Login:
Password:

EarthLink Criticized for DNS Redirects

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

September 6, 2006, 4:46 PM

Internet service provider EarthLink is drawing fire from customers after launching a test program in which it redirects nonexistent domains to a company-provided error page containing suggestions, a search box and advertisements.

Typically, if a domain name is not functional, the Web browser displays an error saying it cannot find the page. But with billions of domains being visited each day, resulting in potentially hundreds of millions of typos, those errors could be quite lucrative to businesses such as EarthLink.

Microsoft by default redirects DNS errors in Internet Explorer to an error page located on MSN Search, which encourages users to search the Web for what they are looking for. That page, however, does not contain an advertisement and can be disabled in IE.

VeriSign, which manages the DNS records for all .com and .net domains, saw a similar opportunity in 2003. The company began redirecting all nonexistent domains to what it called "Site Finder," which displayed a page containing links to possible intended destinations and a search box. VeriSign said 900 million DNS queries each day are for nonexistent domains.

However, Site Finder was met which a harsh rebuke from the Internet community, with some ISPs pledging to block the service. Consumers were unhappy their browser was being redirected to a VeriSign page and networked administrators questioned the security of adding a wild card DNS entry to all domains.

ICANN, the non-profit group that governs the Internet DNS system, demanded that VeriSign disable the service, which the company eventually did. But VeriSign later sued ICANN and, in response, won an extended contract to control both .com and .net through 2012.

While EarthLink's redirection will only affect the ISP's customers, some users claim EarthLink is attempting to profit from typo-domains much like Internet scams. The company acknowledges it will "generate revenue from the page," but claims that it provides a better experience for end-users. EarthLink has already been redirecting DNS errors for those using its browser toolbar.

Like with the VeriSign service in 2003, EarthLink concedes that the redirection will affect more than just Web site requests, but says it is "continuously monitoring and tuning the configurations to minimize its impact on non-web traffic."

Still, the change is irking a number of EarthLink customers, many of whom thought their browser was being hijacked by malware. EarthLink responded in a company blog posting on the issue, saying it was listening to the feedback and was working to resolve any problems. However, it does not intend to disable the DNS redirection.

EarthLink's Dave Coustan said the company would consider making changes, "if any alternatives become available."

"This IS a major abuse of how DNS works. And unless Earthlink offers alternate DNS servers for those of us who refuse to use this, it WILL cost you customers," wrote an EarthLink subscriber named Michael. "I give it 2 days, and then I'm switching. If I can't trust my ISP to not abuse DNS, then what good are they?"

Other users complained that they were being redirected on perfectly valid domains they had no problem visiting just days before. A number of customers attempted to call EarthLink support about the issue, but found there was no way to opt-out of the service. VPNs also seemed to be having problems with the redirects.

"Well I just cancelled my Earthlink account and went back to Road Runner because of this non-sense. It is affecting people that do work from home like VPNing into the office and such," wrote a user named Tom.

"I stuck with you out of some odd loyalty to independent ISPs but can no longer afford that luxury if Earthlink sees me merely as a revenue stream to milk dry at the expense of properly functional basic ISP services like DNS," added a user by the name of RD. "I believe I can speak for many here who mourn the death of what was a premier ISP. Rest in peace. I won't be around for the funeral."

Add a Comment (25 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Grahame_Olney

edited Sep 15, 2006 - 10:02 PM

I'm a Earthlink customer (for years) but their DNS service has severed me from my webhosted site. For about a week or two my site was only accessible about one in three attempts as I tried to FTP or Browse it. I initially assumed the webhost company had oversold their bandwidth and so I was looking for another webhost company.

Then I got a call from someone that accessed my website with no trouble... that was the first I heard it was even running. I accessed my website without any problem using my neighbor's Net-Zero account.

Knowing that the website was fine, I considered the problem to be either my own firewall or Earthlink. My firewall "appeared" fine so calling Earthlink I was told after a handoff that a new DNS package was installed Sept 6th. That's when I started having problems though by the 14th I had no access to my website.

Earthlink said they were aware of the problem and were working on it. I hung up thinking maybe a day or two and problem gone...

My neighbor allowed me to do some maintenance from his computer. With his permission I then used his account on my computer, thereby testing if my firewall was causing some buried trouble. Access was fine, actually it was better than Earthlink. The problem was more or less localized to Earthlink and DNS updates.

Kicking back with the success of localizing the problem, I thought to search-engine "Earthlink DNS problem" which lead me to several pages dating back as far as January of 2006. Now I appear to have learned the dirty little secret that Earthlink's DNS is unlikely to be fixed quickly, and they're doing sneaky DNS error redirects. I saw that once (maybe I had javascript enabled at the time) but I'm prevented from seeing my own website and its a real site, not a non-existant website.

I think Earthlink has screwed up. Losing me as a customer will shock a lot of my friends.
Looks like I'll have to pay half as much at Net Zero for better service... could be worse. :)

Score: 0

By carstereos

edited Sep 8, 2006 - 12:19 PM

And where is the competitive pricing. 1.5mb DSL should not cost more than $30 a month, I am paying $40.

Score: 0

By carstereos

posted Sep 8, 2006 - 3:52 AM

I have used Earthlink for years, but never installed the software. I'll be moving soon, and will not renew my service after this stunt.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 3:13 PM

Another thing I thought of. what if an ISP did this for timeouts or downed servers? Say you were trying to get to a story linked off of digg, the server goes down, if EL puts in it's content, aren't they misrepresenting the contents of the site? It would be as if I published my own show on the air whenever the antennaes went out locally.

As for timeouts, let's home EL doesn't get this idea.

Score: 0

By iced

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 1:56 PM

this is amazing, i was going switch to earthlink friday to get 30/month for 6 months cable from the flyer they sent me.. now they can screw off

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

edited Sep 7, 2006 - 10:53 AM

This form of screwing with DNS can mess up non Web Browser programs... for example, let's say program X attempts to connect to the following servers:

s1.somename.com
s2.somename.com
s3.somename.com
s4.somename.com
s5.somename.com

Let's assume s2 though s5 all work if the application were to try to connect. But now let's say s1.somename.com isn't a valid hostname for whatever reason (someone made a mistake). Let's also say the app isn't programmed properly... on a DNS resolve fail it will move to the next server, but on a connection timeout it aborts entirely.

With EarthLink, this program will not work until s1 is fixed. On any normal ISP, this program will work fine.

A more probable situation is if the program connects to port 80. Then it will get EarthLink's error page instead of a timeout or an expected page, which could confuse it very badly and it could fail without trying other servers (because it thinks it succeeded).

Score: 0

By WRFan

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 9:31 AM

talking about MS - its redirect is located within the dll library shdoclc.dll. Just hack it, restart Windows explorer and IE and then redirect will go to google or whatever you specify

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Sep 6, 2006 - 6:11 PM

OpenDNS has google ads... but they give better service.

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Sep 6, 2006 - 6:06 PM

Go for OpenDNS guys.

http://www.opendns.com/

208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Sep 6, 2006 - 5:52 PM

MEH...

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Sep 6, 2006 - 5:25 PM

So much righteous indignation.

Earthlink has always been infamous for their software that 'takes over your computer'!

And as much as I disagree with their action in abstract principle, you are still lost. It still requires a click to return or to navgate to another desired location. Because they provide other undesired links in addition to the bogus link someone originally specified, is not a critical issue.

One still has the opportunity to assume responsibility for their life and actions and to make a choice whether to simple stumble about blindly as a poooooor victim or to assume a modicum of responsibility for their own actions and to navigate to where they want to go.

Gee, I'm lost! But instead of a big sign saying "Hey dumb@ss, you're lost", I have the option of responding to an ad! Oh my! Life is SOOOO complicated! Playing the victim is Sooooooo difficult!

I can't wait for some to start calling for legislation to protect those who refuse to assume responsibility for their own actions on the web.

Score: 0

By RCS

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 9:42 AM

If you had bothered to understand what was happening, you might have written a less-foolish post. People who do searches from the toolbar, are now getting results returned from Earthlink's page (with lousy results, too). VPNs are not working properly. Customized apps that rely on 404 errors are now, obviously, not working. I know that EL's software sucks - that's why it's not installed on my computer. That's why this is a cricial issue - they are interferring with the way that the Internet was designed to be used, without any type of agreement from their end-users.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Sep 8, 2006 - 8:59 AM

Then act like an adult and get off of the floor and stop kicking a screaming and change Internet providers!

Issues with Earthlink are myriad and have existed for years!

People have the ability to make choices. Some actually assume responsibility and make reasonable choices!

Earthlink can do as they please. It is their business. They can adhere to standards or deviate from them as they choose. And each person is free to decide whether to use their services. I choose not to use them. You and others are free to make decisions as well. So instead of whining and playing the victim, make a decision!

People have the freedom of choice. I simply don't care to listen to your victim mentality raised to an art form "we need freedom from choice" rant.

Score: 0

By Grahame_Olney

posted Sep 18, 2006 - 10:21 AM

foxfyre wrote:
Earthlink can do as they please. It is their business. They can adhere to standards or deviate from them as they choose. And each person is free to decide whether to use their services.

To make a decision, one has to be aware of the problem. DNS Monkey Business is insideous because unless you are severed from a site you know is operational, you assume Earthlink's DNS substitution is representative of the real status of the internet.

When Earthlink severed me from my webhosted company site, the situation was obvious to me that the DNS was in error. Any other Earthlink user attempting to access my company website won't know anything is wrong. Earthlink will tell them no such site exists (even though its the first listed in the three major search engine). The natural assumption is that my company is no longer in business. Earthlink should at least post a legal ambiguity on their no site found page to suggest this possibility to the user - I suspect they'll be sued in time by a lot of companies like mine.

So, you can't make a decision if you don't know there is a problem. Earthlink is unlikely to shine a light on what they're doing. If they did it owuld likely be in the small print where companies like credit cards services bury rate increases.

For my own status, I set OpenDNS as the DNS for our dialup account. With that connections are very quick, percieved to be 3x to 4x faster than Earthlink's DNS lookups. I set an alternate dialup telephone number to use Earthlink's standard DNS (automatically downloaded). That allows me to check if my company website is accessible to Earthlink users. I was severed last Wednesday, Monday morning we are still severed. OpenDNS connects to it quickly.

So I can do maintenance but I may have a lot of potential customers blocked by Earthlink's DNS. This is a bigger problem that will probably get legal in time. For the moment I can still do the website management required through our Earthlink+OpenDNS configuration. I can't see any reason to continue with a ISP that blocks users from my business.

-Grahame

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Sep 6, 2006 - 6:23 PM

you probably have no slightest idea what a standard is, why dns protocol is a standard, why did some people agree to rely on standards, and what should (and does) happen to the short-sighted scum who ignore these for expected profit.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Sep 6, 2006 - 8:50 PM

No genius, explain what a standard is...

And regardless of your emotional rant, Earthlink is still directing the NONEXISTENT DOMAINS to a company-provided error page.
There is no fraud, nor misrepresentation.
That is the purpose of the standard...To provide a uniform response to an error in order to facilitate interoperability. That has been done. There is no misdirection or misrepresentation of the link as described.

The fact that they include additional links BEYOND the error page consisting of additional choices is not a problem to me. I would simply ignore them unless I found some compelling reason to follow one. I am sorry if the increased freedom of choice scares you.

But evidently you must be afraid of someone who has no control of themselves being inextricably and uncontrollably forced to follow a link that bears no relation to their search - especially as they have already entered a nonexisitent url! And I am sorry that choices in addition to an error message renders others as "scum" in your eyes. But I find those who limit choices of greater concern.

Where I come from, if someone makes a mistake and they reach an error page, they assume responsibility for following any other links! Just as they assume responsibility for following any other link on the Net! And heaven forbid they should do a google search and their search criterion bring up more than one response!!! And what if they submit an ill formed set of criteria!?!? Oh NO!!!! Perhaps the proper response should be to stop and call their mother for help! Or thay can grow up and stop being a victim and assume responsibility for their subsequent actions.

And do tell me how it is if someone deviates from a standard...
Tell us how VeriSign is about to go under...And how MS succeeded despite sticking with NetBios rather than conforming to TCPIP for all those years, and how MS has managed with their proprietary version of the Kerberos standard.

Standards do not dictate how everyone must act. They provide a means of assuring more effective interoperability.

You sound like a frustrated Linux 'profit is evil' nut (w/ apologies to the legitimate Linux folks) living in the attic of his parent's house whining about how the world should be and terrified that they might have to make independent decisions based upon the merits of a given situation.

Bottomline: I am not crazy about what they are doing, but as long as it is clearly indicated that there was an error, simply providing additional options that allow an individual to make additional choices - regardless of how left-field they are, does not bother me. As I am quite capable of making a choice. And it should not freak any reasonably intelligent person capable of making independent decisions.

If you feel compelled to save the world, how about starting with this site's problem with: Error 404: Not Found
The requested URL /article//1157575614?do=editcomment&comment_id=402497 was not found.

Maybe you can run to the DNS standards committee regarding this heinous error.

Score: 0

By browncspence

edited Nov 14, 2006 - 12:23 PM

"And regardless of your emotional rant, Earthlink is still directing the NONEXISTENT DOMAINS to a company-provided error page."

Actually this is untrue. It's much worse than that.

Many companies (like the one I work for) provide VPN tunneling software for their employees to access the company's network from home. The way ours works is that it creates a second, virtual, network adapter that takes over after a Web site search fails on the first adapter.

So, when Earthlink decides not to fail a DNS search to a website that's inside our company network (so Earthlink's DNS servers cannot see it), then our access to our company's network is essentially blocked.

Earthlink has now created "opt-out DNS servers" to address this problem and others. But you must manually configure them. This solves the problem but is not ideal.

Basically, anytime you change the behavior of a well-known standard, even its error returns, you can expect trouble to crop up in some application that expected it to behave the way it used to.

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 3:55 PM

> as long as it is clearly indicated that there was an error

clear indication of the (non-existant domain) error would be a standard dns "lookup failed" response.
not a "here's the ip address which if you connect to tcp [yes, tcp - didn't we tell you that?] port 80 [yep, 8-0] of, and use http [no, not dns, not smtp] protocol to pull our story [in, read my lips, h-t-m-l format], from which you might understand [you are intelligent enough to read human-readable things, right?] that your dns lookup [oops] failed".

> And it should not freak any reasonably intelligent person capable of making independent decisions.

it would easily freak out any reasonably intelligent _software_ that's not programmed and even supposed to make independent decisions.

your "user-browser-http" view of the issue is narrow, incomplete, and near-sighted. there is much more of what dns is used for than pr0n surfing.

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 3:47 PM

"And regardless of your emotional rant, Earthlink is still directing the NONEXISTENT DOMAINS to a company-provided error page. There is no fraud, nor misrepresentation. That is the purpose of the standard...To provide a uniform response to an error in order to facilitate interoperability. That has been done. There is no misdirection or misrepresentation of the link as described."

Case in point: Redirecting to any page or domain except for the one that is requested (intentionally or otherwise) does not constitute following the standard. (You should try reading the standard (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2308.html) and also (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2616.html). In this instance, tons of client/server apps that rely upon DNS are going to break simply because they are “usually” written to handle a 404 error, many are not written to handle a 200 code with the wrong content. What do you think is going to happen?

“The fact that they include additional links BEYOND the error page consisting of additional choices is not a problem to me. I would simply ignore them unless I found some compelling reason to follow one. I am sorry if the increased freedom of choice scares you.”
Links or no links, they are still violating the standard. Where does this constitute increased freedom?!

“And do tell me how it is if someone deviates from a standard...
Tell us how VeriSign is about to go under...And how MS succeeded despite sticking with NetBios rather than conforming to TCPIP for all those years, and how MS has managed with their proprietary version of the Kerberos standard.

Standards do not dictate how everyone must act. They provide a means of assuring more effective interoperability.”

Where to begin… VeriSign, while not about to "go under" did the respectable thing by removing their landing page.

MSFT succeeds simply because of sheer size and too many people willing to accept the violation of any standard to enhance the end product. Later versions of IE are finally becoming standards-compliant simply because more and more developers are pushing MSFT in that direction. Were MSFT left to their own devices, I’m sure not a single W3C standard would be followed or adhered to.

MSFT sticking with NetBIOS versus making a 100% switch to TCPIP? I’m confused as to where you are getting your facts or how this relates to this discussion at all. MSFT chose to continue to make NetBIOS available only to promote backwards compatibility until a time where it could be phased out completely. It’s not MSFT who dictated that, it was slow moving corporations and even slower user community that were slow to change and because of that (much like the case of people STILL insisting on continuing to use Windows95/98/NT4). There was no violation of any standard by making additional networking protocols available. In fact, it was commendable at the time.

“Bottomline: I am not crazy about what they are doing, but as long as it is clearly indicated that there was an error, simply providing additional options that allow an individual to make additional choices - regardless of how left-field they are, does not bother me. As I am quite capable of making a choice. And it should not freak any reasonably intelligent person capable of making independent decisions.”

Refer to my first response. They are clearly indicating to the HUMAN that there was an error, not to the APPLICATION. Big difference and because of that, they are going to lose customers. It can only be assumed that they think their user-base is ignorant to what simple HTTP Response Codes are or how they can affect more than just a web browser.

Bottom line is this: EL did something that was obviously not investigated very well, and was implemented even more horribly. You are right in the fact that it is not fraud or misrepresentation per se. I can only hope that an ISP as large as EL has some respectable network admins that not only know the RFCs and how not to violate them, but also has the common sense not to do it in the first place. With users complaining about MORE than just the irritation of being taken to an ad laden page (VPN problems, RSS feed problems, among others), then it is EL's responsibility to put things right. Instead, they are dedicated to plow through with the hopes of making a few more dollars off the efforts of their subscribers.

Links for those who care to read them:
http://www.iab.org/docum...cann-vgrs-response.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2308.html
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2616.html

~dnc

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 6:27 AM

It's funny you bring up netbios and kerberos. Both have been severly flawed security wise since their introduction. Who knows what other flaws are out there? If MS would publish the full specs of each they would then be a standard in their own right, they could be picked apart and I think I'd feel a lot better running them.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 8:35 AM

Microsoft critics have long complained of the company's cavalier attitude toward standards, famously summed up as "embrace, extend and extinguish," a phrase attributed to a past head of the MS Windows group, Paul Maritz, during the ongoing Microsoft antitrust trial. The implication is that Microsoft embraces standards that ensure basic interoperability on the Internet but adds proprietary extensions to those standards that make rival systems less interoperable - with the intent of extinguishing competition.

Microsoft has had a problem publishing their variation, whereas MIT has not.

As far as MIT's open source version of Kerberos that resulted from Project Athena ~20 years ago, it has worked exceptionally well in implementations as diverse as Apache, the RS/6000SP, and even OSX.

http://web.mit.edu/Kerberos/

Score: 0

By techie_G33k

posted Sep 7, 2006 - 1:21 AM

I agree this is very wrong and as I work for a small local ISP I can see from both ends on this stick. It's wrong for an ISP or anyone to do this (IMO) as a simple "page not found" should be MORE than enough fro anyone and if they are smart enough to leave the AOL keywords behind and use domain names they should be smart enough to use Google(Yahoo, Ask, MSN, etc.) to find the site if they have the wrong Domain Name.
I know at our small ISP we are ALWAYS looking for another way to make or save a dollar, but not at the cost of resorting to something like Earthlink or VeriSign has done...we'd rather spend out time fine turning our servers or testing out/rolling out the newest features for internet to our customers than try to make a buck.

Yes, best be warry to not offendus Linux geeks ;) We might "kill foxfyre" you - LOL!

Score: 0

By CT2001

edited Sep 6, 2006 - 5:39 PM

This isn't happening only with dead domains.

I've noticed this redirection behavior in the past couple of weeks, most recently the other day when I typed "bestbuy" into my IE browser address space, and instead of being sent immediately to "www.bestbuy.com" as I expected, Earthlink *overrode* the Google Toolbar and sent me instead to a funky-looking ELN page suggesting 3 possible URLs, including "www.best-buy.com" and "www.bestbuys.com" but not the correct URL! Very crappy, Earthlink.

I've noticed ELN overriding the Google Toolbar "browse by name" or smart browsing feature time and time again, and cannot seem to stop this from happening, even though it doesn't occur each and every time. So far, it seems a bit random.

I do believe that after years of being an ELN customer, the time has come for something different. There is NO excuse for this browser hijacking by Earthlink.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Sep 6, 2006 - 5:09 PM

This is unacceptable. I used to recommend this ISP also. never again.

This is no different than belkin and it's router software that put in ads:
http://www.theregister.c...7/help_my_belkin_router/

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Sep 6, 2006 - 5:08 PM

...interesting. It is truly sad that BS advertising actually generates revenue at all--nonetheless, this *could* lead to mass deception similar to phishing scams. I think for Earthlink's own good they should at the very least offer an option to have the "service" disabled.

Score: 0