that GoDaddy effectively consented.) If he and GoDaddy are both in one-party states, he's fine. Anything else, and it's unclear. If his state is one-party, he's probably safe. If his state is all-parties, then it's harder to say, although federal preemption is certainly a reasonable argument to make. http://www.rcfp.org/taping/ seems to have good information. -- Brett
Greg Boehnlein wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Here's the story on the big outage.
http://marc.perkel.com/index.html
Here's another recorded conversation. (Can you do this in NJ?)
http://marc.perkel.com/audio/godaddy2.mp3
The GoDaddy folks are well trained. Kudos.
While I do believe that GoDaddy appears to have some sloppy policies and procedures, if you listen to both conversations, you will find that GoDaddy followed a procedure to deal with the issue, and the caller patently refused to follow it.
If I have read it correctly then nectartech has followed the procedures by email after cleaning the phishing computer. But GoDaddy did not ack nectartechs emails. GoDaddy claimed again and again the system was spamming/phishing when in reality the system was switched off. What else could they do? -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter@peter-dambier.de mail: peter@echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
participants (5)
-
Brett Frankenberger
-
Greg Boehnlein
-
Martin Hannigan
-
Peter Dambier
-
Simon Waters