NoVA_CoxUser
Stand back from the cage -- The RF bites
Premium
join:2004-07-06
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
4 edits | reply to Graycode
Re: Gulf Coast test infoM
Thanks for the reply.
I DO understand the sequence of events initiating an SSL (or http) session ...
... although I agree that my question should have been phrased so as to question why I was being re-dir'd to initiate an SSL session to OpenDNS vice the intended "target server."
(I didn't nslookup that particular server or I probably would have figured it out myself) 
Your explanation does explain it.
Thanks. |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
| Re: Gulf Coast test info
Here is what Cox should do:
Notify the general public either in next months bill or via e-mail that this is happening, how they can opt out in CLEAR ENGLISH.
Not everyone is a geek or knows how to run this stuff and/or understands that this is paid searches and that the ISP (Cox) gets a certain percentage per all clicks (I think that's how this works)
This needs to be put in big bold letters that this is SPONSORED SEARCH (and what does this mean) on the top of the page.
Yes, I see the sponsored listings on them but will the average user?
-Rob |
|
suzyqs1
join:2003-07-29
Ocala, FL
| reply to coxengr
Thank you sooo much! I spent hours on the phone with Cox support because I could no longer access a company server through the VPN. I could verify that the DNS was not resolving but no help from support. After reading your post, I changed the DNS and I'm back in. I was just getting ready to change providers. |
|
BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
clubs:
·Cox HSI
| said by suzyqs1  :Thank you sooo much! I spent hours on the phone with Cox support because I could no longer access a company server through the VPN. I could verify that the DNS was not resolving but no help from support. After reading your post, I changed the DNS and I'm back in. I was just getting ready to change providers. Another satisfied customer, eh Cox?
--
"Don't steal. The government hates competition." |
|
cob_
1310nm Of Goodness
Premium
join:2003-07-08
Tulsa, OK | reply to suzyqs1
If it was resolving, then why was the Cox trial causing problems? Does this mean the trial DNS has to be able to hit an http server on the domain or it believes it's invalid? |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs: | It's configured to return the IP address of their "help website" if the hostname doesn't resolve or is non-existent. |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL
·Cox VOIP
| reply to suzyqs1
If you change providers, they will soon do this to increase profit. Cox is just a start and it's bloody here to stay. Get used to it.
Sorry you couldn't go through a VPN. I wonder if they want people like you to "upgrade" to Cox Business Services.
What a crappy thing to do, Cox. I hope some of the higher ups are reading this and taking down our thoughts.
-Rob |
|
cob_
1310nm Of Goodness
Premium
join:2003-07-08
Tulsa, OK | reply to state
But a VPN server's domain name is just a domain name, should resolve fine. How could suzyqs1 have had such a problem? |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs:
Host:
Webhosting
Sonic.net
UK Broadband
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| I don't know the exact details of that issue so it's hard to say. Could have been a temporary name resolution problem on either side of the equation.
If they were trying to make a connection to somehost.tld and Cox's DNS servers were unable to resolve the address they would instead return the IP address 209.86.66.97 which is their »finder.cox.net website.
Now, if this was the case, the VPN client software now has an IP address of 209.86.66.97 which it would believe is somehost.tld and would attempt to make a vpn connection to that host which would fail. |
|
cob_
1310nm Of Goodness
Premium
join:2003-07-08
Tulsa, OK
| Well, what I don't understand is why the VPN client would fail to work since it would make a resolution request to the trial DNS, and since it's a valid domain, get a valid IP address. If it were invalid, it would get finder, and if it were invalid on an RFC compliant DNS, I would expect the client's symptoms to be the same. |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs:
Host:
Webhosting
Sonic.net
UK Broadband
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| said by cob_ :Well, what I don't understand is why the VPN client would fail to work since it would make a resolution request to the trial DNS, and since it's a valid domain, get a valid IP address. Perhaps that didn't happen, as I mentioned, it could have been a temporary failure in DNS resolution i.e. Cox's DNS servers couldn't resolve it and instead returned finders IP.
Without more details from the person who had the problem this discussion is purely academic. |
|
a89643
@cox.net
| reply to coxengr
re: VPN
for file shares, if the dns returns NXdomain it'll look up using netbios-ns, else it'll try and connect to that server. (dns first, then netbios)
it'll try all the dns suffix's in the list, and all of them will resolve to cox's sitefinder. (unless you're company is stupid and makes its internal stuff resolvable to the public)
the only other thing(besides using compliant DNS servers) is to use you're VPN's DNS/WINS servers... which is a pita with VPN, maybe have to set them up manually |
|
robertfl
Premium
join:2005-10-10
Mary Esther, FL | Was I right about this? (regarding that Cox was the first to do this)
»Verizon DNS Redirection
-Rob |
|
a97432
@cox.net
| GOD ****ING DAMN IT this is so unnecessary..
Internet explorer already does this.
YOU TELL MICROSOFT YOU WANT TO BE A PROVIDER OF SEARCH.
THEY WRITE YOUR URL AND REDIRECTS
YOU DO NOT F*** OTHER PROTOCOLS UP.
These search engines trying to undercut each other is retarded...
cox uses? mindspring? WHICH IS ALREADY LISTED AS A SEARCH PROVIDER IN INTERNET EXPLORER. WHY DO THEY NEED TO CONVINCE THE ISP's TO DO THIS?
it's times like these I wish I owned a botnet?
|
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to a89643
said by a89643 :
re: VPN
for file shares, if the dns returns NXdomain it'll look up using netbios-ns, else it'll try and connect to that server. (dns first, then netbios)
That's a good point. Once Cox rolls that crap out here, I'll no longer be able to rely on using the SMB name of a machine to ssh to it.
I hadn't even thought of that. Yet another example of how this breaks many things in unintended ways. |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs:
Host:
Webhosting
Sonic.net
UK Broadband
Washington & Balti..
UK Chat
| Netbios is only for native windows applications (such as file shares, network neighborhood, etc). It's been blocked inbound and outbound for some time now.
Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| said by state :Netbios is only for native windows applications (such as file shares, network neighborhood, etc). It's been blocked inbound and outbound for some time now. Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios. Um, yes they do. At least in Windows XP, the DNS stack will first try to do a DNS lookup on a host, then if it doesn't find it there, it will fall back to NMB resolution on the local network. I wasn't talking about sshing (or httping for that matter) to some machine on a different network, I was talking about their misadventure breaking things on my LAN. |
|
state
stress magnet
Premium,Mod
join:2002-02-08
Hampton, VA
clubs: | I'm talking about connections across the WAN, nothing has changed there with regards to netbios. What negative impacts are you expecting to see on your local network because of changes to their internet facing DNS servers? |
|
a89643
@cox.net
| reply to state
said by state :Third party applications (such as SSH - putty, f-secure, securecrt, etc) perform domain name resolution to connect to remote hosts, they don't fall back to netbios. this is VPN, and internal network stuff(not internet bound traffic) that if you don't have fqdn's setup for your stuff(and a DNS server), you're screwed. or you address everything by ip address(fun), or add everything to everyones hosts file.. (fun if your behind a router that assigns dynamic IPs)
so its ok because no one uses any of that stuff right? you don't have other machines you refer to as just "hostname"
have these workarounds handy because tech support is going to see a lot of calls about this. No they wont? because you're just using www and email like a good SHEEP right? »support.microsoft.com/kb/172218 |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Teliax VOIP
| reply to state
said by state :I'm talking about connections across the WAN, nothing has changed there with regards to netbios. What negative impacts are you expecting to see on your local network because of changes to their internet facing DNS servers? Read my previous post, in which I stated that the windows name resolution stack will first attempt to resolve a name using DNS, then if that fails, it will use NMB to attempt to resolve the name on the local network. Since Cox's nameserver returns an A record for any invalid name, it never gets to the point of using NMB to resolve the name. |
|
