Targeting Lemmy specifically? probably not, but that’s not really the issue. It’s not that being a .zip address makes the server vulnerable, it’s that the existence of the .zip TLD makes everyone vulnerable:
Surveys by security researchers immediately following public release of domain registration found numerous examples of links and domains registered under .zip being used in phishing attempts, and the ICSS recommended disabling access to .zip domains until “the dust settles and risks can be assessed”.
Our findings show that the abuse rate for the .zip TLD is 0.20% which is close to the average compared to all other TLDs. This rate indicates that .zip domain names are not being used to attack users more than the average TLDs - at least for now. However, if attackers find they have better success using .zip than other TLDs, the rates of abuse might change.
Given new TLDs, such as .zip, tend to have a higher abuse rate than legacy and ccTLDs we suggest that the security research community should continue the healthy debate about the potential risks of the .zip TLD and that internet users continue to be weary of downloading and opening files with a .zip extension or TLD from sources or individuals they may not know.
Is there any PoC of attacks on Lemmy using .zip TLD ? The instance has been up for 2 years, I never heard anything
Targeting Lemmy specifically? probably not, but that’s not really the issue. It’s not that being a .zip address makes the server vulnerable, it’s that the existence of the .zip TLD makes everyone vulnerable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.zip_(top-level_domain)#Security_concerns
https://dnsrf.org/blog/the--zip-tld---ripe-for-abuse--but-so-far-so-good-/index.html
Not sure if that tone is the best for a healthy debate.