Researchers' Typosquatting Stole 20 GB of E-Mail

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers' Typosquatting Stole 20 GB of E-Mail

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 9, 2011 @04:58AM from the of-tips-and-icebergs dept.

NeverVotedBush writes "Two researchers who set up doppelganger domains to mimic legitimate domains belonging to Fortune 500 companies say they managed to vacuum up 20 gigabytes of misaddressed e-mail over six months. The intercepted correspondence included employee usernames and passwords, sensitive security information about the configuration of corporate network architecture that would be useful to hackers, affidavits and other documents related to litigation in which the companies were embroiled, and trade secrets, such as contracts for business transactions."

3 of 204 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Good test. by bmo · 2011-09-09 05:09 · Score: 3, Informative

>Let us see if that stupid boilerplate text has any legal standing
It doesn't. It didn't work for real mail so why should it work for email?
You get something unsolicited, and you are free to do with it whatever you choose. It's up to the sender to get the address right in all cases.
--
BMO
Re:Good test. by tomhudson · 2011-09-09 05:10 · Score: 3, Informative

The boilerplate has no legal force. First, it's like someone sending you unsolicited snail mail - anyone who sends you, say, an unsolicited book by snailmail can't then send you a demand to pay for it - it's already yours.
Additionally, boilerplate "contracts", even ones you agree to, are governed by different laws than regular contracts (search for "contract of adhesion" or "standard form contract").
Re:Good test. by duguk · 2011-09-09 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative

>Let us see if that stupid boilerplate text has any legal standing
It doesn't. It didn't work for real mail so why should it work for email?
You get something unsolicited, and you are free to do with it whatever you choose. It's up to the sender to get the address right in all cases.
-- BMO

Not true, at least in the UK:

Interfering with mail - Postal Services Act 2000 Section 84
Triable Summarily (Magistrates court)
6 Months and or a fine (Max)

A person commits an offence if they without reasonable excuse intentionally delay or open a postal packet in the course of transmission by post or intentionally opens a mail bag.

A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person's detriment and without reasonable excuse, opens a postal packet which they know or suspect to have been delivered incorrectly.

If you work for the Post service you could commit other offences under Section 83 triable either way (Magistrates or Crown court) and get a sentence of 2 years and or a fine.