Domain hijacking explained

Domain hijacking or domain theft is the act of changing the registration of a domain name without the permission of its original registrant, or by abuse of privileges on domain hosting and registrar software systems.[1]

This can be devastating to the original domain name holder, not only financially as they may have derived commercial income from a website hosted at the domain or conducted business through that domain's e-mail accounts,[2] but also in terms of readership and/or audience for non-profit or artistic web addresses. After a successful hijacking, the hijacker can use the domain name to facilitate other illegal activity such as phishing, where a website is replaced by an identical website that records private information such as log-in passwords, spam, or may distribute malware from the perceived "trusted" domain.[3]

Description

Domain hijacking can be done in several ways, generally by unauthorized access to, or exploiting a vulnerability in the domain name registrar's system, through social engineering, or getting into the domain owner's email account that is associated with the domain name registration.[4]

A frequent tactic used by domain hijackers is to use acquired personal information about the actual domain owner to impersonate them and persuade the domain registrar to modify the registration information and/or transfer the domain to another registrar, a form of identity theft. Once this has been done, the hijacker has full control of the domain and can use it or sell it to a third party.

Other methods include email vulnerability, vulnerability at the domain-registration level, keyloggers, and phishing sites.[5]

Responses to discovered hijackings vary; sometimes the registration information can be returned to its original state by the current registrar, but this may be more difficult if the domain name was transferred to another registrar, particularly if that registrar resides in another country. If the stolen domain name has been transferred to another registrar, the losing registrar may invoke ICANN's Registrar Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy to seek the return of the domain.[6]

In some cases the losing registrar for the domain name is not able to regain control over the domain, and the domain name owner may need to pursue legal action to obtain the court ordered return of the domain.[7] In some jurisdictions, police may arrest cybercriminals involved, or prosecutors may file indictments.[8]

Although the legal status of domain hijacking was formerly thought to be unclear,[9] certain U.S. federal courts in particular have begun to accept causes of action seeking the return of stolen domain names.[10] Domain hijacking is analogous with theft, in that the original owner is deprived of the benefits of the domain, but theft traditionally relates to concrete goods such as jewelry and electronics, whereas domain name ownership is stored only in the digital state of the domain name registry, a network of computers. For this reason, court actions seeking the recovery of stolen domain names are most frequently filed in the location of the relevant domain registry.[11] In some cases, victims have pursued recovery of stolen domain names through ICANN's (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), but a number of UDRP panels have ruled that the policy is not appropriate for cases involving domain theft. Additionally, police may arrest cybercriminals involved.[8] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Notable cases

Prevention

ICANN imposes a 60-day waiting period between a change in registration information and a transfer to another registrar. This is intended to make domain hijacking more difficult, since a transferred domain is much more difficult to reclaim, and it is more likely that the original registrant will discover the change in that period and alert the registrar. Extensible Provisioning Protocol is used for many TLD registries, and uses an authorization code issued exclusively to the domain registrant as a security measure to prevent unauthorized transfers.[21]

RFC’s

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: 2021-02-10. Preventing Risks From Subdomain Takeover - Cloud Exploits. 2021-04-14. The Hack Report. en-US.
  2. News: Simon. Ruth. Cybercriminals Are Misappropriating Businesses' Web Addresses As a Result, Customers Can't Find the Real Companies on the Web. The Wall Street Journal. 12 March 2015 . The Wall Street Journal. 12 September 2016.
  3. Web site: Weslow. David. Dealing with cybersquatting: the wisdom of thinking ahead. TBO: Trademarks & Brands Online. 12 September 2016. 31 March 2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20220331231901/https://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/article/dealing-with-cybersquatting-the-wisdom-of-thinking-ahead. dead.
  4. Web site: CLBR Featured Segment: David Weslow on Domain Theft. Cyber Law Radio. July 2015 . 12 September 2016.
  5. Web site: Domain Name Hijacking. 31 December 2014. 13 May 2017. 12 December 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20161212183846/http://aplegal.com/blog/slamming-door-domain-name-hijacking/. dead.
  6. Web site: Registrar Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. ICANN. 12 September 2016.
  7. Web site: Domain name theft: Knowing where to turn. TBO: Trademarks & Brands Online. 12 September 2016. 4 August 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160804203236/http://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/article/domain-name-theft-knowing-where-to-turn. dead.
  8. Web site: Mike Masnick . Criminal Prosecution For Domain Hijacking . Techdirt . 2009-08-04 . 2019-06-19.
  9. Web site: Smith. Gerry. When Hackers Steal A Web Address, Few Owners Ever Get It Back. Huffington Post. 29 September 2014.
  10. Web site: Berkens. Michael. Wiley Rein Files Suit Over 14 Stolen Domain Names: 9 Are 3 Letter .com's. The Domains.
  11. Web site: Allemann. Andrew. Lawsuit filed to recover stolen three letter domain names. Domain Name Wire. 13 September 2016. 23 October 2014.
  12. Web site: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. 12 September 2016.
  13. Web site: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization.
  14. Web site: Mascot Media Circle, LLC dba OnlineMBA v. WhoIsGuard, Inc. / Ahmed Guettouche Case No. D2015-1209. WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization. 12 September 2016.
  15. Web site: DECISION Donald Williams v. wangyan hong . Forum: Arbitration, Mediation, International. 2017-04-23.
  16. Web site: Dawn Kawamoto . Sex.com domain hijacker captured . CNET . 2019-06-19.
  17. Web site: Man Who Sold Web Domain to Mark Madsen Going to Jail | SLAM . Slamonline.com . 2011-07-26 . 2019-06-19.
  18. News: Kirk . Jeremy . Lenovo, Google websites hijacked by DNS attacks . 12 October 2018 . PC World . 26 February 2015.
  19. Web site: Richard Speed . Perl-clutching hijackers appear to have seized control of 33-year-old programming language's .com domain • The Register . The Register . 2024-03-16.
  20. Web site: brian d foy . The Hijacking of Perl.com . Perl.com . 2024-03-16.
  21. Web site: Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers. DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING: INCIDENTS, THREATS, RISKS, AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS. 17 October 2014. 15 July 2005.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Domain hijacking".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.