Hi, From my perspective, the interesting part of the Bluecoat report was how widely it was picked up in the press. This suggests to me that it played into a particular mindset/agenda, one that is not particularly supportive of new TLDs. Regards, -drc On 9/16/15, 3:49 PM, "ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Kevin Murphy" <ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org on behalf of kevin@domainincite.com> wrote:
The Blue Coat report was pure PR.
It had no value.
http://domainincite.com/19211-laughable-security-report-labels-google-regi stry-shady
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] Blue Coat's Web's Shadiest Neighborhoods and implications on TLD acceptance From: Jordyn Buchanan <jordyn@google.com> Date: Wed, September 16, 2015 9:41 pm To: Ram Mohan <rmohan@afilias.info> Cc: "UA-discuss@icann.org" <UA-discuss@icann.org>
Relevant follow-up coverage (which doesn't exactly make sense):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/04/us-internet-security-domains-id USKCN0R41U320150904
Jordyn
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ram Mohan <rmohan@afilias.info> wrote:
BlueCoat¹s methodology is discussed in some security group mailing lists.
My understanding is that in the case of .zip, there were instances of <file>.pdf.zip which allowed for drive-bys, malware etc. regardless of the state of name registration.
-ram
*From:* Jennifer Gore Standiford [mailto:JStandiford@web.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:32 PM *To:* Ram Mohan <rmohan@afilias.info> *Cc:* UA-discuss@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [UA-discuss] Blue Coat's Web's Shadiest Neighborhoods and implications on TLD acceptance
Ram and UA Members,
Have we requested or received any of the underlying data that supports the stats outlined in the BlueCoat report? I wonder why the .zip extension was referenced as a shady¹ considering it hasn¹t launched yet.
Thanks, Jennifer
*Jennifer Gore Standiford*
Policy Director
Web.com
12808 Gran Bay Parkway, West | Jacksonville, FL 32258
Office: 904. 680-6919| Cell: 904. 401-4347
[image: cid:image003.png@01CFD6B5.902BADC0]
*From:* ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org <ua-discuss-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ram Mohan *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:43 PM *To:* UA-discuss@icann.org *Subject:* [UA-discuss] Blue Coat's Web's Shadiest Neighborhoods and implications on TLD acceptance
Folks,
BlueCoat <https://www.bluecoat.com/company-overview>, a security vendor used by most of the Fortune 500, released a report on the Web¹s shadiest TLDs
<https://www.bluecoat.com/company/press-releases/blue-coat-reveals-webs-s hadiest-neighborhoods>
on Sep 1, 2015. They recommend to their 15,000+ customers to block all listed TLDs (report attached). Most of these are new gTLDs.
There are implications for universal acceptance. This will result in some discussion at the upcoming UA Coordination Summit in Horsham tomorrow and Friday. The summit will have a conference bridge for anyone interesting in participating. Don Hollander will provide details.
-Ram
Chair, UASG
o: +1.215.706.5700 x103; m: +1.215.431.0958; f: +1.215.706.5701
Skype: gliderpilot30
------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
*The Web¹s Top 10 "TLDs with Shady Sites*"*
*Rank * *Top-Level Domain Name * *Percentage of Shady Sites*
*#1 .zip 100.00%*
*#2 .review 100.00%
*
*#3 .country 99.97%*
*#4 .kim 99.74%
*
*#5 .cricket 99.57%
*
*#6 .science 99.35%
*
*#7 .work 98.20%*
*#8 .party 98.07%
*
*#9 .gq (Equatorial Guinea) 97.68%*
*#10 .link 96.98%*