According to https://idc-insights-community.com/financial/financial-services-technology/the-four-letter-word-that-could-change-the-busines

Banking Industry was lobbying for .bank

But as I read this http://www.uniteddomains.com/new-top-level-domain/bank-domain-registration/

Domain Security Company is a Wisconsin-based LLC that will establish .SECURE and .BANK. The company's goal is to make the Internet a safer and more secure place by employing a mix of technology and processes including industry standards for high security websites.


For every sale you send our way, you earn a 10% commission, automatically deposited into your affiliate account. Just like our site, it's simple and easy.

I have some serious doubt that it is finally owned by banking industry but by another commercial affliate network.

closed as off topic by Iszi, AviD Aug 4 '12 at 21:12

Questions on Information Security Stack Exchange are expected to relate to Information security within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 5
    I don't see the security implications of this. It sounds more like a complaint that a company might monopolise the sale of .bank domain names. – Polynomial Aug 3 '12 at 9:16
  • if .bank is really owned by banks I would trust them as for their interest to really secure .bank if it is owned by some marketing company then security will be just ... marketing promise :) – user310291 Aug 3 '12 at 15:11
  • 2
    They're just domain names. The banks would be the same as they are today. – Polynomial Aug 3 '12 at 15:12

This is marketing hype. The .bank domains are just like any others that require you to be a particular type of organisation (e.g. .edu or .museum) in order to buy one. There is no guarantee of security, any more than you have with your bank at the moment.

  • 1
    I believe it may be possible for a tld administrative community to (try to) enforce certain restrictions and compliance. One thing I would love to see is banks (and other financial institutions) being required to use bcrypt/scrypt/PBKDF2/etc to hash passwords (uniquely-salted) before storing as well as a few other basic web-security measures (like allowing special characters in passwords, I'm looking at you, CitiBank). – David Murdoch Aug 3 '12 at 15:37
  • That would be nice. But I have a feeling that .com is so engrained in people's minds that banks will just stick with that and continue to ignore security recommendations. – Polynomial Aug 3 '12 at 15:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.