[gnso-rpm-wg] Possible Technical Bug in URS implementations

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Thu May 17 12:31:35 UTC 2018


Six days and no replies.....I'll just post the issue here, in the
hopes it gets to the right people (and to highlight the policy issue).

As members of this PDP are aware, after a complainant wins a URS
dispute, the URS provider is supposed to create a suspension page for
the domain name. For example, at 2 of the 3 URS providers (the 3rd
doesn't seem to have any active suspensions at the moment):

MFSD: http://reima.top
NAF: http://wikipedia.kim

However, Google recently launched .app, which has a unique feature,
namely that the entire TLD is on the HSTS preload list:

https://get.app

"The .app top-level domain is included on the HSTS preload list,
making HTTPS required on all connections to .app websites — no
individual HSTS registration or configuration required."

This means that unless the URS providers launch HTTPS versions of
their suspension pages, the HTTP version won't be accessible for .app
domains. Given the relatively high number of .app domains that were
registered already, one would expect .app URS complaints to be
forthcoming.

One can easily check that the 2 URS providers don't appear to be
serving HTTPS versions of their suspension pages at present, see:

MFSD: https://reima.top (clicking through the SSL warnings takes ones
to a MFSD page)
NAF: https://wikipedia.kim (connection refused; presumably their
webserver isn't listening at that port)

As for ICANN policy, the URS Technical Requirements at:

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs/tech-requirements-17oct13-en.pdf

merely say, on page 1:

"A URS Suspended domain name will be redirected to a webpage that
mentions that the domain name has been suspended because of a URS
Complaint."

It didn't specify whether the "webpage" should be delivered via HTTP,
or HTTPS, or both. A clearer set of requirements here would have
avoided the issue.

There are likely still a few weeks before the first .app URS complaint
is decided, so sufficient time for a fix. I figure this issue can be
solved for under $20/month, for those who know what they're doing
technically.

By the way, the implementation of suspension pages seems to differ
across providers. e.g. NAF wildcards (*.example.com) the subdomains,
so that:

http://gjkhjhg.wikipedia.kim
http://anything.wikipedia.kim

deliver the page. MFSD only handles the "www" subdomain (and the naked
domain itself). Neither of the 2 handle "internal" pages beyond the
"home" page, e.g.

http://wikipedia.kim/lalala --- 404 error
http://reima.top/lalala -- 404 error

With minor configuration changes, those URLs currently serving up a
404 error could instead serve the suspension notice.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:49 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I believe I've uncovered a technical bug in the URS implementation.
> Does anyone here know the best method to report it? It might require a
> policy change (due to the ambiguity of the policy's requirements on
> providers) or updated documentation, as well as implementation changes
> by providers, in order to fix it.
>
> The bug isn't manifesting itself at the moment, but is almost certain
> to be visible to others in a short time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list