Does anyone else think that its a bit odd that if it were simply
"DNS problems" that a redirect for www.google.com would end up
at a location which provided this:
http://img179.echo.cx/img179/7959/googlehacked7to.jpg
[or]
http://img241.echo.cx/img241/6208/googlemsn3lp.png
Seems more than simple "DNS problems" to me.
I hate being played like an idiot....
- ferg
Does anyone else think that its a bit odd that if it were simply
"DNS problems" that a redirect for www.google.com would end up
at a location which provided this:
All of the "hack" evidence is from people looking at a whois
query and fretting over:
Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM
IP Address: 80.190.192.24
Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH
Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net
Referral URL: http://www.key-systems.net
Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE.THAN.SECZY.COM
IP Address: 209.187.114.130
Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM
Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com
Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com
We've been over this before, whois queries also return nameservers,
which people take advantage of.
Banque en Ligne 2024 - Le guide étape par étape pour choisir facilement
[or]
Banque en Ligne 2024 - Le guide étape par étape pour choisir facilement
Seems more than simple "DNS problems" to me.
I hate being played like an idiot....
- ferg
Wow, one person being redirected to a competitors site, ever heard of
spyware? (Yes, even on a Mac)
Does anyone else think that its a bit odd that if it were simply
"DNS problems" that a redirect for www.google.com would end up
at a location which provided this:Banque en Ligne 2024 - Le guide étape par étape pour choisir facilement
[or]
Banque en Ligne 2024 - Le guide étape par étape pour choisir facilement
Seems more than simple "DNS problems" to me.
I hate being played like an idiot....
I really like Google. I like what they do. But lately, their security team is a joke. I had a problem with their POP Gmail service and the advise I got from their Gmail team was to turn off my CA EZ antivirus and my ZApro firewall and to try again and see if the problem repeats itself. For a moment I thought it was an April 1st joke.
When playing with Gmail or Ggroups - try to find a link to report abuse or a security problem (yes - one exists - but not one that is easy to find from Gmail or Ggroups).
I attribute it to size - when one gets big enough - one truly believes that gravity is affected by your company. Unless Google shapes up, they will quickly find out what happens to large, cumbersome, and clueless companies.
-Hank
Hank Nussbacher wrote,
I really like Google. I like what they do. But lately, their security
team is a joke. I had a problem with their POP Gmail service and the
advise I got from their Gmail team was to turn off my CA EZ antivirus and
my ZApro firewall and to try again and see if the problem repeats
itself. For a moment I thought it was an April 1st joke.When playing with Gmail or Ggroups - try to find a link to report abuse or
a security problem (yes - one exists - but not one that is easy to find
from Gmail or Ggroups).I attribute it to size - when one gets big enough - one truly believes
that
gravity is affected by your company. Unless Google shapes up, they will
quickly find out what happens to large, cumbersome, and clueless
companies.
Well I am not a DNS expert but why Google have the primary gmail MX record
without load balancing and all secondaries are sharing the same priority
level.
I have a server that relay usenet messages to my gmail account and here is a
week worth of stats showing how google mail servers are handling incoming
mails:
Total Number of messages sent to gmail: 1945 messages of which:
1888 (97%) messages were gated through Gmail's Primary mail server
(gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com).
21 messages were gated through Gmails Secondary (gsmtp171.google.com)
13 messages were gated through Gmail's Secondary (gsmtp171-2.google.com)
10 messages were gated through Gmail's Secondary (gsmtp185-2.google.com).
So in short, 97% of the email was delivered through the primary while the
secondaries only served 3%.
My question why they do not make all mail servers at the same priority level
instead of current
which load balance the Secondaries only.
BTW mx records for google gmail are:
MX 5 gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com.
MX 10 gsmtp171.google.com.
MX 10 gsmtp185.google.com.
MX 10 gsmtp171-2.google.com.
MX 10 gsmtp185-2.google.com.
MX 20 gsmtp57.google.com.
each have 1 minute TTL.
-aljuhani
Has it occured to you that there are other ways of load balancing
mailserver clusters than just setting MX records?
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Well I am not a DNS expert but why Google have the primary gmail MX record
without load balancing and all secondaries are sharing the same priority
level.
Huh ?
[...]
1888 (97%) messages were gated through Gmail's Primary mail server
(gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com).
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com is at least two machines, but much more likely to be at least two clusters of machines ... :
;; ANSWER SECTION:
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. 232 IN A 64.233.185.27
gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. 232 IN A 64.233.185.114
.. load-balanced in some way. One MX record doesn't mean one machine and no load-balancing by any means.
Yes you are right .. perhaps I did not put my point right when I mentioned
load balancing, I was trying to see the affect of DNS outage on Gmail
Services.
-aljuhani
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I really like Google. I like what they do. But lately, their security team is a joke. I had a problem with their POP Gmail service and the advise I got from their Gmail team was to turn off my CA EZ antivirus and my ZApro firewall and to try again and see if the problem repeats itself. For a moment I thought it was an April 1st joke.
While I know exactly what you mean, I run POP service for several tens of thousands of mailboxes, and broken antivirus scanners that insert themselves between the mail client and the server are now our leading cause of "my mail program can't read messages any more" support questions. By far.
And the second most common cause is -- wait for it -- broken personal firewall systems that have apparently gone insane and decided to block a port for no explainable reason (we actually see this with POP, SMTP, and FTP).
So when the basic "are your hostname, username and password correct?" check doesn't help, we now tell our customers to try exactly what Google told you, as long as they have XP service pack 2 (our incoming mail is already virus scanned). Depressingly often, doing so fixes the problem.
