Phorm and Cookies

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <007401c89569$3eabf2a0$e57ea8c0@Jinja>, James Firth
<james2@jfirth.net> writes

>As far as I can tell, blocking traffic (i.e. refusing to pass messages)
>based on IP port numbers is completely legal.  The ISP is choosing only to
>implement certain services, distinguishable by traffic information in the IP
>header.

leaving aside that IP does not have port numbers....

>HOWEVER I sincerely hope that there are no ISPs who are surreptitiously
>redirecting outgoing DNS requests intended for third-party name servers and
>handling them internally.  

... this action is often a key component in blocking systems for illegal
images of children.  So there are a number of UK ISPs doing it today.

>I know this is analogous to HTTP caching but
>caching is defined in the HTTP protocol and not in DNS.
>
>Anyone with any firm evidence of this would be welcome to pass to me or the
>list.  I would be outraged.

What also occurs, though I am not aware of any UK ISP currently doing it
(which is likely my ignorance rather than good evidence of anything), is
that instead of returning NXDOMAIN a system will return a pointer to an
ISP site that "monetizes" the typos...   even if your ISP doesn't do
this then your Microsoft browser may well do something equivalent.

<URL:http://www.billhartzer.com/pages/time-warner-and-road-runner-
attempting-to-monetize-by-hijacking/>

<URL:http://www.dailydomainer.com/200784-microsoft-quietly-making-
untold-millions.html>

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBR/TJ15oAxkTY1oPiEQKRJgCg78nkGs2wVf0NoIUqYLLED6Qh6hIAn2vY
V7VK8KLUvZ/btwa0vtaq9XbX
=Y/H0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----