2 edits | embarq's page not found redirection service if i enter a url that doesnt exist i get redirected to »search.embarq.com/index.php?orig···w.xx.com
i have disabled it 5 times through »search.embarq.com/prefs.php (Web Address Error Redirect Service) but it always keeps coming back
i am using firefox latest 2.x if that matters, accepting all cookies
edit: after troubleshooting, i have found that the setting sticks until i get a new ip address. at that point the settings default to redirection. i sure hope it hasnt come to having to pay for a static ip just to ensure your dns doesnt get hijacked |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| OpenDNS also redirect, using their "Typo Correction" option. However, if you register a free account, you can turn that option off, and it will stick off.
There are some who have concerns over their Privacy Policy, though. You probably should read it through before signing up. But you have to sign up, because no account means DNS redirect on error.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
| reply to dude34221
I have a static IP and the same crap happens to me. So paying for a static IP won't help you. |
|
| You can use the following DNS servers:
4.2.2.1
4.2.2.2
They are not embarq, but they are quick and don't redirect. |
|
cpollockPremium
join:2003-12-01
Copperas Cove, TX | reply to dude34221
Odd, that doesn't happen to me, I'm running FF 2.0.0.11 on Linux and all I get is
Server not found
Firefox can't find the server at www.taodnet.com.
* Check the address for typing errors such as
ww.example.com instead of
www.example.com
* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.
* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
I'm not redirected anywhere.
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Linux, eh? Are you running the Bind caching DNS application that usually comes with a Linux install? I believe Treewalk is a port of the Bind 9 DNS service to Windows NT. I am reasonably sure that Bind talks directly with the root DNS servers, bypassing your ISP DNS servers; but, I could be wrong.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
cpollockPremium
join:2003-12-01
Copperas Cove, TX | said by NormanS:Linux, eh? Are you running the Bind caching DNS application that usually comes with a Linux install? I believe Treewalk is a port of the Bind 9 DNS service to Windows NT. I am reasonably sure that Bind talks directly with the root DNS servers, bypassing your ISP DNS servers; but, I could be wrong. Ok, you've got me on that one. I have bind 9.4.1 installed/running and have these set to my nameservers in my resolv.conf file:
nameserver 127.0.0.1
nameserver 67.76.234.226 #embarq
nameserver 71.0.224.11 #embarq
I do believe that I have a caching nameserver setup that I can verify like this:
[chris@cpollock ~]$ time host toadnet.com
toadnet.com has address 208.78.40.25
toadnet.com mail is handled by 0 toadnet.com.
real 0m0.117s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.001s
[chris@cpollock ~]$ time host toadnet.com
toadnet.com has address 208.78.40.25
toadnet.com mail is handled by 0 toadnet.com.
real 0m0.021s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.002s
Of course I may be wrong |
|
| reply to dude34221
We have a DSL business account with Embarq, all static IPs, and three causes for concern regarding this new feature.
The nxdomain domain service was a surprise to us, opt-in by default, an opt-out feature that doesn't seem to work, and tech support rep at Embarq who was unfamiliar with the service.
It looks like that traffic is being sent to simplicita.com and sandvine.com, without disclosure to me - the customer.
Finally, sandivine.com's dns zone file was very happy to let us download it via a zone transfer. Not good for anyone, never mind a company that claims to be in the security business. |
|
| reply to cpollock
said by cpollock:Ok, you've got me on that one. I have bind 9.4.1 installed/running and have these set to my nameservers in my resolv.conf file: nameserver 127.0.0.1 nameserver 67.76.234.226 #embarq nameserver 71.0.224.11 #embarq If you really are running a local named instance, you can just remove the last 2 lines.
said by cpollock:I do believe that I have a caching nameserver setup that I can verify like this: [chris@cpollock ~]$ time host toadnet.com toadnet.com has address 208.78.40.25 toadnet.com mail is handled by 0 toadnet.com. real 0m0.117s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.001s The best way to verify would be to use nslookup and see what server by default it brings up. There you can specify which server to make requests against.
nslookup> server //this alone will tell you what DNS server it's going to talk to
nslookup> server xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx //this will specify what DNS server to use
nslookup> www.google.com //this will make a DNS query |
|
cpollockPremium
join:2003-12-01
Copperas Cove, TX | said by SMB:The best way to verify would be to use nslookup and see what server by default it brings up. There you can specify which server to make requests against. nslookup> server //this alone will tell you what DNS server it's going to talk to nslookup> server xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx //this will specify what DNS server to use nslookup> www.google.com //this will make a DNS query [chris@cpollock ~]$ nslookup server
Server: 127.0.0.1
Address: 127.0.0.1#53
** server can't find server: NXDOMAIN
[chris@cpollock ~]$ nslookup 127.0.0.1
Server: 127.0.0.1
Address: 127.0.0.1#53
1.0.0.127.in-addr.arpa name = localhost.
[chris@cpollock ~]$ nslookup google.com
Server: 127.0.0.1
Address: 127.0.0.1#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: google.com
Address: 72.14.207.99
Name: google.com
Address: 64.233.187.99
Name: google.com
Address: 64.233.167.99
So from the above I can actually remove the two embarq nameserver listings. I'd heard/read that nslookup only uses the first nameserver listed but really never bothered to remove the other two. |
|
| reply to dude34221
back on topic, can any of the new embarq reps see if this feature is going to be fixed or not? |
|
| reply to dude34221
Sorry, I forgot to post my response in here. I've already sent an email out regarding the opt-out and potential for pornography in the related searches section.
Basically at this point I have to wait for the appropriate party to respond to my inquiry so that we can get an answer for you. I know that the opt-out is supposed to be cookie based but what you're describing indicates that it's not functioning entirely as we intend. So we're definitely looking into it.
At this point though, the only thing I could recommend for you dude34221 is to make sure you don't have any privacy/security programs restricting your cookies on top of the browser settings you've already checked. At least until we get an answer on an alternative.
--
Mike M.
Embarq Customer Support
SMNP.Mike.M@Embarq.com
For additional support please visit www.embarq.com/support or call 18776463282
Voice | Data | Internet | Wireless | Entertainment
|
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to dude34221
It cannot be cookie based and be a true opt out, because checking a cookie requires connecting to a web site first.
As far as I can determine, it's IP address based, which fails as soon as your IP address changes. However, there's very little other info attached to the DNS lookup request for the servers to identify your opt out status BEFORE redirecting or reporting a lookup failure. The only way it can work properly is to interface to Embarq's DHCP servers to keep your account opt in/out status tied to your IP.
And just so everyone understands, I believe this is another 3rd party service that doesn't work right and probably never will. It would be a privacy violation to allow a 3rd party access to track us by IP address.
--
The public is a poor business manager. |
|
| >> I believe this is another 3rd party service that doesn't work right and probably never will. It would be a privacy violation to allow a 3rd party access to track us by IP address.
Mr Moody - we vented those concerms to Embarq a week or two ago - and I posted about it in my blog - but don't think the issue's been resolved to our satisfaction yet.
If fact, our recent contact with Embarq was more frustrating than our first - the new rep insisted the inability to opt out is a problem with our computer.
All 150 of them.
The real concerns - privacy issues and lack of disclosure - were brushed off. |
|
| reply to embarq_mikem
any word? |
|
| reply to dude34221
Yeah, sorry, posted in different thread:
»DNS Redirection |
|
