7 ms·

They don’t have plausible evidence anyway. Gmail has had bugs before with SPF/DKIM and will have some again for sure. Some google employees have direct and in

They don’t have plausible evidence anyway. Gmail has had bugs before with SPF/DKIM and will have some again for sure. Some google employees have direct and indirect access to signing keys or writing emails. Not many, and they have good controls, but still many people with the ability to sign messages. Not to mention a Trojan infiltration or account takeover, of which thousands (if not millions) a day occur. The DKIM evidence is, for legal purposes, a good hint but far from proof.

mthoms 6y ago
In the court of public opinion, the standard is not "100% proven beyond any reasonable doubt". Hence, blackmail can still be very effective if an accusation is highly plausible.
- beagle3 6y ago
  Yes, but it’s not DKIM or not DKIM that will make it plausible in the court of public opinion.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Current events prove otherwise. See Hunter Biden.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      I have not seen a single mention of DKIM w.r.t to Hunter Biden. Did you? Was any evidence presented? I couldn’t find any. I fail to see how admissibility or lack of it, in a court of law or of public opinion, has anything to do with DKIM+Hunter Biden. Can you elaborate?
      - legolas2412 6y ago
        I saw this news (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cybersecurity-expert-says-hunter-biden-email-about-former-vp-meeting-burisma-official-is-authentic https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cybersecurity-expert...) a few days before the election. There is also a github repo. I am not sure why the DKIM for all emails were not released, or why this did not catch more media coverage by other news organizations I consider more reliable (like NYT).
        beagle3 6y ago
        Thank you for this link, this did not come across my radar. From your link: > The only way the email could have been faked is if someone hacked into Google's servers, found the private key, and used it to reverse engineer the email's DKIM signature, Graham, said. https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-fixes-major-gmail-bug-seven-hours-after-exploit-details-go-public/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-fixes-major-gmail-bug-s... is from Aug 2020 and discusses an SPF/DMARC vulnerability that was in Google since forever (and though reported 4 months before public disclosure, was fixed only 7 hours after public disclosure). The last google DKIM bug I'm aware of was in 2012, so I can't counter the specific claim about DKIM with evidence, but the assertion that "the only way to spoof x is to hack and get the private key" is not any absolute truth. (P.S: I have seen no denial nor confirmation about the authenticity of the Hunter Biden data - only claims of Russian involvement. Make of that what you will. The DKIM is circumstantial data until there is confirmation or denial - especially, as you say, it's not all released).
        legolas2412 6y ago
        Sure, you raise very important points. I just found it weird that NYPost was happy just releasing the emails and not the DKIM, and when one was validated, it received literally no coverage. I thought it might catch steam after the election, but the literal silence is surprising to me. I am not insinuating any wrongdoing from anyone, just bringing it to your attention, as you claimed to not know about it.
        beagle3 6y ago
        Thank you. I indeed did not know about it. I do try to read all sides, but this did not come on my radar (Though I did not, before you posted this, google DKIM+Biden, I did read tens of articles about those emails mostly from republican leaning outlets, and it wasn't mentioned in any of those I read). But it does support my thesis that DKIM or no DKIM is not what gives (or doesn't give) any credence to the authenticity (or lack of it) -- here we have a high profile case, with DKIM validation (which a lot of people on this thread cleim "is considered proof by people who don't understand it") and it seems to make no difference even in the court of public opinion - those who accepted it, accpeted it without DKIM, and those who rejected it as russian disinformation, rejected it even with DKIM.
      - mthoms 6y ago
        >I have not seen a single mention of DKIM w.r.t to Hunter Biden. Did you? Was any evidence presented? I couldn’t find any. You really couldn't find any? Come on. Did you Google "DKIM Biden"?
        beagle3 6y ago
        I just did, and I have less than 15 related results in the first 4 pages, only two of which are sources I've ever heard of before (washingtonexaminer and nypost). I'm logged out of google, but it's been a while since I deleted my cookies. I've read literally hundreds of pieces on the hunter biden laptop, about half of them from republican leaning outlets, (I try to keep a balanced diet....) and none of them mentioned DKIM validation. (For the record: I don't live in the US, I don't watch television, but I do try to keep a balanced news diet)

mthoms 6y ago

In the court of public opinion, the standard is not "100% proven beyond any reasonable doubt". Hence, blackmail can still be very effective if an accusation is highly plausible.

beagle3 6y ago
Yes, but it’s not DKIM or not DKIM that will make it plausible in the court of public opinion.
- mthoms 6y ago
  Current events prove otherwise. See Hunter Biden.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    I have not seen a single mention of DKIM w.r.t to Hunter Biden. Did you? Was any evidence presented? I couldn’t find any. I fail to see how admissibility or lack of it, in a court of law or of public opinion, has anything to do with DKIM+Hunter Biden. Can you elaborate?
    - legolas2412 6y ago
      I saw this news (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cybersecurity-expert-says-hunter-biden-email-about-former-vp-meeting-burisma-official-is-authentic https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cybersecurity-expert...) a few days before the election. There is also a github repo. I am not sure why the DKIM for all emails were not released, or why this did not catch more media coverage by other news organizations I consider more reliable (like NYT).
      - beagle3 6y ago
        Thank you for this link, this did not come across my radar. From your link: > The only way the email could have been faked is if someone hacked into Google's servers, found the private key, and used it to reverse engineer the email's DKIM signature, Graham, said. https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-fixes-major-gmail-bug-seven-hours-after-exploit-details-go-public/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-fixes-major-gmail-bug-s... is from Aug 2020 and discusses an SPF/DMARC vulnerability that was in Google since forever (and though reported 4 months before public disclosure, was fixed only 7 hours after public disclosure). The last google DKIM bug I'm aware of was in 2012, so I can't counter the specific claim about DKIM with evidence, but the assertion that "the only way to spoof x is to hack and get the private key" is not any absolute truth. (P.S: I have seen no denial nor confirmation about the authenticity of the Hunter Biden data - only claims of Russian involvement. Make of that what you will. The DKIM is circumstantial data until there is confirmation or denial - especially, as you say, it's not all released).
        legolas2412 6y ago
        Sure, you raise very important points. I just found it weird that NYPost was happy just releasing the emails and not the DKIM, and when one was validated, it received literally no coverage. I thought it might catch steam after the election, but the literal silence is surprising to me. I am not insinuating any wrongdoing from anyone, just bringing it to your attention, as you claimed to not know about it.
        beagle3 6y ago
        Thank you. I indeed did not know about it. I do try to read all sides, but this did not come on my radar (Though I did not, before you posted this, google DKIM+Biden, I did read tens of articles about those emails mostly from republican leaning outlets, and it wasn't mentioned in any of those I read). But it does support my thesis that DKIM or no DKIM is not what gives (or doesn't give) any credence to the authenticity (or lack of it) -- here we have a high profile case, with DKIM validation (which a lot of people on this thread cleim "is considered proof by people who don't understand it") and it seems to make no difference even in the court of public opinion - those who accepted it, accpeted it without DKIM, and those who rejected it as russian disinformation, rejected it even with DKIM.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      >I have not seen a single mention of DKIM w.r.t to Hunter Biden. Did you? Was any evidence presented? I couldn’t find any. You really couldn't find any? Come on. Did you Google "DKIM Biden"?
      - beagle3 6y ago
        I just did, and I have less than 15 related results in the first 4 pages, only two of which are sources I've ever heard of before (washingtonexaminer and nypost). I'm logged out of google, but it's been a while since I deleted my cookies. I've read literally hundreds of pieces on the hunter biden laptop, about half of them from republican leaning outlets, (I try to keep a balanced diet....) and none of them mentioned DKIM validation. (For the record: I don't live in the US, I don't watch television, but I do try to keep a balanced news diet)