Also, no new details. This is pretty much a reprint of all the previously described garbage.
The author doesn't seem to be capable of fact checking any statements. Otherwise, they wouldn't be confusing what seems to be mistaken as obscure technical jargon for what is more likely the name of a company (splunk).
The entire article is incapable of plumbing deeper than the concept of an IP address, when delving into technical detail. There is a total absence of concepts such as payloads, exploits, vulnerabilities, zero-days, backdoors, root kits, remote administration tools or CVE numbers.
They try to restate that some horrible thing has happened, and yet, it still seems to be an image loaded via HTML in an email message.
Of course it could be that they even though they lack the ability to articulate how they were abused, it doesn't mean they weren't abused in the manner they seem to allege, but how does one reconcile such a situation?
Grabbing an IP address from an HTTP request for an image, and logging the details of that request on the server side, is not a malicious act. To suggest as much reeks of legal stalling and smoke screens.
Based on this article, I still don't believe this title.
All the quotes are from non technical people who I don't believe understand the difference.
It sounds like laughable bullshit.
Also, no new details. This is pretty much a reprint of all the previously described garbage.
The author doesn't seem to be capable of fact checking any statements. Otherwise, they wouldn't be confusing what seems to be mistaken as obscure technical jargon for what is more likely the name of a company (splunk).
https://splunk.com
The entire article is incapable of plumbing deeper than the concept of an IP address, when delving into technical detail. There is a total absence of concepts such as payloads, exploits, vulnerabilities, zero-days, backdoors, root kits, remote administration tools or CVE numbers.
They try to restate that some horrible thing has happened, and yet, it still seems to be an image loaded via HTML in an email message.
Of course it could be that they even though they lack the ability to articulate how they were abused, it doesn't mean they weren't abused in the manner they seem to allege, but how does one reconcile such a situation?
Grabbing an IP address from an HTTP request for an image, and logging the details of that request on the server side, is not a malicious act. To suggest as much reeks of legal stalling and smoke screens.
honestly thought I was reading the Duffel Blog for a second.
I still want to know what a plunk tool is.