Blog

>From: [redacted]@dhl[redacted]
>To: abuse@[redacted]
>Subject: dhlsucks.com
>
>We noticed your registration of the domain dhlsucks.com. Unless you have been authorized by DHL to register this domain,
>your act violates our client’s intellectual property rights and is against the law. In case you have been authorized
>by DHL to register the domain dhlsucks.com, please respond to this email and copy (cc) your DHL contact in the email so
>we can verify the authenticity of your claim within 3 business days.

From: abuse@[redacted]
To: [redacted]@dhl[redacted]
Subject: Re: dhlsucks.com

Dear DHL,

thanks for sending us an e-mail about your concerns about our domain name dhlsucks.com.

We usually prefer getting these legal threats in physical form but we are aware of the skillset your company lacks in order to get physical letters delivered to it’s destination.
I think you can agree with us that it’s nice having electronic mail, so much more efficient, dependable, environmentally friendly and cheap than shipping services are.

Now, we’d like to know more about your complaint, are you saying that your company is so famously sucky that you have been granted the immaterial right for sucking? We are not sure we disagree with that statement, but we could of course feel we need to have proof that you’re not just some scammer trying to take our stuff and not deliver, oh wait, I see. You’re DHL, so that’s basically what you do… By the way, you do know that it’s against the law to take payment without delivering?

Please get back to us within 1-18 months with a properly filled form for the complaint, that we will handle with the same expediency and care as your company does with our complaints when packages does not arrive. Don’t get your hopes up (it’s what you’ve taught us).

Regards,
Njalla

A lot of people are public about their usage of Njalla. We however find that it’s their prerogative to decide if they want to acknowledge our relationship. We’re like that secret partner that’s ok with being a secret, maybe kept on the side or maybe just because real intimacy is the business of just the involved parties. That’s why we rarely openly talk about dealings with specific domain names that are registered through us.

However, the past few days there has been a quite unique attack that has affected some domains registered through us. The registrants of those have been vocal about their relationship with us, and we’ve worked together in trying to rectify the problem. For transparency and to learn from this situation we decided to write up a post about what actually happened and how we’re making sure this will not happen again.

In order to explain we need to explain a bit how Njalla works. The main difference with us and many other registrars is that we’re the legal owner of domains. Many other registrars offer a service of being a proxy in between, but the regulations means that they will hand over the user data whenever there’s any sort of inquiry. Some registries (TLDs) even require this data to also be sent to them at registrations. Taking the legal ownership means that we are also more liable than what other registrars are — and want to be, which is why we’re quite unique in how we operate.

This is also a bit problematic though. First of all the end registrant needs to trust us that we will not run away with their domains. After this many years in operation and a flawless track record, the trust seem to be established (and we’re happy for that trust). It also means we’re harsher than other registrars against phishing, scams and we operate quickly to resolve cases like that. For us this is a win-win since we also want a cleaner internet – freedom of speech doesn’t mean the right to spread malware. We protect those that need it, not those that want to abuse it.

Another problem is that we many times also need a go-between ourselves. The regulations of most TLDs (such as .com .net .org etc) are very often that the registrar is not allowed to register end-registrant domains for themselves. So we have partnered up with other registrars to register domains through them, so we’re the end customer. This means that they only know our information as the registrant, and we work closely together to mitigate any potential issues that arises (such as the aforementioned phishing situations for instance).

A few days ago, one of our partners (Tucows) was however the victim of a phishing attack themselves. They received a court order (including a gag order) to hand over a set of domains, where some where registered through Njalla (and others weren’t). Tucows receives quite a lot of these court orders and got tricked by it. We haven’t gotten all of the details with them on exactly how the full attack was done, but we’ve asked for clarifications. We have been promised that Tucows have strongly improved their operations for how to deal with future court orders.

So this was a directed attack against specific domains, through a specific partner, with a gag order. Tucows believed they were not allowed to inform us, and thus didn’t (and therefor we couldn’t inform our registrants). This means that no data was leaked, but it did lead to the domains being hijacked. These domains were later updated with new content which led to phishing attacks on their user base, which we are extremely upset about.

These situations are unfortunately more or less out of our hands. We have selected partners that agree on our values (like privacy and an open internet) and that can also handle the legal aspects of working with a unique niche operation like ours. A major problem with domains is however the centralised operations that it’s built upon. We have one single instance called ICANN that controls 90%+ of the TLDs that exist (essentially all TLDs that are not governed by a territory), and then the few registrars that have volume enough to make direct agreements with these TLDs. This is one of the things that we started Njalla to combat – long term we’re working against this centralisation and wanting to get volume enough to be a voice of reason within this industry. We believe that if more registrars operated the way we do – and would take the same effort to fight court orders as we do – this attack would not have been possible.

And speaking of this industry, and to continue with the story of the hijacked domains: the domains were transferred internally at Tucows to their compliance department and then handed over to the attacker, who then immediately transferred these domains to other registrars. In our case it was Epik and Namecheap. Epik is a registrar we do not like for political reasons but credit due where credit is due, they handed back the domain that was transferred to them as soon as they were informed about what had happened.

Namecheap on the other hand, one of the largest registrars in the world, decided not to yet. Even though the rules are quite clear in these cases. They have also decided to not disable the domain usage. This means the phishing attacks on the domain in question is still on-going even though Namecheap has been informed multiple times, including the fact that the court order that they justify the transfer with was a faked one. We know that Namecheap and Tucows have some animosity between them after a previous feud but hope that they will not let third parties suffer because of it. It’s extremely concerning that a company like Namecheap does not take this situation more seriously and swiftly return the domain to the registrant (and meanwhile disable the domains usage).

After all of this is done, we’re going to have a debriefing with our partners to understand more about what exactly happened and we’ve already offered our expertise where it might be helpful.