Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Cloud

8/5/2016
08:30 PM
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

New Internet Security Domains Debut

Meet the new .security and .protection domains.

Registry operator gen.xyz these week launched two new top-level Internet domains -- .security and .protection -- aimed at creating websites with higher security as well as a safer online experience for end users.

Registrants can use domains to reinforce a brand, organization name, service locations, or industry keywords, says Nils Decker, director of business development for gen.xyz.  

Big security players such as Norton, FireEye, and Masterlock, have already registered names with the new .security and .protection domains.  An organization in Southern California, for example, might select la.security; spam.protection could do the trick for an email filtering company. 

Early adopters of the new domains include Microsoft's office365.protection site; IBM managed security provider blue.security; arrow.security (formerly arrowsecuritycorp.com); and grupo.security (formerly security.cl).

Registrants are strongly encouraged – but not required by gen.xyz -- to use both SSL and DNSSEC to bolster security. The protocols ensure that "a website visitor that the company behind the website is a legitimate company, and that they're actually talking to who they think you're talking to, not a phisher or malicious site," Decker says.

Pricing for the new domains is relatively expensive, between $2,500 and $4,000. Decker and gen.xyz are counting on that high price point to discourage spammers and miscreants from using the domains as covers for malicious activity or spoofing.

"If the technology creates more security awareness or makes customers more comfortable, they're more likely to succeed," says domain name expert Monte Cahn, president of Rightofthedot, which advises on top-level domain strategies. Cahn notes that he hasn't seen the details of gen.xyz's announcement, but did note that other more recently introduced domains such as .bank and .insurance, have been well-received. However, those domains also come with special registration forms to verify that would-be registrants are in fact part of the industries they say they are, Cahn notes.

Decker says gen.xyz isn't doing any verification itself, but rather leaving that up to SSL providers such as Symantec or Comodo. "At a high level, we are the registry operator, so we control the name space, but don't sell the names themselves," Decker says. "End-user companies go to GoDaddy or Web.com for that."

Because the domains are so new and considered premium domains, availability is quite good, Decker says, in contrast to .com or .org, which are much more picked over.

 

Terry Sweeney is a Los Angeles-based writer and editor who has covered technology, networking, and security for more than 20 years. He was part of the team that started Dark Reading and has been a contributor to The Washington Post, Crain's New York Business, Red Herring, ... View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
clipartsgram
50%
50%
clipartsgram,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/31/2016 | 10:09:38 PM
Re: Clipart
yeah! I agree with you.This post very benefit for everyone.
T Sweeney
50%
50%
T Sweeney,
User Rank: Moderator
10/17/2016 | 12:08:21 PM
Re: Identity theft
It's a good reminder that these new domains, in and of themselves, are not inherently secure, lorraine89. Humans still need to add basic protections and anonymizing features, like the ones you've suggested.
lorraine89
50%
50%
lorraine89,
User Rank: Ninja
10/17/2016 | 11:54:09 AM
Identity theft
New domains are pretty much vulnerable to data theft. That is why it is important to deploy some good security software and hide your IP using a genuine vpn server like PureVPN. 
lorraine89
50%
50%
lorraine89,
User Rank: Ninja
9/19/2016 | 9:38:58 AM
online security
Great article. I always take extra caution in maintaining my online privacy and security. I deploy vpn server, purevpn, to maintain my online integrity and to avoid any type of scams and phishy threats. 
showtime33
50%
50%
showtime33,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/22/2016 | 9:31:04 AM
Re: The Irony of It
Finally....some smarts about TLD's.  Exactly right, a new domain name is just another thing to block.  Making it harder to defend by adding extensions to block.  Ask people that fix pc's in the trenches and you will find that .biz, .casino,..etc... is just another way to launch a malware link to compromise a pc.  Malware can still use .security to launch randsomware for example.  duh...adding them does nothing for protection for anyone. The irony is right....lol
umutarcn
50%
50%
umutarcn,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/9/2016 | 11:31:05 PM
Quotes
Thanks, for the information on SSL and domain details.
SEO..
50%
50%
SEO..,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/9/2016 | 11:40:49 AM
Does it really matter to have .com
Thanks, for the information on SSL. On other hand, recently I read an atricle which said it's no more important to have domain as .com it can be anything google no more consider much weightage on this domain scenario. I am planning to buy one as a web designer - let me know your thought's  
JulietteRizkallah
50%
50%
JulietteRizkallah,
User Rank: Ninja
8/9/2016 | 10:16:52 AM
Re: Worth a try
Yes agreed as well, one protection or measure is never enough.  I am looking at it more as an additional potential measure.
T Sweeney
50%
50%
T Sweeney,
User Rank: Moderator
8/9/2016 | 10:11:41 AM
Re: Worth a try
Agreed, Juliette... but a simple domain in and of itself will not convey security on a website or its visitors. Regardless of what your domain is, there's plenty that still needs to happen on the backend to lock down and protect hardware, data and users.
JulietteRizkallah
50%
50%
JulietteRizkallah,
User Rank: Ninja
8/9/2016 | 10:03:30 AM
Worth a try
I think it is worth a try.  But like anything unless 1. the enforcement of standards is done and 2. the false positive blocks are minimum, this will be a wasted effort.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
News
A Startup With NSA Roots Wants Silently Disarming Cyberattacks on the Wire to Become the Norm
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  5/11/2021
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
Cybersecurity: What Is Truly Essential?
Joshua Goldfarb, Director of Product Management at F5,  5/12/2021
Commentary
3 Cybersecurity Myths to Bust
Etay Maor, Sr. Director Security Strategy at Cato Networks,  5/11/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Google Maps is taking "interactive" to a whole new level!
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-21830
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-17
A heap based buffer overflow vulneraibility exists in GNU LibreDWG 0.10 via bit_calc_CRC ../../src/bits.c:2213.
CVE-2020-21832
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-17
A heap based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in GNU LibreDWG 0.10 via read_2004_compressed_section ../../src/decode.c:2417.
CVE-2020-21833
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-17
A heap based buffer overflow vulnerability exits in GNU LibreDWG 0.10 via: read_2004_section_classes ../../src/decode.c:2440.
CVE-2020-21834
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-17
A null pointer deference issue exists in GNU LibreDWG 0.10 via get_bmp ../../programs/dwgbmp.c:164.
CVE-2020-21835
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-17
A null pointer deference issue exists in GNU LibreDWG 0.10 via read_2004_compressed_section ../../src/decode.c:2337.