ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    John McAfee Says Ashley Madison Hack was a Female Insider

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved News
    social engineeringsecurityashley madisonjohn mcafeesoftopedia
    10 Posts 6 Posters 2.5k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • mlnewsM
      mlnews
      last edited by

      Softopedia reports on John McAfee's analysis of the Ashley Madison breach and feels that it is certainly and inside job and almost certainly a singular woman who was behind it.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • MattSpellerM
        MattSpeller
        last edited by MattSpeller

        I too can make educated guesses - where's the proof.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          Forensics never involves proof. That would make it science.

          DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DashrenderD
            Dashrender @scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            @scottalanmiller said:

            Forensics never involves proof. That would make it science.

            OK please explain that one to me.

            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @Dashrender
              last edited by

              @Dashrender said:

              @scottalanmiller said:

              Forensics never involves proof. That would make it science.

              OK please explain that one to me.

              Forensics is the research of things that cannot be observed. It's looking at the results to determine how things came to be. It can be pretty accurate, but it can't be proven. Like looking at footprints and guessing who walked there.

              Science, by definition, includes observation. You can guess how things work, but it is not considered science until it is reliably observable.

              Forensics that can be observed turn into science. The two are related, but the need to guess and only guess in the one case and the ability to test and observe in the other is what separates them.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • stacksofplatesS
                stacksofplates
                last edited by

                Piggy backing on one of the other threads. If it was an insider, how do you think the FTC would have grounds to sue? I don't think there is a way to stop something like this unless no employees have access to the data.

                scottalanmillerS PSX_DefectorP 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
                  last edited by

                  @johnhooks said:

                  Piggy backing on one of the other threads. If it was an insider, how do you think the FTC would have grounds to sue? I don't think there is a way to stop something like this unless no employees have access to the data.

                  That it is an insider would not itself be reason TO sue or a reason NOT to sue. FTC can sue for noncompetiveness. So if the insider had access because of a lack of proper security, yes they could sue. If security was up to par, no they cannot.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • PSX_DefectorP
                    PSX_Defector @stacksofplates
                    last edited by

                    @johnhooks said:

                    Piggy backing on one of the other threads. If it was an insider, how do you think the FTC would have grounds to sue? I don't think there is a way to stop something like this unless no employees have access to the data.

                    Be kind of hard for the FTC to sue a Canadian company.

                    scottalanmillerS stacksofplatesS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @PSX_Defector
                      last edited by

                      @PSX_Defector said:

                      @johnhooks said:

                      Piggy backing on one of the other threads. If it was an insider, how do you think the FTC would have grounds to sue? I don't think there is a way to stop something like this unless no employees have access to the data.

                      Be kind of hard for the FTC to sue a Canadian company.

                      That, too, would make it hard.

                      Canada already sued them last week.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stacksofplatesS
                        stacksofplates @PSX_Defector
                        last edited by

                        @PSX_Defector said:

                        @johnhooks said:

                        Piggy backing on one of the other threads. If it was an insider, how do you think the FTC would have grounds to sue? I don't think there is a way to stop something like this unless no employees have access to the data.

                        Be kind of hard for the FTC to sue a Canadian company.

                        Haha good point. It was just a hypothetical about this type of situation.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • 1 / 1
                        • First post
                          Last post