I wonder if google will be just as open if the state sponsoring the attack was US.
The US doesn't need to attack, they can just use their legal backdoor.
Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
11–20 of 123 posts
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#12What kind of productive, actionable result can this notification lead to for a regular user? "Oh, my government may-or-may-not be attacking me, I'm not even sure because it doesn't say, in any case I better just push this magic fix-it-all-up button I have right here." I can't see how this can be differentiated from simple underhanded FUD-driven political activism.
2-factor logins require, in addition to 'knowing' the password, to prove that you 'have' a token (e.g. mobile phone possession). It makes your account significantly harder to crack.
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#13aka China, right?
Mostly! I believe there's been some tampering noticed in various Middle Eastern countries (such as Iran and Syria) as well, and I suspect this warning is targeted at them too.
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#14Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#15What kind of productive, actionable result can this notification lead to for a regular user? "Oh, my government may-or-may-not be attacking me, I'm not even sure because it doesn't say, in any case I better just push this magic fix-it-all-up button I have right here." I can't see how this can be differentiated from simple underhanded FUD-driven political activism.
Apart from this being very empowering to the individual user, it is also a wake up call to states who have any interest in participating in an international community that they cannot act without consequences, potentially making it an effective deterrent to this kind of behavior in the future.
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#16Why the emphasis on state sponsored attacks? (I am aware of stuxnet/flame/sanger's book) If google knows I am being targeted by a non-state actor are they choosing not to notify me? Are we going back to a cold war mentality where the only credible attacks are state sponsored?
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#17Google has stepped it up against China. First warning users about search terms that trigger the Great Firewall and now this. Very interesting. (Of course China wouldn't be the only one, but they have a history hacking into people's Google accounts and I have to imagine are a major motivator in this feature.)
Another one that comes into mind is probably author or Flame and Stuxnet?
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#18What kind of productive, actionable result can this notification lead to for a regular user? "Oh, my government may-or-may-not be attacking me, I'm not even sure because it doesn't say, in any case I better just push this magic fix-it-all-up button I have right here." I can't see how this can be differentiated from simple underhanded FUD-driven political activism.
Maybe you could stop using Gmail or stop discussing next week's protests.
Or even start including deliberately misleading information in your communications.
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#19Why the emphasis on state sponsored attacks? (I am aware of stuxnet/flame/sanger's book) If google knows I am being targeted by a non-state actor are they choosing not to notify me? Are we going back to a cold war mentality where the only credible attacks are state sponsored?
Presumably if it's a serious attack by a non-state actor, Google's lawyers are on the job in the relevant state(s) getting police involved, for whatever that's worth.
In the state actor case, there's little or nothing they can do to make it stop happening, hence the special warning.
It's also a high-profile jab at the unnamed state actors, which is nice.
Re: Gmail security warnings for suspected state-sponsored attacks
#20I wonder if google will be just as open if the state sponsoring the attack was US.
In the US this is done with National Security Letters and Court Orders, both of which usually include gag orders - so no.