Company says a thief took the domain name it has been using for nearly two decades.
A California engineering firm has filed a lawsuit (pdf) to recover the domain name KFDE.com, which it says was stolen from it.
K.F. Davis Engineering has been using the domain name since it registered it in 2000. It alleges the domain name was stolen from its Network Solutions account this year.
Historical Whois records show that the domain was at Network Solutions in July of this year. The domain was renewed through 2023.
The first August record at DomainTools shows the registrar as Xiamen ChinaSource Internet Service Co., Ltd. Oddly, the registrar’s Whois now has a create date of August 20, 2019. (Verisign’s still shows 2000.)
Wiley Rein is assisting K.F. Davis Engineering with its in rem lawsuit to recover the domain name. It filed the dispute in U.S. District Court in Virginia, where .com registry Verisign is located.
Renata Barnes says
I actually posted something on my blog about something very similar https://ukdomainbrokers.ukwebsitedesigners.co.uk/2019/08/13/year-google-icannwas-born If about a domain that was registered in the early 90’s the year 1993 to be precise. It will be difficult to get accurate data pre 1996 era, however domains in 2000 is another story. Perhaps the domain in question was registered earlier than 1996
Charles Christopher says
Internic shows:
Updated Date: 2019-08-28T06:08:54Z
Creation Date: 2000-03-23T15:09:06Z <——
Registry Expiry Date: 2024-03-23T14:09:06Z
Internic pulls directly from the regisTRY not the registrar, and thus passes the only authoritative status there is.
Registrars can display anything they want independent of the registry values, which is why registrar's are not authoritative for domain status values. This is why whois scrapes of registrars is always suspect.
Since Internic does not match the Registrar (I am trusting you on this as I did not check it myself) then a whois complaint can be made at ICANN as the whois is clearly wrong (if only in creation date). Such complaints are a real pain, so it will create "irritation" for the Registrar ….
168 says
Network solutions, Verisign should be named co conspirator.
Charles, thanks for your point: info from registrars is always suspect..
KFDE claims they didn’t get an email, then claims hacker used email for access.
A simple phone call, notice snail mail to KFDE could have prevented this.
How many registrars only use email for transfer, account verification ?
Fax – the old “tech” still more secure.
Charles Christopher says
Verisign DOES NOT implement a 60 day lock on transfers, you can transfer a domain at any time. Other registries implement the transfer lock. Its purpose is to help with theft recovery.
>Fax – the old “tech” still more secure.
You remind me of a true story:
I can’r recall the year, ICANN sent out their yearly whois audit. In it it asked about sending out whois verifications to registrants. The methods and percentages had to be listed. I listed email at 0% (none) and I listed phone at 100%.
The result of the audit was to be told we would lose our ICANN accreditation if we did not immediately come into compliance, that is all verifications SHALL be by email. My response to ICANN’s termination of our registrar was to send the following email:
“Please confirm ICANN’s position that EMAIL is more secure than PHONE calls.”
I never heard another word from them, and the next year phone calls was an acceptable response … We were not terminated ….
Problems is, most of the beaucrates have ZERO experiance with that which they are in charge of. That is, they probably have no domains and never have had any domains to manage.
Just can’t make this stuff up.
168 says
LOL
People- don’t use your who is email for your domain or website accounts!
Michiel Henneke says
So what’s ICANN’s take on 2FA for completing transfers then? Would be interesting to know.
Charles Christopher says
Just had another thought:
If “harmonization” of the registry contracts is really ICANN’s goal, does that mean the new .COM contract will REQUIRE Verisign to implement the 60 day transfer hold so as to help with the recovery of stolen domain names?
If not, why not?