downloadsquad.com — A North Dakota judge issued a ruling in Sierra Corporate Design v. Ritz that has some pretty stunning implications about the use of the "host -l" command when accessing DNS records. In the judgment (which was prepared by the plaintiff's counsel and sent to the judge), the use of the "host -l" command is tantamount to computer hijacking and hacking
Jan 18, 2008 View in Crawl 4
kuroaisuJan 18, 2008
They'll pry "dig" from my cold, dead fingers. Doesn't anyone brief judges on tech at all? Shouldn't someone?
vveloxJan 19, 2008
I fail to see how publishing information that the company has already made publicly available is horrible.
tech42erJan 19, 2008
You provide a very good example of the purpose of a DNS server. It exists to display information. It is not illegal for me to see the information the server is giving out, just as it is not illegal for me to see the ignorance and arrogance in 404's post.
tech42erJan 19, 2008
Don't you love talking to people who have no idea what technology is and assume any knowledge automatically means you're an evil hacker who;s breaking the law?
gheideJan 19, 2008
WTF?
vanettaJan 21, 2008
I think you meant to resolve the MX record? (info@165.234.64.51 should do the trick)
nybble41Jan 30, 2008
Every DNS server in the world will respond with either an "access denied" message or a list of domains when presented with the packets generated by "host -l". That's pretty much the *definition* of a standard protocol. Zone transfer requests exploit exactly zero vulnerabilities in the server software, and employed no fraudulent authentication; the server was *designed* to respond as it did to that request. This is not hacking.
kennyfJul 13, 2008
Maybe they left this open on purpose to entrap the so called hacker.