http://www.whmcs.com/members/verifydomain.php

Now people can check to see if a host has a valid whmcs license before buying form the host.

I bet alot of people been asking whmcs for this and they put it into there site.

And best of all, it works:

This domain is authorized to be using WHMCS.

:)

Sweet, I remember that being requested on their Forums a few months ago

This domain is authorized to be using WHMCS.

Great to see this up and running; a good feature :)

I wonder who is going to publically point out the first illegal one here

I wonder who is going to publically point out the first illegal one here


Me! Me! Me! Pick me! :wavey:

See attached. :)

:rolleyes:

Me! Me! Me! Pick me! :wavey:

See attached. :)

:rolleyes:

LOL - I dont think that counts

Aww man... :(

:bkick:

Me! Me! Me! Pick me! :wavey:

See attached. :)

:rolleyes:
Google.com isn't authorised either. :D

As well as youtube.com :stickout:

This domain is authorized to be using WHMCS.

:) Its a good addition to the WHMCS website. Should catch out a lot of nulled WHMCS installations.

I wonder if this thread should be a sticky?

I wonder if this thread should be a sticky?
I don't see why.
WHMCS is a third party product, and catching people that pirate it is not something imperative or important for WHT users to have access to (as evidenced by the verifications of Google and Youtube).

I don't see why.
WHMCS is a third party product, and catching people that pirate it is not something imperative or important for WHT users to have access to (as evidenced by the verifications of Google and Youtube).

Yes you are right but this could be helpful when researching before buying from a host.

Indeed this could be a good way to weed out some of the 'cow boy' hosts out there. With that said it could only be the worst that utilise nulled software, for the sake of $13 odd scammers have a 1 month WHMCS license to scam people with... It's a pretty harsh way to look at it, but true none the less. Also, you have to wonder how long it would be until the folks nulling these software circumvent this measure... Until then, please catch as many people as possible with this.

Also, you have to wonder how long it would be until the folks nulling these software circumvent this measure...

There isn't anything to circumvent - the details I assume are based on the licenses on the WHMCS servers and which domains it knows are valid.

Unless someone hacks the WHMCS customer area, and assuming Matt's coded it to properly check for expired licenses etc..., then there shouldn't be anyway to "trick" it.

There isn't anything to circumvent - the details I assume are based on the licenses on the WHMCS servers and which domains it knows are valid.

Unless someone hacks the WHMCS customer area, and assuming Matt's coded it to properly check for expired licenses etc..., then there shouldn't be anyway to "trick" it.

Precisely.

Already caught two GSP's and reported them ;)

Already caught two GSP's and reported them ;)

And what are they ? !

I caught one too and reported.

@John Mark - Is it wise to publish a "Wall of Shame" in here for those using nulled WHMCS installs? I am not even sure it is allowed by the rules.

I think you have to be very careful with disclosing this, sometimes things are not as they appear and it would be bad for everyone if someone is false accused.

You report the license to WHMCS and only they will be able to verify its indeed illegal or some mistake was made and they will take the appropriate action.

I think you have to be very careful with disclosing this, sometimes things are not as they appear and it would be bad for everyone if someone is false accused.

You report the license to WHMCS and only they will be able to verify its indeed illegal or some mistake was made and they will take the appropriate action.

Wisely put. Just to be somewhat of a smart@$$ I went to the "Hosting Offers" section of DP and this forum and see a 50/50 split of legal and nulled copies.

Is it wise to publish a "Wall of Shame" in here for those using nulled WHMCS installs?
Let's not.
it would be bad for everyone if someone is false accused.
Mainly that reason. If someone posts it incorrectly you could damage their business as a result, and they might hold you and ultimately WHT to blame.

i personally think that it would be helpful as a sticky to those who are new to the forum to have a way to check a hosts legit software and for those are scammers trying to be real host.

Just because you pay the paltry sum of 15-20$ per month doesn't make anyone a real host. Heck, even business registrations and licenses can still be obtained by scammers.

In any case, I see why WHMCS has the tool available, but I wouldn't agree with a list of companies using it. Domains, different portal addresses and so on can all affect the result.

i personally think that it would be helpful as a sticky to those who are new to the forum to have a way to check a hosts legit software and for those are scammers trying to be real host.
A good example of why this can be misunderstood and harmful would be checking the site in your signature: "thedudleyshop.net".
It said this:
This domain is not authorized to be using WHMCS.
Please report the url to the installation to us here

Hopefully, that's wrong. ;)

A good example of why this can be misunderstood and harmful would be checking the site in your signature: "thedudleyshop.net".
It said this:


Hopefully, that's wrong. ;)

bear oh check ours check ours :)

A good example of why this can be misunderstood and harmful would be checking the site in your signature: "thedudleyshop.net".
It said this:


Hopefully, that's wrong. ;)

yes as my license expired and if you run it again it will be correct as i renewed that day.

If you would just check the sites in a signature it could go very wrong; we use WHMCS on a separate domain from our main domain. So our main domain would always give an unauthorized message :)

I caught one too and reported.

@John Mark - Is it wise to publish a "Wall of Shame" in here for those using nulled WHMCS installs? I am not even sure it is allowed by the rules.

just a stupid queastion .- would it be our duty to do the job of finding those sites? I dont see why i should report someone were there is a chance of a false report that would let me look stupid.
In no way i support nulled or hacked or wahtever illegal licences - but i dont thing its my business to take care of them unless im paid for it.

just a stupid queastion .- would it be our duty to do the job of finding those sites? I dont see why i should report someone were there is a chance of a false report that would let me look stupid.
In no way i support nulled or hacked or wahtever illegal licences - but i dont thing its my business to take care of them unless im paid for it.

I think the idea behind this would be to eliminate those hosts which offer very cheap hosting services but do not pay for the licenses, thus can operate cheaper.

personally i don't think it would make any difference at all ;)

To clairify, I made the "Hall of Shame" comment as a Joke.

I do not think it is our job to find hosts using nulled scripts, but if we by chance do come accross one, then we should report it. Nothing will happen to a Host who is using a legit version of WHMCS. When you report a host, WHMCS will actually double check in their database to verify the claim.

As someone on this thread pointed out, someone checked their site on the day their license expired. This was just a simple example on why these should not be publically reported, but there is no harm in reporting it to WHMCS.

I do wish that WHMCS would give a bounty, but I really dont think that thats going to happen.

Well this can show the 'Real' Webhoster, whether they can trusted or they are just scammers using Nulled WHMCS.
:)
Anyways, a nice step taken by WHMCS so that they & users can track down Nulled users.

I was wondering if they were going to do something like this a while back. This should help them a lot and crack down on nulled users.

all they got to do is to do a search on twitter to get to some of the sources. Seen several offers of nulled versions there, by just following message containing whmcs. in the end i do not understand why anyone would want to run such a version for his most important part of their business, what if someone has build in a backdoor and they can steal your customers information.

Its not only the host as risk by using the nulled version; but also all their customers.

one that uses a nulled script might be a thief but must not be a scammer :)

anyways, i see the idea behind it yet still dont see the benefit for me if i report one. he might doing false but reporting him wont stop his business at all i guess.

Why do we suddenly care who is paying for their software and who isn't? Focus on your own company...

Why do we suddenly care who is paying for their software and who isn't? Focus on your own company...

1.) It isn't fair for the developers who are getting ripped off
2.) It isn't fair to the people who actually pay for it (Not that it's alot anyways)

Tiffany

hi,

after 2 minutes of thinking.....

whmcs allows for multiple server provisioning which can have multiple domain names tied to a single ip and multiple hosting websites on the same or differnt ips, that all look different with dns redirections and URL SPOOFING that all funnel revenue into one or many financial resources. that is not even mentioning the capabilities of curl.

i think that this is not even close to a viable solution to judging the validity of a host based on the fact that what whmcs's tool reports is valid. not only is not viable...THERE WILL NEVER BE A VIABLE SOLUTION WITH CONCLUSIVE PROOF.

again....as mentioned in the thread above this post. if you are a random lamer stumbling on a site....who the hell is going to know the difference based on what i am saying.....half of them can't even follow it this far.....and if the server is in a country that doesn't give a crap about the hosting coumminity, warez, nulled or anything else,...then what can possibly be done about it. life moves on. people will find the site and pay for it. there are ways to not have your server shut down so what are you going to about it.

is whmcs going to start hundreds or tens of thousands of international lawsuit escapades over 300 or 300k in lost revenue. i F-ing think not. the numbers are too small or too big to fathom.

you would need 50x more people working full time to sucessfully persue and stop it. it would cost them 10 times that much to even do such a thing and there is a high chance they would lose a lot of their cases.

you could not even guarentee that the person you are attempting to internationally hold responsible is legitamate and is actually alive(yes dead people get their identity stolen too).

consider this: hacked paypal accounts buying up a server under a false credit card name(maybe they are dead) and account in which access is tunnelled in and out of a 2 or 3 server trail via a proxy on the other end. screw it. toss in a prepaid smart phone also where the guy can sit a bus station and do his thing(google it).

it is absolutely reeeeEEE-diculous to under estimate the sheer will power and desperation of 3rd world scammers, hungy and damn near homeless people alike and anyone else doing this sort of $hit. i have 9 years of college education and i fathom how these people do it. i am buying a paper shredder this weekend. because i see the everyone, understand human nature, love everyone and trust no one.

its a cat and mouse game that has been going on for over 40 YEARS. i believe microsoft took it to foot by penetrating apple with social engineering years and years ago.

the people writing code get it dissected by people that don't want to pay for it or need/want to modify it. it is a game that has never been won and NEVER will be won by software developers. this is why there is no viable solution to stop it. even the biggest multi-BILLION dollar companies are not suing for stealing software licenses. the closest thing was digital satellite that scared a general populous into forking a minimal amount of dollars into lawyers hand for threatening to take a US persons life savings for buying a piece of hardware that steals can possibly be used to reprogram a dish network box. anyone with a brain would know that suit would water like a colander does.

all it takes is some 15 year old kid with a decent brain, decent education and decent background in computing to a$$ rape the best thing a developer had going for him right down the toilet.

when someone's a$$ is on the line they will do anything they can to feed themselves and stay alive. please for now forget all about countries that practically teach scamming, con artistry and hacking in middle school like nigeria, indonesia and the middle east. that is not the topic of this discussion.

the only thing that this whole system that whmcs has put in place will result in is the general populus is ....MAYBE....deciding to pick....the "safest" LOOKING host, which given the technology that is out there is probably NOT the BEST hosting provider if they are running the account on a SINGLE DOMAIN. there is also the chance that they will lose business for closing accounts that should not be closed resulting in slowed sales and revenue growth.

what is whmcs going to do...DMA it? even trying to report something like this in the US would be a huge hassle to the person reporting it. you would have to be unemployed with no television, friends and hobbies to go through the whole process from start to finish.

some of you are passionate. i consider myself one of these people. i have lost friends, and girl friends over my desire to be apart of the hosting community/master reseller community and my sick...sick addiction to coding absolutely needless $hit. even i don't have the desire or will power to follow through and hunt these people down. it would take a lifes conviction. they would have to hire me.

is whmcs going to fight and expend the volumes of non licensed research while footing the financial funds and responsibility it would take to hunt these people down. everyone has talked to matt. yes we all know him by his name. how in the HELL... is.....HE.... being a single person, going to do that.

it would take sheer will power, persistance and dedication on the part of the accuser to get even two steps into the process. have any of you posting to this thread done a DMA before?

no one gives a crap about anyone or anything other than feeding their own a$$ in this economy.

it really is just that simple.....its real. its live. its life.

good luck with your reporting and efforts. i hope whmcs wins but jesus F...why is this thread as long as it is now only 3 pages deep. the internet is rather large currently....google is running out of space. people..... please think before you post.

pwning everyone and everything that thinks they know something,
kevin

Damn man, you said a lot without saying much at all really. I hope you're not trying to represent a company on here, with all that language... I'm no angel myself, but I try my best to curb it when I'm on here and I'd highly recommend you do the same.

I think you were implying that someone could show up as un-licensed because they were redirecting several domains to one WHMCS installation - that's against the WHMCS license - you're elligible for one domain and that's it... everything else should be a http redirect so it all comes up correctly. You'd have to crack WHMCS to get it to operate on a secondary domain anyway, so you might as well steal it and be done with it.

FWIW, I have sent a DMCA takedown request before, successfully I might add, and I know all about software piracy, and I have no idea why you went on the huge diatribe about it. Tools like the license checker are designed to help people differentiate between companies that pay for their software and "companies" that don't - I don't personally feel the need to go outing people who don't pay for their software, but there are so many shady "companies" in this industry that I can't help but feel it's a good thing.

I don't know what you're trying to say... yes software piracy has been around a long time, yes it's most likely here to stay. Doesn't mean that the self-appointed sheriffs of this industry can't use one more tool to help them out shady "companies" to help thin the herd a little bit, and it certainly doesn't mean that WHMCS's team can't benefit from the piracy reporting that goes along with it.

I highly doubt Matt's going to take the time to put pressure on offshore people using his software illegally - it's just not worth the effort on his part. However he certainly can submit DMCA requests to hosts operating in "copyright friendly" countries and shut down anyone who's not off-shore. Once you have the form-letter set up and ready to have some names filled in, it's but 10 minutes work.

The offshore ones? The industry sheriffs can deal with those, by slamming them all over forums like this. Educated buyers won't go with someone running pirate software, and uneducated buyers well... we all know where they end up.

Damn man, you said a lot without saying much at all really. I hope you're not trying to represent a company on here, with all that language... I'm no angel myself, but I try my best to curb it when I'm on here and I'd highly recommend you do the same.

I think you were implying that someone could show up as un-licensed because they were redirecting several domains to one WHMCS installation - that's against the WHMCS license - you're elligible for one domain and that's it... everything else should be a http redirect so it all comes up correctly. You'd have to crack WHMCS to get it to operate on a secondary domain anyway, so you might as well steal it and be done with it.

FWIW, I have sent a DMCA takedown request before, successfully I might add, and I know all about software piracy, and I have no idea why you went on the huge diatribe about it. Tools like the license checker are designed to help people differentiate between companies that pay for their software and "companies" that don't - I don't personally feel the need to go outing people who don't pay for their software, but there are so many shady "companies" in this industry that I can't help but feel it's a good thing.

I don't know what you're trying to say... yes software piracy has been around a long time, yes it's most likely here to stay. Doesn't mean that the self-appointed sheriffs of this industry can't use one more tool to help them out shady "companies" to help thin the herd a little bit, and it certainly doesn't mean that WHMCS's team can't benefit from the piracy reporting that goes along with it.

I highly doubt Matt's going to take the time to put pressure on offshore people using his software illegally - it's just not worth the effort on his part. However he certainly can submit DMCA requests to hosts operating in "copyright friendly" countries and shut down anyone who's not off-shore. Once you have the form-letter set up and ready to have some names filled in, it's but 10 minutes work.

The offshore ones? The industry sheriffs can deal with those, by slamming them all over forums like this. Educated buyers won't go with someone running pirate software, and uneducated buyers well... we all know where they end up.

Nailed it,

People like hostydotnet are the ones who drive and drink, cross a red light, and steal from shops, just because everyone would apparently do it. But sadly he is right; there are many doing it; but in my book that doesn't make it right!.

hi,

wow. the first person that replied to my post has done a sucessfull dma. i can only be so lucky.....

no. that is not what i said at all. re-read the post again and think about what i have written since you don't understand it. and then repost after you fully understand. there are other reasons why a host can show up as invalid.

the entire notion of dma'ing a business on even a small scale for software infringement like whmcs is ....well is rediculous to fathom. to also note....where do you think all of this happens. in the US. your nuts. 50 percent of the us population can afford a measly 15 bucks a month. it happens where there is no law. no sanity. no justice. developing such a tool, for all intents and purposes, is a complete and utter waste of time. if it is so good why doesn't a multi billion dollar corporation have one that works. why are they not enforcing it. i don't see homes being raded over microsft complaints.

sorry for the language in my post but when i read such stupid ....textual portrayals of "factual malarkey"...i can't help but feel a complete dumbing of society since the majority of the world is still learning up to the point of this conversation and the rest pretend to have an understanding of what is going on around them.

by no means any offense to you as in an indiviual in that aspect. however i seriously believe you have sucessfully stopped a scammer with a dma attempt. however i would really like to investigate your dma attempts. please provide links, data and proof of your dma.

in contiunation and rebuttal: how do you prevent the person that you dma'ed from opening up a new domain under a new alias with the same perversion 20 minutes later. there is a propogation period and its only shrinking.

point and case: you won....you won a single minute tiny little, the tiniest little battle that you could possibly win(if of course you won it) while expendeding 12-24 hours of your life.

despite, maybe or maybe not the nature of your DMA, it regenerated itself hours or moments later after it took effect to them ....under a new identity and new domain name.

you can't stop it. a tool can't stop it and nothing can stop it.
spend your time better trying to null my software. 500 bucks cold hard cash, check or paypal to the winner.

end of story,
kevin

This is a great tool :) You can catch the scammers out :)

Kevin: If you'd trimmed your post to make the point, maybe I would have got it... what was it?

"50% of the US population can afford [WHMCS]" - where'd you get that statistic? Besides, it's useless... in my experience a good many of the people who use nulled copies of things like WHMCS and cPanel are the ones who could probably pay for it... the kids running the fly-by-night kiddie-hosts are a pretty good example. Sure it's not perfect because many kiddie-hosts can easily afford $15/month, but it at the very least ups the bar by exposing those too cheap to invest in billing software.

If you've never had any luck with sending a DMCA notice, are you sure you're doing it correctly? The fact you're calling it a DMA leaves me wondering... The thing about the DMCA is that the notice itself usually has to be one complete statement, made in the legalese under threat of perjury so that the host can act without having to worry about a counter-claim from the alleged infringing party. Go find the form letter, modify it as little as you can to make it fit, send it to the proper location (hint: fax is always preferable to email, if it's available, because it shows more effort on your part than firing off an email) and you'd be surprised how effective they are, particularly on US or UK hosts.

As you said, there's nothing to stop them putting it up again on a new domain, new account, new host, etc etc... but you sending out takedown notices only makes it more expensive, at some point they'll either have to go off-shore or they'll run out of hosts (or potential clients will notice the repeated downtime).

The fact is that the license checker doesn't do us as hosts any good (unless you like to play internet sheriff) and it doesn't do uneducated buyers any good. However it does a sliver of good for educated buyers, and given that it probably didn't take much effort for them to implement isn't that at least something?

What I still don't get is even if you take everything you said as truth, why do you react so violently to WHMCS doing this? I was already a paying customer and I truthfully couldn't have cared less that they implemented this, much less start ranting about how ineffective it all was.

hi,

i could care less also if they implimented it. read below.

i have a fully owned branding removed lifetime paid license from them. in case you got lost in the heat of your own rebuttal and blew your......... i will quote my own self: "i hope whmcs wins"

i used the term DMA as a verb ...short for "digital milleniem act"...add the verb....ING someone. please read above if you have mis read my posts.

short and to the point. 50% was used as a middle of the road estimation =(definitely not a cold hard fact...i mean you picked up on it. who would else would not) based on the average income of this country(the one i am in), the average cost of living and monthly average flux that people have to do what they chose to spend their extra money on in their spare time.

i still see nothing verifiable in the way of your sucessfull "DMCA" as you put it which self proclaims you as the man with the answer to the problem. how about some gifs, word documents, fax letters, fax confirmation scans, links to your dmca, links to what was dma-ed, maybe some researchable background about you and what you dma-ed as developer/owner/employee of a company.....prayable figure....something.

since you are making it out about the DMA or DMCA. lets go down that route. please provide something researchable that shows an inkling of sucess......k?


side note: google sabrienix.com ....hmmmm...got real far. pr0 created a year ago got something mega huge...no hold on....it returned 600 results on the domain search itself most of which are dns related items after the first 4 rankings.

even average sites can get a pr3 with no knowledge. there seems to be nothing relavant to cross link to another domain that may be even average sized worth DMA-ing....yea...i said dma-ing again. i will wait to see what you come back with....relating the DMA and go from there...k?

thanks,
kevin

I just found one small mistake which makes you a 'scammer' - if you using Wildcard Domains you quickly become a:
This domain is not authorized to be using WHMCS.
Please report the url to the installation to us here

We are using our installation at http://whmcs.xporder.com - you can check the validity of our installation at the checker and we are not authorized to use WHMCS - you can also try http://xporder.com and see that the check is wrong.

I believe the checker should check ONLY for the domain name leaving out the subdomains - else you can very quickly be a theft...

very handy tool!!!!! I will use this to check hosts that i have never traded with before :D

Kevin,

I still don't understand why you're answering so aggressively then? Color me confused as to your initial rant if you don't care about the license checker. I never once called into question your license or your right to use the software and now it feels like you're basically attacking me - why?

I don't see how the page rank of our domain is even remotely relevant to what I was stating, it seems nothing more than a thinly veiled ad hominem attack on me personally... and by the way a cursory check shows you're incorrect in your assessment of our domain's pagerank anyway, but thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Again, you're saying a lot without actually making any points whatsoever. Why on earth would I post our DMCA actions on the internet publicly? Why do I suddenly have to prove to you that the DMCA works if you put it to work for you as a copyright holder? Let's reverse this around, since you were the one making the initial assertion I'd say the burden of proof is on you - you provide evidence of your failed DMCA takedown notices that were ignored by a US-based host.

I never claimed the notices or the DMCA itself were 100% effective at preventing infringement, I was simply stating that for taking but a few moments of your time to locate the correct recipient and modify a standard form letter they're surprisingly effective in most cases. All I did was google "dmca takedown notice" and change the text to suit my particular case, and then send it to the correct place and they were surprisingly effective. I didn't document any of them, much less online, so I have nothing at all to show you... furthermore I do not care if you don't believe me.

The only recipient I even remember the name of is Myspace, where some of my personal photos were used by a company without my permission (creative commons, too, and I'd tried contacting them to get them to abide by the license to no avail, so I "DMCAed" Myspace as a last resort)... and I can tell you right now that Myspace are sticklers when it comes to sending a good request. I filed a request with them and didn't word it very well at all, and they sent back a request for an actual takedown notice that includes the statement under penalty of perjury (hint: I think this is where you're going wrong, personally, without having seen your notices). After I grabbed a sample notice and modified it for my personal case the infringing photos were removed within hours.

However as I said, none of what you've said explains why you reacted so aggressively to the introduction of the tool... you said it yourself you "hope whmcs wins", so why the giant rant about the tool in the first place?

xpservices: I could be wrong here, you may want to ask the WHMCS team - but I believe that when you license WHMCS, you are allowed to use it on exactly one domain, with the www. prefix on the front of that domain optionally... I don't believe you're allowed to wildcard it.

You could fix that problem anyway by having all your other locations 301 redirect to the one licensed location... for example if whmcs.xporder.com was your preferred location, re-issue your license for that hostname (rather than just having it licensed to xporder.com) and have all the other possible ways to access your WHMCS redirect via a 301 response to that location. This should then behave as expected - you can search for our domain with and without the portal. on the front of it and both return as "licensed".

I cant remember if i was asked on what domain i like it to run - eventually it was there and i missed it.
but using it on a subdomain would be more than usual install i guess - lots of people have their panels on something like order.domain.tld etc. So denying to install it outside www. would make no sense to me - and i cant believe that WHMCS intented it that way.
One problem stays, using wildcard DNS entries is common practice - and would render a lot of false WHMCS Licence checker results cause every sub.* would be invalid and if you use a wildcard entry for your domain i just try hateyou.yourdomain.tld and than run the checker and name and shame you.

A Few things to remember,
1) The WHMCS Licence Checker does NOT use cURL to check your copy of WHMCS (However it is used to Validate the copy when you enter your admin area).

2) The WHMCS License Checker compairs it to their internal database

3) When an invalid report is made, WHMCS checks it in their database to insure that this is indeed a valid complaint.

4) Most hosts DO NOT ignore DMCA Notices. Granted there is a growing number of hosts that are starting to ignore it.

5) It would be nice if WHMCS could accept a wildcard domain. This could reduce false reports and even lost sales for the host. I currently have mine in a sub directory because I want my whole site to be under SSL rather then just the billing area.

\
One problem stays, using wildcard DNS entries is common practice -

While i understand the problem you have, i do wonder since when a wildcard DNS is a common practice; i would even advise against it; but of course there are situations where you would like to have this, just why for a billing system where security and stability would be your main concern.

I cant remember if i was asked on what domain i like it to run - eventually it was there and i missed it.
but using it on a subdomain would be more than usual install i guess - lots of people have their panels on something like order.domain.tld etc. So denying to install it outside www. would make no sense to me - and i cant believe that WHMCS intented it that way.

I believe it is based off the domain that WHMCS is accessed from the first time a license is re-issued (so if you un-issue your license in WHMCS's own client area, then go to your admin page on a given hostname, that's the hostname it's registered with). "www" is discarded so if you have www.mydomain.com it is registered under mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com will still validate.

If you're registered under a subdomain, it appears to register it under your domain as well - our's is behaving that way (search for the actual url of the WHMCS installation, and search for just our domain - both validate).

One problem stays, using wildcard DNS entries is common practice - and would render a lot of false WHMCS Licence checker results cause every sub.* would be invalid and if you use a wildcard entry for your domain i just try hateyou.yourdomain.tld and than run the checker and name and shame you.

Well if you want to have such a system, clearly the best course is to pick *one* subdomain to use, then have all the others 301 redirect. It's not hard to do and it would save you all those headaches, not to mention other issues like search engine robots and affiliate tracking cookies to name but a few.

But even if you're stubborn and won't fix your installation... if someone posts on a forum such as this, "omfg wesuck.xpservices.com isn't supposed to be using WHMCS, look!" who is going to take them seriously?

I just thought, why don't WHMCS have a few lines of code to display a small 16px icon showing if the license is valid,
What I mean is real time checking, rather than just the admin area checking the license.

I just thought, why don't WHMCS have a few lines of code to display a small 16px icon showing if the license is valid,
What I mean is real time checking, rather than just the admin area checking the license.

I am sure server load could be an issue

Not to mention if the checking server went down...and the complaints of it "calling home" and so on.

...and the complaints of it "calling home" and so on.

The software already calls home to valid the license, so there should be no issue there. ;)

Yes, but that's weekly. The image would need to be in real time, for every license. ;)

Yes, but that's weekly. The image would need to be in real time, for every license. ;)
While that is true, I don't see where "complaints of it "calling home'" comes into the equation when it already does that for the license; regardless of the frequency.

I can't see what the complaints would be from either the end users or the companies that use the software, in regards to calling home.

I see. Maybe I'm not being clear.
When it overloads the server and can't connect, locking a legitimate owner out of the admin area. That's what was happening with regular license calls home, and why they <apparently> went with weekly. It's at that point the "calls home" complaints are generated.

[edit]
I've been informed that wasn't why they went with weekly and local licenses; it was a problem with the licensing server. Oops. :blush:

I can see where you are coming from. :) To be fair to WHMCS, license verification by calling home every time administrators use the admin interface is a bit over the top, so calling home once per week is definitely a better alternative; but that's a bit off topic.

While I neither agree or disagree with the idea of a "verified" image on a company's website that links back to the vendor, those complaints could be reduced by implementing more servers or more resources towards being able to handle those image and license verification requests in a timely fashion. Other companies, both small and large, successfully employ similar methods of verification and have images that are populated by the vendors websites (PayPal, GoDaddy SSL, RapidSSL, etc. - though those are bigger companies than WHMCS, you can see where I am going.)

If WHMCS wanted to go down that route, they would have to evaluate whether it would be cost-effective to actually implement more servers to allow companies to have the "verified" image, considering it would put more strain on their resources.

I can see where you are coming from. :) To be fair to WHMCS, license verification by calling home every time administrators use the admin interface is a bit over the top, so calling home once per week is definitely a better alternative; but that's a bit off topic.

While I neither agree or disagree with the idea of a "verified" image on a company's website that links back to the vendor, those complaints could be reduced by implementing more servers or more resources towards being able to handle those image and license verification requests in a timely fashion. Other companies, both small and large, successfully employ similar methods of verification and have images that are populated by the vendors websites (PayPal, GoDaddy SSL, RapidSSL, etc. - though those are bigger companies than WHMCS, you can see where I am going.)

If WHMCS wanted to go down that route, they would have to evaluate whether it would be cost-effective to actually implement more servers to allow companies to have the "verified" image, considering it would put more strain on their resources.

To do just that you could implement a token verification on a CDN; solving the 'need to be big' and to have many servers worldwide.

The current licensing system should be left as is. There's no need to add more security to a script that's already encoded and very restrictive.
In most cases it's easy enough to shut down a nulled/pirated script by submitting a proper DMCA complaint to the appropriate datacenter(s).

If you enjoy spending your time policing for illegitimate WHMCS's, this tool is for you.

yay :)

I passed the test!
I am legit

hi,

LOL. i found an exploit in the tool by accident. it shows valid for different ips and different hostnames on different servers....using 1 license key. oh yea. and there are two different database installations so they are 100% logically different.

looks like the whole concept is cr@p after all.

kevin

I know this is a old thread. But I have a unpaid invoice for my WHMCS script, and its saying its invalid. Outrageous! I'm losing a lot of potential customers because of it.

Why do we suddenly care who is paying for their software and who isn't? Focus on your own company...

+1


10 characters

I know this is a old thread. But I have a unpaid invoice for my WHMCS script, and its saying its invalid. Outrageous! I'm losing a lot of potential customers because of it.

Let me get this straight...

a) You've not paid your WHMCS license invoice for this month

b) Your license has been suspended

c) You are outraged

Surely the solution is simple... pay the invoice?!?

I know this is a old thread. But I have a unpaid invoice for my WHMCS script, and its saying its invalid. Outrageous! I'm losing a lot of potential customers because of it.
+1 re: tickedon's post.

If you don't pay for a license, it's by definition invalid.

??

The solution seems simple.

Pay the invoice.

P.S. Why are you losing customers due to this? I doubt that any customer would check the WHMCS license checker before ordering... heck, I doubt that 99% of customers would know what WHMCS is?

+1 re: tickedon's post.

If you don't pay for a license, it's by definition invalid.

??

The solution seems simple.

Pay the invoice.

P.S. Why are you losing customers due to this? I doubt that any customer would check the WHMCS license checker before ordering... heck, I doubt that 99% of customers would know what WHMCS is?
I think a lot people interested in hosting knows about WHMCS and check licenses. May be around % 15-20... But they do

Haha, glad to finally see this.

I know this is a old thread. But I have a unpaid invoice for my WHMCS script, and its saying its invalid. Outrageous! I'm losing a lot of potential customers because of it.

LOL so you don't pay your bill, get suspended, and it's THEIR fault? What a dumb thing to believe.

It be nice to hear from Matt @WHMCS what he said :)

No, this is not what I am saying. Go here: http://www.whmcs.com/members/verifydomain.php

Eneter hostbound.net and the captcha code. It says my domain is not authorized.

If you go here, hostbound.net/whmcs.png it's just unpaid.

(small business)

@ KDisk, Thanks. I didn't think of telling the person who is a client now that information.

As for the review, thank you very much. We are in progress of a new design. We have web designers on payroll now. I am also attending school for it in the spring! I will be changing that number after this reply. I had simply forgotten to do that. (: I just run a small business for people who want stability. Thanks again!

No, this is not what I am saying. Go here: http://www.whmcs.com/members/verifydomain.php

Eneter hostbound.net and the captcha code. It says my domain is not authorized.

If you go here, hostbound.net/whmcs.png it's just unpaid.

(small business)

Which makes perfect sense, once the invoice is overdue, you lose the right to use the software. That is how it works for all software that is leased monthly.

Yes I know this. I see that point. But people think it's nulled cause It says its not valid when really all it is is that I haven't paid the invoice. Just looks bad that people think its nulled. :S

Nulled = Not paying invoice = invalid.

Your invoice is 2 weeks overdue (still invalid)...? It looks just as bad if you're not on top of your billing tbh, are your servers overdue as well? Your point is...? I'd be on your side if they invalidated licenses before the due date... but yeah it's 1/2 a month due mate, stop complain'.

Yes I know this. I see that point. But people think it's nulled cause It says its not valid when really all it is is that I haven't paid the invoice. Just looks bad that people think its nulled. :S

It's not much better than if you were using a nulled copy. You are still using the software without permission to continue doing so. Why not just pay the invoice and get it back as valid? It's less than $20 monthly for the license :)

I am going to. My business partner is on vacation and is in control of paying it. :(

Just to give my 2 cents, I would recommend setting up recurring billing if you have leased license, therefore your license will be automatically renewed every month.

As you have stated before, it looks bad when clients attempt to login to your client panel and get a license error message.

Glad to see this.
Don't understand why a "host" would have to bootleg anyway.
Hope it kills off some of the illegal conpetition. It would deter me from buying from them.
If they're so poor, as to not be able to afford +/- $15/month, then just use ALP

This domain is authorized to be using WHMCS.:D

Someone stated: "how long will it be before they circumvent this?"
I don;t see how they could, as it is hosted on the WHMCS website, and utilizes WHMCS's database directly. If you don;t purchase from them, then your domain would not get written into the database.

is very useful.

Thank you very much