In November 2019, a press release announced that .ORG registry, Public Interest Registry (PIR), a non-profit organization managed by Internet Society, is going to be sold off to Ethos Capital, a private equity firm.
.ORG is the extension for non-profit organizations. The acquisition of PIR by Ethos has quickly concerned the organizations using .ORG, on the basis of the potential misuse of the extension by its new owner, which has, by its very nature, profit motives.
The concern? That the registrations and
renewals fees for .ORG domain names increase.
Yet, key figures of the Internet’s world, like
Andrew Sullivan (Internet Society CEO) are exited, seeing in this a strong
strategic partnership and a significant financial contribution allowing
Internet Society to advance its mission of a “more open, accessible and secure Internet for everyone”, as he
wrote in the press release about the acquisition of November 13, 2019.
It would seem that the fears created find their
origin in the “surprise” and lack of transparency around the deal, since the
transaction amount has not been disclosed.
These fears are, of course, the corollary of the removal on June 30, 2019, of the price caps imposed until now to .ORG fees (historically low) by ICANN, despite many reservations expressed by the community. Finally, the fact that Ethos has directly or indirectly a number of close connections to former ICANN members raises concerns to several voices of the industry.
The fear to see the increase of .ORG prices led Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to launch the SaveDotOrg campaign, which aims to raise awareness about the potential impact of a .ORG price increase on the NGO’s budget constraints.
Also the possibility that Ethos Capital later
implements a principle of rights protections that could lead to a form of censorship,
as currently practiced in some countries wishing to silence NGOs.
In front of these protests, ICANN suspended the
acquisition operation last December and requests clarification from the
Internet Society.
More recently, in January 2020, a new candidate of the .ORG extension acquisition has appeared. It is a cooperative corporation (Cooperative Corporation of .ORG Registrants), gathering some web pioneer and former members of ICANN.
Browsers and Certification Authorities, the battle continues.
Image source : TheDigitalArtist via Pixabay
2019 was a busy year, with growing differences of opinion between browsers makers and Certification Authorities, an explosion in the number of phishing sites encrypted in HTTPS and significant progress on the depreciation of TLS v1.0.
Discussions on extended validation, more generally the visual display of certificates in browsers, and the reduction of the duration of certificates have taken a prominent place. None of these discussions are over, no consensus seems to be emerging, 2020 is looking like a busy year. Time to look ahead…
Will the fate of Extended Validation be determined?
2019 saw the main browsers stop displaying the famous green address bar with the padlock and the name of the company, in favor of a classic and unique display, no longer taking into account the authentication level of the certificates:
However, discussions are still ongoing at the CA/B forum level, as well as within the CA Security Council. Both of these certificates regulatory bodies will be looking in 2020 for an intuitive way to display identity information of websites.
Historically approved by everyone, including the financial industry and websites with transactions, EV (the acronym for Extended Validation) was Google’s target in 2019. Other browsers, under the influence of Google, between Mozilla financed by Google and Microsoft and Opera based on Chromium open source, have followed in this direction. Only Apple continues to display EV.
For browsers, the question is whether or not TLS is the best way to present the authentication information of websites. It seems that it is not. Google assumes that it is not up to Certification Authorities to decide the legitimate content of a website and wants the use of certificates for encryption purposes only.
Of course, the Certification Authorities see things differently. One can certainly see a purely mercantile reaction, EV certificates are much more expensive. One can also wonder about the purpose of authentication beyond encryption. The answer seems to lie in the staggering statistics of phishing websites encrypted with HTTPS. Browsers have for the moment imposed an encrypted web indeed… but no longer authenticated!
2020 will therefore be the year of proposals from Certification Authorities: providing better authentication, including identification of legal entities, following the path of PSD2 in Europe… One thing is certain, identity has never been so important on the Internet and it is up to all interested parties to find a solution, including browsers to find a way to display strong authentication of websites. To be continued…
Certificates with a shorter duration: towards one-year certificates
825 days, or 27 months, or 2 years, the maximum duration currently allowed for SSL Certificates. However, since 2017 and a first attempt within the CA/B forum, the industry is moving towards a reduction of this duration to 13 months (1 additional month to cover the renewal period).
Google and browsers came back in 2019 with another vote submitted to the CA/B forum, again rejected but by a smaller majority. The market is on the move. Players like Let’sEncrypt propose certificates with a duration of 3 months, others want to keep long durations to avoid overloads of intervention on servers. One thing is certain, the market does not have the automation systems in place yet to make the management and installation of certificates easier, a delay of one or two more years would otherwise be preferable, or at least judicious.
But all this is without counting on Google threatening to act unilaterally if the regulator does not follow… certainly in 2020.
From TLS 1.0 to TLS 1.3: forced advance
Expected in January 2020, Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla, Google and Cloudflare have announced their intention to depreciate support for TLS 1.0 (a protocol created in 1999 to succeed SSL 3.0, which has become highly exposed) and TLS 1.1 (2006), both of which are currently suffering from too much exposure to security flaws.
While TLS 1.2 (2008) is still considered secure today, the market seems to be pushing for TLS 1.3, the most recent version of the standard, finally released in the summer of 2018. TLS 1.3 abandons support for weak algorithms (MD4, RC4, DSA or SHA-224), allows negotiation in fewer steps (faster), and reduces vulnerability to fallback attacks. Simply put, it is the most secure protocol.
A small problem, however, is that many websites are taking action. At the beginning of 2019, only 17% of the Alexa Top 100,000 websites supported TLS 1.3, while just under 23% (22,285) did not even support TLS 1.2 yet. If the decision to depreciate older versions of the protocol is a good one, the form adopted by the major web players can be criticized, in particular by its unilateral nature. In the meantime, get ready, we are heading there.
The threat of quantum computing
Companies are talking more and more about quantum computing, including Google. But the reality is, while quantum will impact our industry, it certainly won’t be in 2020, or for at least a decade. There are still many questions that need to be answered, such as: What is the best algorithm for quantum resistance? No one has that answer, and until there is a consensus in the industry, you are not going to see any quantum solutions in place.
IoT is growing, but the lack of security remains a problem
IoT is a success, but a number of deployments are being delayed due to a lack of security. In 2020, cloud service providers will provide or partner with security companies to provide a secure provisioning and management of devices, as well as an overall secure IoT ecosystem, for their customers.
The regulatory frameworks for IoT manufacturing and deployments will most certainly be led by the EU, although we will also see an increase in the US. Attacks, compromises and IoT hacking will, unfortunately, continue. In addition, security standards will not be met and we will not even come close to a higher percentage of secure devices. Why is that? Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are still not willing to pay the costs involved or pass them on to consumers for fear of losing sales.
China’s encryption laws will create a lot of uncertainty
In recent years, part of the digital transformation of the world has led to the codification of rights and restrictions on data in national laws and regional organizations. PSD2, GDPR, CCPA, PIPEDA… a real headache for international companies faced with regulatory standards and compliance.
On January 1, 2020, China’s encryption law was due to come into force. An additional data and… still unclear to those doing business in China. Clarification is still needed on several fronts. For example, commercial encryption for international companies must be approved and certified before it can be used in China – but this certification system has not yet been created. Similarly, there is uncertainty about the key escrow and the data that must be made available to the Chinese government. This has led to a wave of speculation, misinformation and, ultimately, overreaction. Given the opacity of parts of the new Regulation, many companies are opting for a wait-and-see approach. This is a wise tactic, assuming your organization does not have an experienced Chinese legal expert.
The .CY registry announces the
registration of first level .cy domain names, i.e.domainname.cy
The owners of second level registered domain
names, can also apply for the same domain names with a first level extension .CY.
Please note that the 2019 Decree does not provide for commitment on any domain names and thus, all requests will be examined on First Come First Served basis.
To submit a request, don’t hesitate to contact our customer support.
With over 5 million mobile applications available today on the major apps stores like Google Play and App Store, over 2 000 new applications uploaded every day and almost 2 billion applications downloaded in France in 2018, mobile apps have rapidly grown over the last 10 years to become an essential element of the digital world.
According to a research done by FEVAD, the revenue from mobile commerce is estimated to 22 billion euros in France in 2018, i.e. ¼ of online sales. Thus, mobile applications represent a fast growing market.
Studies have shown that 68% of consumers identified as loyal to a specific brand have downloaded that brand’s app. Conversely, statistics indicate that 40% of users will go to a competitor after a bad mobile experience. Companies have then quickly come to realize that ensuring that their customers have a high quality and secured mobile experience when downloading and using their branded applications is the key to consumer loyalty.
The growth of fake mobile applications
As brands’ mobile applications have grown in popularity with consumers, the number of fake mobile applications being released into the market by malicious actors has also exploded. Fake mobile apps can be dangerous because they are associated with fraud attacks, and have become a growing threat to consumers. Indeed, they have increased by 191% from 2018 to 2019. The McAfee Mobile Threats report indicates that almost 65 000 new fake apps were detected in December 2018.
Despite the precautions taken by most major apps
platforms to mitigate the number of malicious applications uploaded on their
platform, cybercriminals continue to find ways to bypass these security
measures.
A recent example, the fake Samsung app which
has tricked 10 million Android users. This app named “Updates for Samsung”
promises firmware updates, but in reality is not affiliated to Samsung. Once
downloaded, the app proposes ads first and foremost. To download an update, the
user must pay a fee of $34.99. However, this operation is completely free of
charge since the firmware update is directly accessible from the smartphone’s
settings.
What to do against these fake mobile apps?
Given the importance and omnipresence of mobile
applications, it is absolutely essential for companies to incorporate into
their brand protection and security strategies, a mobile application protection
and a monitoring implementation of mobile apps present on the market.
Every second, a malicious application is active and poses a threat to brands and consumers. To face this, Nameshield proposes an online monitoring of mobile apps present on the applications stores, allowing to identify the ones that might be infringing your brands and assists you in the actions to implement.
The general availability of .MADRID, the geographical extension of Madrid, the capital city of Spain is near. Managed by the Comunidad de Madrid registry, this extension was launched last April following the calendar below:
Launching schedule
APL
period (Approved Launch Program): from 11/04/2019 to 06/06/2019
Sunrise
and LRP (Limited Registration Period) period: from 16/07/2019 to 10/12/2019
General availability: from
17/12/2019
Some requirements must be respected to register a .MADRID domain name. A .MADRID name’s registration is reserved to individuals or legal entities possessing a link with the Madrid Community:
Local
presence;
Professional,
personal, cultural or commercial activity in the Madrid Community;
Direct
or indirect link with the Madrid Community.
The date of the general availability planned for December 17 2019, is approaching, if you wish more information on your .MADRID registration, don’t hesitate to contact your Nameshield’s consultant.
Financial services companies are particularly affected by cyberattacks. They possess a wealth of information on the customers, protect their money and provide essential services which must be available day and night. They are a lucrative target. Among the favored lines of attacks: the DNS.
The Efficient IP’s Global DNS threat annual
report shows a constant growth of the DNS attacks’ number and the financial
impacts, with an average financial loss of 1.2 million euros in 2019. This
amount was estimated at 513 000€ in 2017 and 806 000€ in 2018.
If all the industries are affected by
cyberattacks, 82% of the companies surveyed have been affected and 63% have
suffered a traffic disruption, the financial industry pays a more important
price with 88% of impact. Conducted with 900 persons from nine countries of
North America, Europe and Asia, the study indicates that financial companies
suffered 10 attacks in average during the 12 last months, i.e. an increase of
37% compared to last year.
The increase of the costs is only one of the
DNS attacks’ consequences for the financial services industry. The most common
impacts are the cloud services’ downtime, experienced by 45% of financial
organizations, and internal applications downtime (68%). Furthermore, 47% of
financial companies have been the victims of frauds by phishing attacks aiming
the DNS.
The survey clearly shows the insufficient
security measures implemented for the DNS securing. The delay in applying security
patches is a major problem for the organizations of this industry. In 2018, 72%
of the interviewed companies admitted that a 3 days’ delay was necessary to
implement a security patch in their systems, 3 days during which they are
exposed to attacks.
Only 65% of the financial institutions use or
plan to integrate a trusted DNS architecture, they seem to be always late and not
to be sufficiently aware of the risks associated to this central point of their
infrastructure. The evolution of the threats on the DNS is constant, the attacks
are many and complex. It is essential to quickly react to better protect
yourself.
Industry, trade, media, telecom, health, education, government, service… many others sectors are affected by the attacks. Some solutions exist. ANSSI publishes every year the guide of good practices regarding the DNS resilience, which details many recommendations in order to be protected. Relying on an Anycast network; possessing a protection system against DDoS attacks; having a monitoring of DNS traffic and a team able to take action quickly; possessing an efficient security policy … As many measures essential to the resilience and efficiency of the DNS network against these damaging attacks in terms of financial and image impact.
Hoping to see at last better figures in the
2020 report.
During the first half of November, the 66th ICANN Summit was held in Montreal, Canada. This third and final annual summit devoted to policies applicable to Internet naming was eagerly awaited as the topics under discussion are numerous. At its closing, however, it left many participants a little bit disappointed.
A preview of the topics and postures during the weekend before the official launch of the Summit
The weekend
before the official opening of the Summit is usually an opportunity to get an
overview of the topics and postures involved. Not surprisingly, the expedited
Policy Development Process (ePDP) which aims to develop a consensus rule to
specify future conditions of access to personal data that are no longer
published in the WHOIS, the domain name search directory, due to GDPR, is one
of the major topics.
Among other
related topics, the replacement of the same WHOIS by the RDAP (Registration
Data Access Protocol) probably next year for generic domain names. This
replacement is not insignificant when we know that WHOIS has been in use for
nearly 35 years.
The body
representing governments, the GAC, has weighed up the issue of domain name abuse,
which has taken off considerably on the new generic extensions launched in
2012. When we know the rise of Internet practices aimed at weighing on
elections in certain countries and the economic impact of computer attacks and
hacking, we understand that this subject is being pushed by the GAC. While one
of ICANN’s topics is to clarify in their texts the notion of malicious uses, this
term refers to domains registered for phishing, malware, botnets and spam, the
other part concerns the means to stem them. The existence of abusive domains indeed
threatens the DNS infrastructure, impacts consumer safety and threatens the
critical assets of public and commercial entities. Finally, and not
surprisingly, the subject of a future round of new generic extensions has also
been on many lips.
Cherine Chalaby at the ICANN Summit held in Montreal
“The best ICANN summit”, really?
During the traditional opening ceremony, which brings together all the guests for one hour (2500 according to Goran Marby, ICANN CEO) in a huge room to listen to various speakers, including Martin Aubé of the Quebec Government’s Ministry of Economy and Innovation, Cherine Chalaby, one of the ICANN Board members whose term ends at the end of the year, told his audience that ICANN66 would be the “Best ICANN summit”. It must be said, however, that at the end of the week of debates and meetings, which followed one another at a sustained pace, while the subjects under discussion are really numerous, the feeling regarding this assertion was more than mixed for many participants.
First, the
expeditious process for access to WHOIS non-public data is progressing with a
framework constrained by ICANN and the Personal Data Protection Authorities.
The outcome of this process is envisaged between April and June 2020 and it is
currently a centralized model where ICANN would allow the future lifting of
anonymity of data that are now masked due to GDPR which holds the line.
Then the subject that was probably
most often mentioned during this new summit week concerned abuses with domain
names. For ICANN, the subject is central because it is directly correlated to its
totem: the stability of the Internet for which they are the responsible. Since
February 2019, ICANN has been publishing some metrics on malicious practices
identified through DAAR, their Domain Abuse Activity Reporting.
Their latest report presented in
Montreal shows that 364 extensions (mainly new generic extensions from the 2012
round) revealed at least one threat posed by one of the domain names activated
on these extensions. More worryingly, new generic extensions would still account
for nearly 40% of malicious uses, compared to 60% for historical generic
extensions. This figure should be highlighted with the volume of these two
categories of extensions. Indeed, out of just over 200 million generic names,
new generic domains represent only 15% of the total number of registered names.
ICANN therefore wants this subject to be taken up by the entire community
present in Montreal.
Proposals were made by the various bodies present, some of which went so far as to request a policy development process (PDP). This last proposal, if it were to obtain ICANN’s approval, would have the unfortunate consequence of postponing the hypothetical schedule for a next round of new extensions, a subject that interested many of the guests present in Montreal. Indeed, for ICANN, the problem of the concentration of malicious practices in the new generic extensions must be solved before any future round, so that the PDP still in progress on the review of the last round of 2012 has gone almost unnoticed.
If the rules are slow to evolve on malicious uses, your Nameshield consultant can already provide you with adapted solutions to your needs on this key matter.
Just one year ago, in the context of the first
Paris Peace Forum, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, launched the Paris
Call for trust and security in cyberspace. This call is a political
declaration aiming to express a mobilization on the stability in the cyberspace
and strengthens the efforts of the international community and many actors
involved in the digital security issues. This text reminds some principles that
we think are fundamental, like the application of the international rights and
the Human rights in the cyberspace. It also highlights the need of a multi
actors’ approach, to create standards which will allow us to fully benefit,
i.e. in a reliable and secure way, from opportunities provided by the digital
revolution.
Lastly, the Paris Call promotes the
strengthening of the digital products and services’ security that we use for
example, in our daily lives. The text aims in that sense, to prevent
cyberattacks perpetrated by malicious actors, which threaten all the users of
the cyberspace.
Aware that our Society’s development, on the
economic, cultural and democratic fronts, requires a strengthened trust of the
information that flows through the Internet, Nameshield, which has worked for
25 years to protect the digital identity of its clients; companies, local
collectivities and administrations through the use of their domain names,
wished to join this initiative and sign the Paris Call.
Its job consists in ensuring the integrity and
resilience of the identity of individuals and organizations on the Internet,
represented today by the domain name. By highly protecting data on domain name
identity cards (Whois) and by providing a high availability and high performance
service through the associated Domain Name System (DNS), Nameshield contributes
to a large extent to the second principle of the Paris Call: Protecting the Internet. To prevent activity that intentionally and
substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core
of the Internet.
Cornerstone of the Web, the Domain Name System (DNS) serves as the Internet directory. This protocol translates a domain name into an IP address, based on a database distributed on thousands of machines. If the DNS falls because of data corruption or a denial of service attack, all your websites and emails would become inaccessible, which is completely unthinkable nowadays! The DNS must be protected and must stay highly available.
Protocol created in the 1980’s, security flaws regarding the usual functioning of the DNS have been identified since its creation. That is why, a new secured protocol, DNSSEC, has thus been developed to ensure the authenticity of the exchanges through a certified signature. Other solutions can complete the resilience of your identity on the Internet: the registry lock, SSL certificates…
The security solutions proposed by Nameshield, an independent French company that stores its data in France and possesses its own anycast and resilient DNS infrastructure, certified ISO 27001 on all its domain names activity, are compliant with the ANSSI recommendations on the good practices regarding the domain names’ acquisition and exploitation.
In the context of the 2nd Paris Peace Forum, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wished to illustrate the second principle of the Paris Call: Protect the Internet by highlighting the services proposed by Nameshield. The company is proud to be able to collaborate, at its level, with the actors implicated in digital security issues in order to make the Internet more reliable and thus contribute to the security of the cyberspace.
During a rebranding for marketing purposes, in the context of a merger or an acquisition for example, a company can change its website’s domain name.
At the search engines’ level, it is all the pages that change, as if this was a brand new website. Therefore, how not to lose the work done on the SEO and make a successful transition, in particular if the website is old?
In the case of a rather old website with an optimal referencing on the existing domain name, transferring a website on a new name can ruin the time-consuming work that is the SEO. If the decrease of the traffic from organic search is normal (and temporary), some advises can help lessen the downturn, at least during the transition period.
Copy identically your website and implement 301 redirections
The first tip is to completely keep the
website’s architecture, so that only the domain name changes in the URL.
Then, permanent redirections (301 redirections)
must be created from each pages of the former website towards the corresponding
page of the new website. Do not implement multiple redirections.
This process must be closely monitored to
ensure that each 301 redirection is effective. The search engines will know
that it’s not necessary to index the former name anymore but it’s the new one
that must be indexed now. To ensure this, it is necessary to check that none of
the former pages is accessible through the former domain name.
Have the backlinks updated
Google uses parameters linked to confidence
indicators in its algorithm, thus to trusted websites, deemed as such by the
search engine (indicators like the age of the website, the transparency of the
legal notices, the ratio links number/words number per page, the links number
pointing from other websites to this one, the extensions like .edu, .gov, the
institutional websites, media websites, etc.) Hence, it can be interesting to
quickly obtain the links from this kind of trusted websites at the time of the
migration.
Along the same lines, reviewing your backlinks
and requesting to the websites that refer to your website to update these
links, so they link towards the new name, is an advantage. Of course, if you
have many backlinks, concentrate on the more important backlinks regarding the
referencing.
Inform Google
Lastly, it’s possible to directly inform Google
of the changing through Google Search Console, the search engine will then
update its index.
Register the sitemap
By submitting a sitemap file for the new website to the search engines, you will gain time in referencing by immediately giving to the engines the pages to index.
Keep the same holder for the new domain name
Make sure that the new domain name has the same
proprietary information on its whois as the former domain name. Google may
check these data.
Be patient
Do note that on Bing you will need an average of 2 months to get your referencing back, and about 6 to 7 months on Google.
Following the launch of .APP, .PAGE, and .DEV
among others, Google (Charleston Road Registry), launches the new extension .NEW
in Sunrise period as of October 15, 2019.
Conditions for registration of a .NEW
In order to use a .NEW domain name, you will need to acquire an SSL certificate and deploy HTTPS. For reminder, the .NEW extension is included on the HSTS pre-upload list, requiring HTTPS protocol on all .NEW domain names (more details in the article “Google makes HTTPS encryption mandatory for its 45 new TLDs : .dev / .app / .how…”).
All
domains on .NEW must resolve to action generation or online creation
flows. Once resolved, the web user should be able to ‘create’ something without
any further navigation. For example, docs.new proposes a dedicated page proposing
the direct use of Google online word-processing software allowing a new
document creation page.
Any
.NEW
domain will need to be live within 100 days of registration.
If these conditions are not respected, the
registry will consider the registration as non-compliant with the registration
policy. In this case, the name will be placed on hold. The registrant will then
be notified to correct and apply these conditions, if no action is taken, the
domain will be blocked then deleted.
Launch calendar
Sunrise period: from October 15, 2019 to January 14,2020
LRP (Limited Registration Period): from January 14
to July 14, 2020
General availability:
from July 21, 2020
For more information on the conditions for registration of your .NEW, don’t hesitate to contact us.
Nameshield uses cookies
Nameshield wishes to use cookies to ensure the proper functioning of the site and, with our partners, to measure its audience🍪.
Nameshield wishes to use cookies to ensure the proper performance of the website and, with our partners, to monitor its audience. More information in our Cookie Policy 🍪.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-advertisement
1 year
Set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin, this cookie is used to record the user consent for the cookies in the "Advertisement" category .
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
CookieLawInfoConsent
1 year
Records the default button state of the corresponding category & the status of CCPA. It works only in coordination with the primary cookie.
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Cookie
Duration
Description
_ga
2 years
The _ga cookie, installed by Google Analytics, calculates visitor, session and campaign data and also keeps track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookie stores information anonymously and assigns a randomly generated number to recognize unique visitors.
_gat_gtag_UA_25904574_14
1 minute
Set by Google to distinguish users.
_gid
1 day
Installed by Google Analytics, _gid cookie stores information on how visitors use a website, while also creating an analytics report of the website's performance. Some of the data that are collected include the number of visitors, their source, and the pages they visit anonymously.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Cookie
Duration
Description
NID
6 months
NID cookie, set by Google, is used for advertising purposes; to limit the number of times the user sees an ad, to mute unwanted ads, and to measure the effectiveness of ads.
![[New gTLD] Launch of .NEW by Google](https://blog.nameshield.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Sortie-du-.new-Google-1200x743.jpg)
![[New gTLD] Launch of .NEW by Google](https://blog.nameshield.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Sortie-du-.new-Google.jpg)
