genericUserName Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 3 minutes ago, FANDL said: What’s nasty about it? The part of your post which begins she clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDL Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 2 minutes ago, genericUserName said: The part of your post which begins she clearly. Don’t take things so personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genericUserName Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 17 minutes ago, FANDL said: Don’t take things so personally. It is not about me. If you are going to attack someone in public at a personal level then you should be brave enough to not hide behind a pseudonymous online persona. In your case self-identifying in the first person plural - like the Queen. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Buggane Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 2 minutes ago, genericUserName said: It is not about me. If you are going to attack someone in public at a personal level then you should be brave enough to not hide behind a pseudonymous online persona. In your case self-identifying in the first person plural - like the Queen. Classic 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDL Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 19 minutes ago, genericUserName said: It is not about me. Thought perhaps it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genericUserName Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 3 minutes ago, FANDL said: Thought perhaps it was. I doubt that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Jacko IOM Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 In the IOM it’s hard to define exactly what ‘corrupt’ actually is. 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 (edited) On 1/6/2023 at 9:30 AM, Gladys said: How would she if she didn't have the email? Apart from that, she probably doesn't have system admin rights at DBC. Even I understand roughly what is alleged to have happened, and I am not very tech savvy. You know about hovering your cursor over the email sender's address to check the real address sending it, I take it? Email is not secure. When a mail is sent, the sending server basically says "Helo. I've got a mail from x@y.com to a@b.com, subject is "bin collections", the text follows..." The receiving mail server does no due diligence to check that the mail was really sent by the person listed as the sender, or where it came from, though the connecting IP will be logged. There's nothing to stop anyone connecting to the email port of the receiving server, pasting in a fake mail with real addresses. It still gets delivered, still looks like a real mail, still has the genuine address of the apparent sender. This also isn't hacking - the original sender's account has not been compromised in any way. Email is 1970s tech for US universities, and it's genuinely not a secure way to communicate. Most email is sent in plain text for a start. Edited January 7, 2023 by The Bastard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genericUserName Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 3 minutes ago, The Bastard said: The receiving mail server does no due diligence to check that the mail was really sent by the person listed as the sender, or where it came from, though the connecting IP will be logged. There's nothing to stop anyone connecting to the email port of the receiving server, pasting in a fake mail with real addresses. It still gets delivered, still looks like a real mail, still has the genuine address of the apparent sender. This also isn't hacking - the original sender's account has not been compromised in any way. In the modern world - SPF, DKIM and DMARC address these issues. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 1 minute ago, genericUserName said: In the modern world - SPF, DKIM and DMARC address these issues. Except in the real world they don't, hence the current situation. They're all good ideas but they don't resolve the base insecurities of email to the point where it can be trusted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genericUserName Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The Bastard said: Except in the real world they don't Nobody today should be seeing spoofed emails in their regular work email. Assuming their email is properly set up. Properly set up email will reject (or quarantine) email which fails. That is the 'real world' today. Edited January 7, 2023 by genericUserName 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 2 hours ago, The Bastard said: Email is not secure. When a mail is sent, the sending server basically says "Helo. I've got a mail from x@y.com to a@b.com, subject is "bin collections", the text follows..." The receiving mail server does no due diligence to check that the mail was really sent by the person listed as the sender, or where it came from, though the connecting IP will be logged. There's nothing to stop anyone connecting to the email port of the receiving server, pasting in a fake mail with real addresses. It still gets delivered, still looks like a real mail, still has the genuine address of the apparent sender. This also isn't hacking - the original sender's account has not been compromised in any way. Email is 1970s tech for US universities, and it's genuinely not a secure way to communicate. Most email is sent in plain text for a start. My point was to respond to the idea that she should have known about the email and identified it as bogus, her being in IT and all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Gladys said: My point was to respond to the idea that she should have known about the email and identified it as bogus, her being in IT and all. If it's spoofed, she would never see the mail, so I don't know how she would identify it as bogus. If someone sends a spoofed mail purporting to come from her email address, she doesn't see the mail. It doesn't show in her outbox, and it never shows in her email account, since her account is not involved in the sending process at all. The only place it appears is at the destination mailbox, the person who receives it. The spoofer just sends some text to the mail server, which takes it as gospel and delivers the mail to the recipient. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANDL Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, The Bastard said: The only place it appears is at the destination mailbox, the person who receives it. The spoofer just sends some text to the mail server, which takes it as gospel and delivers the mail to the recipient. She’s talked herself into a corner on this but she seems to be so unbelievably confrontational in trying to show she’s a victim rather than an aggressor that she’s lost perspective on it all. As you say it must have been obvious it was a spoof fairly early on. Richard Butt has even said that he’d called her earlier in the week to check as he’d had a similar email which she presumably said hadn’t sent. So she knew then and presumably there was nothing in her outbox to justify claims of a hack (ie, that her machine had sent the mail shed been called about). She’s IT system admin for RL360 isn’t she? So she presumably knows what a hack is like. So why claims of a hack other than to try to criminalize the activity like she likes to taint the residents who are ‘ideologically opposed’ to doing as they’re told. It’s doubtful they’ll ever publish this mystery ‘hacker’ either because as you say a lot of spoof sites just fire text at a server so it’s doubtful they’ll find anything other than an originating IP which anyone with half a brain would have VPN’d anyway. So why all the drama? It’s just another notch in her victimhood campaign because she appears to be totally incapable of accepting anyone else’s world view other than her own. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 31 minutes ago, The Bastard said: If it's spoofed, she would never see the mail, so I don't know how she would identify it as bogus. If someone sends a spoofed mail purporting to come from her email address, she doesn't see the mail. It doesn't show in her outbox, and it never shows in her email account, since her account is not involved in the sending process at all. The only place it appears is at the destination mailbox, the person who receives it. The spoofer just sends some text to the mail server, which takes it as gospel and delivers the mail to the recipient. That was my point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.