Secure E-mail - Not that Hard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think securing email is that easy? One wrong click on a configuration or opening a weaponized attachment or browsing to a watering hole, and kiss your "security" good bye.

Oh, and when nation states are up against you, you really don't have a prayer.

That's why paid services are significantly more secure - they have the firewall and filtering in place to stop much of that. Not foolproof, and not NSA-proof, but much more secure than gmail/yahoo/msn.

But sometimes that lulls people into a false sense of security. If you use an AOL account and have had your account hacked once or twice, you're going to know it's a risk and perhaps will be more thoughtful about what you put into email going forward. If you have a more secure service that you (wrongfully) view as basically foolproof because you're paying for it, you're more likely to use it for sensitive materials that you'd never want to fall into a hacker's hands.

Also, whenever I've used that kind of paid service (such as an employer's system), the aggressive filters would sometimes catch valid emails we needed to receive, and so we were still instructed to regularly check our filtered mail as well. As soon as you have laypersons digging through filtered email, you've drastically lowered the effective security of your system due to what they might accidentally or ignorantly open.

You got some bad advice from your IT dept. You should not be poking through your spam folder.

I won't dispute that, but doesn't that prove my point? Having a "secure" email system through my employer would encourage me to send more sensitive communications over email, and yet they have this big human flaw in the process. But on the flip side, as an attorney I am responsible for reading all communications sent to me, and if I missed an email caught in my spam folder because I'd been instructed not to check it and that ended up materially compromising my client's case, I could face malpractice liability and/or sanctions. So who should I trust to review email in my spam folder and know what was caught accidentally? Relying on my IT department to do it for me wouldn't get me out of either of those consequences if they screw up, because ultimately the buck stops with me.

They can configure the spam filter to delete the spam instead of dropping it in your mail box. Most e-mail systems already blacklist known spam generators, meaning it never makes it to you. The spam folder is more of 'I think it's spam but I'm not sure' folder. Email servers also strip of things like *.exe files and very large files as welll. There's a lot that's never delivered to your inbox that you never even knew was filtered out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

John Podesta's email was from gmail server. Very different than Clinton Server.

Poeple need to understand that DNC Server != Clinton Server; Podesta Email hack != Clinton Server hack etc etc. Every layman is suddenly becoming an expert on cybersecurity.

On top of it Wikileaks is re-purposing information and passing it as new hack - like their claim of Clinton Foundation hack when they re-purposed Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hack.

Wikileak hackers are unethical thieves with very specific interest and Trump's campaign team is using/helping them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

John Podesta's email was from gmail server. Very different than Clinton Server.

Poeple need to understand that DNC Server != Clinton Server; Podesta Email hack != Clinton Server hack etc etc. Every layman is suddenly becoming an expert on cybersecurity.

On top of it Wikileaks is re-purposing information and passing it as new hack - like their claim of Clinton Foundation hack when they re-purposed Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hack.

Wikileak hackers are unethical thieves with very specific interest and Trump's campaign team is using/helping them.

I see no difference between Wikileaks publishing emails and WP publishing Snowden or NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

John Podesta's email was from gmail server. Very different than Clinton Server.

Poeple need to understand that DNC Server != Clinton Server; Podesta Email hack != Clinton Server hack etc etc. Every layman is suddenly becoming an expert on cybersecurity.

On top of it Wikileaks is re-purposing information and passing it as new hack - like their claim of Clinton Foundation hack when they re-purposed Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hack.

Wikileak hackers are unethical thieves with very specific interest and Trump's campaign team is using/helping them.

I see no difference between Wikileaks publishing emails and WP publishing Snowden or NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Or the NYT publishing Trump's tax returns that were not public information.

[Anonymous]

List of security vulnerabilities in Exchange Server:

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id-194/Microsoft-Exchange-Server.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

John Podesta's email was from gmail server. Very different than Clinton Server.

Poeple need to understand that DNC Server != Clinton Server; Podesta Email hack != Clinton Server hack etc etc. Every layman is suddenly becoming an expert on cybersecurity.

On top of it Wikileaks is re-purposing information and passing it as new hack - like their claim of Clinton Foundation hack when they re-purposed Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hack.

Wikileak hackers are unethical thieves with very specific interest and Trump's campaign team is using/helping them.

I see no difference between Wikileaks publishing emails and WP publishing Snowden or NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers.

I don't recall Trump claiming that his tax returns were stolen. He hasn't sued the NYT and I'm inclined to think that it was an intentional leak designed to show how smart he is.

Or the NYT publishing Trump's tax returns that were not public information.

[Anonymous]

The whole Clinton email issue is stupid. Her communication did not belong on a basement server. Did she write off the IT as a business expense?

What did Obama say about the emails? The basement server?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

That's amazing that you know this!! Even the FBI hasn't come to this conclusion. Maybe give them a ring and let them know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

She's definitely going to win. If I were a bad guy who hacked her server, I'd wait until she was elected and then blackmail her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

John Podesta's email was from gmail server. Very different than Clinton Server.

Poeple need to understand that DNC Server != Clinton Server; Podesta Email hack != Clinton Server hack etc etc. Every layman is suddenly becoming an expert on cybersecurity.

On top of it Wikileaks is re-purposing information and passing it as new hack - like their claim of Clinton Foundation hack when they re-purposed Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hack.

Wikileak hackers are unethical thieves with very specific interest and Trump's campaign team is using/helping them.

I see no difference between Wikileaks publishing emails and WP publishing Snowden or NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Whether or not they should have published the information, they vetted it prior to publication. Wikileaks does not vet. It's one of their principles, along with not outing sources (except for that one time...).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

John Podesta's email was from gmail server. Very different than Clinton Server.

Poeple need to understand that DNC Server != Clinton Server; Podesta Email hack != Clinton Server hack etc etc. Every layman is suddenly becoming an expert on cybersecurity.

On top of it Wikileaks is re-purposing information and passing it as new hack - like their claim of Clinton Foundation hack when they re-purposed Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hack.

Wikileak hackers are unethical thieves with very specific interest and Trump's campaign team is using/helping them.

I see no difference between Wikileaks publishing emails and WP publishing Snowden or NYT publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Whether or not they should have published the information, they vetted it prior to publication. Wikileaks does not vet. It's one of their principles, along with not outing sources (except for that one time...).

Nothing on the internet is vettted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

She's definitely going to win. If I were a bad guy who hacked her server, I'd wait until she was elected and then blackmail her.

Blackmail? Are you double-layering your foil?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, CLINTON SERVER was not hacked.

Somebody is doling out the Podesta e-mails a little at a time to keep the story going as long as possible. I'd say if we get to November 8 and we have not seen e-mails from her server, you are probably correct.

She's definitely going to win. If I were a bad guy who hacked her server, I'd wait until she was elected and then blackmail her.

Blackmail? Are you double-layering your foil?

I love how naive some posters seem to be. Yes, the bad guys hack confidential information and then always immediately just share it.

Why would they ever do anything else? Their main interest is freedom of information, right?