On 15 Feb 2019, at 19:11, David Niklas wrote:
> You mean like this?
> rsync -cav --delete /current-empty-part s...@backup.com/very-safe-backup
> :)
No, that would be exceedingly foolish.
If you are doing something like rsync, you run the backup task on the remote
server. The machine being
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 22:07:03 +0100
Antony Stone wrote:
> How do you know you don't trust them until you find out you can't?
Use a vulcan mind meld. :)
More seriously, you can try trusting them with less important and
unmonitored tasks. If they are trustworthy with those then chances are
that
On Friday 22 February 2019 at 21:44:07, Alex Woick wrote:
> In the end, it comes back to trust. Don't employ people you don't trust.
How do you know you don't trust them until you find out you can't?
Antony.
--
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.
- Oscar Wilde
Kevin A. McGrail schrieb am 16.02.2019 um 17:59:
Insider threat detection is a whole different ball of wax from backup
and disaster recovery. However, there are numerous protocols to help
for that threat. Specifically Principle of Least Privilege (POLP) and
Separation of Duties. I consider
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 10:50:58 -0700
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 2/16/19 8:50 AM, David Niklas wrote:
> > My context was not that email servers were so unique to the internet
> > > that there is only one in the world, rather that they were
> > >
On 2/16/2019 12:50 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> I also know for a fact that it would be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, if not
> actually impossible, for the same type of attack to happen to Gmail.
> Between the infrastructure, number and type of backups, and
> monitoring, such an attack would be EXTREMELY
On 2/16/19 8:50 AM, David Niklas wrote:
My context was not that email servers were so unique to the internet
that there is only one in the world, rather that they were sufficiently
few that a failure of one, such as VFEmail, is a major problem for a
lot of people.
That is a decidedly
Insider threat detection is a whole different ball of wax from backup and
disaster recovery. However, there are numerous protocols to help for that
threat. Specifically Principle of Least Privilege (POLP) and Separation of
Duties. I consider this part and parcel of a Zero Trust network design.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 02:31:01 -0700
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 2/15/19 7:57 PM, David Niklas wrote:
> > If I host my own mail it does not effect your mail if my computer and
> > backups are destroyed.
> > If I host my mail and yours and my computer
how backups and off-site backups can help if the hacker is an insider? an
angry-sysadmin-employee for example? :-( with full-knowledge of the backup
system.
PedroD
On 2/15/19 7:57 PM, David Niklas wrote:
If I host my own mail it does not effect your mail if my computer and
backups are destroyed.
If I host my mail and yours and my computer and backups are destroyed we
are both affected.
Thus there is no single point of failure.
I'm fairly certain that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 19:54:00 -0700
Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 2/15/19 7:11 PM, David Niklas wrote:
> > Let my put forward a wild idea. What if email was a distributed
> > system > with no 1 point of failure like it was originally designed
> > and
On 2/15/19 7:11 PM, David Niklas wrote:
Let my put forward a wild idea. What if email was a distributed system
with no 1 point of failure like it was originally designed and then
these super shock stories of mass email slaughter would cease to exist?
Pray tell, how were distributed email
On 2/15/2019 9:11 PM, David Niklas wrote:
> Unless you're doing something clever, Kevin.
I would never say I am hacker proof because that's like painting a
bulllseye on your chest. I am proud to have done nation-state work for
years now. I currently work at InfraShield where our past performance
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 06:07:23 -0700
"@lbutlr" wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Grant Taylor
> wrote:
> >
> > If VFE had backups stored off-site via something like Amazon Glacier
> > with no normal in-band connectivity between the main systems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 18:02:31 -0700
"@lbutlr" wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> > I blame the hackers so I haven't posted about this when all the
> > articles came out because you don't blame the victim.
>
> Sure, I
On 2/15/19 9:44 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 2/15/2019 9:04 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
On 15 Feb 2019, at 06:34, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
Live backups are unheard of.
They aren’t, in fact. But no one was talking about live backups.
One of the reasons with virtualized our infrastructure as much
On 2/15/2019 9:04 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2019, at 06:34, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
>> Live backups are unheard of.
> They aren’t, in fact. But no one was talking about live backups.
One of the reasons with virtualized our infrastructure as much as
possible was we do hourly snapshots and
On 15 Feb 2019, at 06:34, Rupert Gallagher wrote:
> Live backups are unheard of.
They aren’t, in fact. But no one was talking about live backups.
--
A lot of people and the smell of sausages meant a performance of the
street theatre that was life in Ankh-Morpork.
Live backups are unheard of. The best I can do is a write protected hourly
backup, with manual restore...
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 14:07, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Grant Taylor wrote:
>>
>> If VFE had backups stored off-site via something like
On 14 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
> If VFE had backups stored off-site via something like Amazon Glacier with no
> normal in-band connectivity between the main systems and the backups, and the
> hacker went out of their way to delete the backups, I don't think I could
> hold
On 2/14/2019 9:31 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 2/14/19 6:02 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
>> VFE isn’t to blame for the hack, but they are to Balme for losing all
>> the data,.
>
> Maybe.
>
> If VFE had backups stored off-site via something like Amazon Glacier
> with no normal in-band connectivity between
On 2/14/19 6:02 PM, @lbutlr wrote:
VFE isn’t to blame for the hack, but they are to Balme for losing all
the data,.
Maybe.
If VFE had backups stored off-site via something like Amazon Glacier
with no normal in-band connectivity between the main systems and the
backups, and the hacker went
On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:37, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I blame the hackers so I haven't posted about this when all the articles came
> out because you don't blame the victim.
Sure, I blame the hackers too, but there must be a lot of responsibility placed
on a company that failed so miserably to
On 02/14/2019 12:11 PM, Pedro David Marco wrote:
I fully agree Kevin but a Disaster Recovery plan is not the same as
a "Sabotage Recovery Plan" the later is much much harder to
implement than the former... :-( and will always have "holes"
To me, there is a big difference in a
>On Thursday, February 14, 2019, 5:37:57 PM GMT+1, Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
>I agree... in any case, facts like this are sad... :-(
>I blame the hackers so I haven't posted about this when all the articles came
>out because you don't blame the victim. Now that a little time
On 2/14/2019 4:57 AM, Pedro David Marco wrote:
>> >https://thehackernews.com/2019/02/vfemail-cyber-attack.html
>>
>https://thehackernews.com/2019/02/vfemail-cyber-attack.html
>Looks like a compromised IP from legit provider.
>94.155.49.9
>daticum.com
>cooolbox.bg
I agree... in any case, facts like this are sad... :-(
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 17:51, Pedro David Marco wrote:
> FYI
>
>
Pedro David Marco skrev den 2019-02-13 17:51:
https://thehackernews.com/2019/02/vfemail-cyber-attack.html
urls with ?
time for a new plan there now
FYI
https://thehackernews.com/2019/02/vfemail-cyber-attack.html?utm_source=feedburner_medium=feed_campaign=Feed%3A+TheHackersNews+%28The+Hackers+News+-+Cyber+Security+Blog%29&_m=3n.009a.1926.ca0ao0c4uu.16rq
-PedroD
31 matches
Mail list logo
