#Bitmessage spoofing software#
It could be used in some kind of additional chat program but I don't really see the need for such software as other solutions already exist. OTR is an instant messaging protocol, so I doubt it will ever be a part of the existing project. It's also clear that sending messages using any traditional email service means you've already given up the fight to protect your meta-data, so it's hard to see how bitmessage can be a worse option. Additionally, as of version 4, new addresses are no longer broadcast, removing the problem where addresses could be harvested by monitoring the network.įurther, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate an actual flaw with the cryptography used to encode the messages. Several proposals have been discussed for further addressing the issue and one assumes we will see one of them implemented before bitmessage reaches a 1.x version. Scalability is a known issue and after this attack, the protocol was improved to reduce the effect flooding has on the existing network. The referenced attempt at de-anonymization was 100% a social engineering attack which did not reveal any weakness in the protocol itself. If it has been demonstrated that acks actually allow an attacker to identify recipients, I'd like to see a link to a discussion about it. The messages themselves are encrypted along with all their meta-data. (It would still be a “tack-on” to a broken system though.Although I agree with the general response that it shouldn't be trusted, I think some of the concerns as stated make it sound worse than it is. All it would take is for the largest email providers to implement and others would quickly follow. However, that’s not an appropriate replacement for email at the moment.Īn email extension to the RFC could define a PKI standard for digital signatures that could be used to validate email sources. Public key cryptography can certainly help though. The problem isn’t something that can be solved by legislation. Given the legislation, I wouldn’t count on them being that smart. > Then we have to trust that the CRTC is smart enough to know the difference. There are already laws on the books to deal with it, and this legislation isn’t needed. The legislators passing this kind of legislation are completely ignorant of what email is and why it is broken. Email requires trust, and that simply doesn’t exist. It was never written for the kind of environment that we use it in. I’ve been screaming for years that email is broken. But it’s easily foiled by using SPF or TXT DNS records. I’ve written software to do it, and it takes no time at all. “Joe Jobs”, or spoofing email addresses, are simple to do. Canadians can use a web-based form to file their report or simply forward their spam email directly to During all these years bad bots or spiders have been harvesting our legitimate email accounts then faking our email and sending spam in our name. The information will be retained for at least three years (or up to ten years if the subject of an investigation). The Centre clearly states that it will not investigate all submissions, but rather use the information to identify enforcement targets. Initial reports indicate that hundreds of complaints have been filed daily. How will the CRTC identify abusive spammers? The government has established a Spam Reporting Centre that is currently accepting reports of commercial electronic messages sent without consent or with false or misleading content. I believe the best enforcement approach should be determined by the facts surrounding each particular case. Our objective is to secure compliance and prevent recidivism. Our responses to complaints will range from written warnings up to financial penalties or court actions. Our principal targets are abusive spammers and interlopers involved in botnets and, come January, malware and malicious URLs. This means you may still receive the occasional spam message after July 1st. The CRTC will focus on the most severe types of violations. We are not going to go after every indie rock band that’s trying to sell a new release to its fans. The CRTC, the lead regulatory agency, has made it clear that the fear-mongering of million dollar penalties for inadvertent violations is not going to happen. While no one should expect the law to eliminate spam, the goal much more modest: target the bad actors based in Canada and change the privacy culture by making opt-in consent the expected standard for consumer consents. With Canada’s anti-spam law now in effect, many are starting to ask about enforcement of the law.
0 kommentar(er)
