.RU and .РФ Registries Stop Disclosing Legal Entity Domain Owners in WHOIS
The registries responsible for .RU and .РФ domains have stopped publishing information about legal-entity administrators in the public WHOIS service. Until recently the records included both the official name of the organization and its INN tax identification number; the same fields now contain only the single word Organization.
The modification was detected on 22 July by Habr contributor @ifap. One illustrative case is the domain formerly shown as belonging to Russia’s Federal Protective Service; the record now withholds any identifying details.
Because the change affects every legal-entity registration, investigators can no longer determine at a glance which company or state body controls a given domain. Locating the actual administrator therefore requires additional open-source research or formal requests.
Representatives of the Coordination Center stated that the data are temporarily unavailable for technical reasons. They declined to specify which component failed or how long the outage is expected to last, and they offered no assurance that the previous fields will reappear.
One hypothesis circulating among observers is that the registry is being re-engineered to comply with updated authentication rules for domain administrators. No official confirmation of this explanation has been issued.
Prior to the change, WHOIS queries provided a fast and reliable method for identifying the corporate or governmental entity behind any .RU or .РФ domain. The current format effectively reveals only that the registrant is an organization rather than an individual, leaving all further identification to external investigation.
Related articles
Building the Foundation of Digital Trust: Why Identity Security Remains Undervalued
Identity Security is presented as one of the most underestimated pillars of cybersecurity because granting access involves trusting individuals with sensitive information and systems. The article examines the deep intersection of IT and security functions, the costs of manual access errors, and the need to align business processes with technical controls. It references a 2026 Identity Conf study showing 43.5% of organizations experienced errors in manual rights assignment and 33.5% left access for former employees. Recommendations draw on NIST Human-Centered Cybersecurity concepts, SP 800-53, and Russian FSTEC Order No. 117 to design lifecycle processes covering account provisioning, privilege reviews, and continuous monitoring. Models such as RBAC and ABAC are discussed alongside IGA and IdM solutions to ensure business permissions map correctly to application rights. The piece stresses that successful projects require joint IT and security efforts from the initial survey through pilot and acceptance phases while measuring both risk reduction and operational efficiency.
VK Files Lawsuit in EU Court Seeking to Overturn Sanctions Imposed in July
Russian internet company VK has submitted a formal challenge to the European Union's sanctions regime by filing a case with the Court of Justice of the European Union. The company argues that the restrictions placed on VK and its subsidiary Communication Platform LLC are both unjustified and unlawful. The lawsuit, registered under case number T-664/26 on 7 October, directly contests the July sanctions that targeted the developer of the MAX messenger. Earlier restrictions had already led to the removal of multiple VK ecosystem applications from Apple App Store and Google Play, forcing users toward alternative distribution channels such as RuStore, Huawei AppGallery, Samsung Galaxy Store and Xiaomi GetApps. While installed Android applications continue to function and receive updates, iOS users face disrupted push notifications after the apps were delisted. The legal action itself does not automatically restore app availability in the affected stores.
VPN Rules in Russia 2026: No Fine for Ordinary Users but Strict Penalties for Advertising and Extremist Content Access
As of September 2026, Russia maintains no separate administrative fine for ordinary citizens simply connecting to a VPN service. Responsibility arises only for specific actions such as deliberately searching for known extremist materials, advertising tools to bypass restrictions, or failing to comply with Roskomnadzor demands as a service operator. Corporate VPNs used for remote access to company networks remain fully legal under exceptions in Article 15.8 of Law No. 149-FZ. New provisions in the Code of Administrative Offenses, including Articles 13.53, 13.52 and 14.3 introduced by Laws 281-FZ and 282-FZ, impose fines ranging from 3,000 to 500,000 rubles depending on the violation and the offender category. The rules distinguish clearly between end users, service owners and advertisers. VPN technology itself is not banned, yet public services face ongoing blocking and operators must integrate with state filtering systems. The material reflects the regulatory situation on 24 September 2026.
Troubleshooting Erroneous TSPU Blocks: How Admins Can Collaborate with Russian Regulators
A Moneta client outage traced back to erroneous filtering on Russia's TSPU system rather than internal infrastructure or DDoS protection. Engineers used curl, traceroute, nping, and custom Python scripts to confirm TCP payload-based blocking after the handshake. The team submitted a request via the VTS personal account, received partial acceptance status, then escalated to DCOA and SSOP to obtain the specific TSPU site number. Detailed network traces and active traffic were required for diagnostics. The case highlights coordination challenges between operators, DCOA, and SSOP when erroneous blocks occur on information resources.