3 ms·
At the very end they speculate it was a social engineering attack at their registrar that started last year and affected multiple domains. Oddly, the author say
by CapriciousCptl 6y ago
At the very end they speculate it was a social engineering attack at their registrar that started last year and affected multiple domains. Oddly, the author says they weren’t ”the injured party” and therefore didn’t ask the registrar to verify that. I’m not stating the registrar because there’s no supporting evidence that they were at fault but the author gave it in the article.
- DFHippie 6y agoHe says he himself was not the injured party, a legal term, so the information was not provided to him and he does not have a legal right to it.
- Firehawke 6y agoThis. There's only so much he can talk about from his side, and whoever legally owns the domain will have to provide information on what exactly happened-- should he wish to. That's also important, the owner may not want to talk about it in public (but that would just make the initial blog post even stranger, so I'm assuming they eventually WILL speak up about the rest..)