4 ms·
The problem is, once such an online service is well known, the hackers could just blacklist the host name(s) to the service so no alerting messages are sent. I
by walkon 15y ago
The problem is, once such an online service is well known, the hackers could just blacklist the host name(s) to the service so no alerting messages are sent. I think this is something that would have to live on the actual Gmail servers so it is not detectable from the client-side.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mootothemax 15y agoThe problem is, once such an online service is well known, the hackers could just blacklist the host name(s) to the service so no alerting messages are sent. Agreed, this is another problem. However, I think that it also depends on who you think might be targeting you. I know that a few years ago, plenty of everyday non-technical folks "hacked" their ex-girlfriend or boyfriends' accounts by doing a password reset with known details. If the aim is to get notified of similar issues (e.g. my home laptop accessing during office hours), such a service could have merit.
- pyrhho 15y agoThe other catch with the ex-girlfriend/boyfriend is that they are not really after bank details so the Barclay's email won't interest them as it would the professional criminal... The problem with the canary is that it is trying to tailor a trap to someone without knowing much about them. Which is another reason why the IP-based approach works better.
- jeffh 15y agoThe IP-based approach seems flawed from my pov as someone who travels often. I'm always checking in from various IP addresses. Even locals who like to log in from the nearest cafe would get false positives, while the canary approach is more targeted.
- matlaber 15y agoYou would get a false positive just after logging in from an unknown IP, but you would also know that it was due to your own actions (and could therefore ignore it).