O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems
-
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
And honestly, if you said "well I emailed you the info" I'd say "Um, no, you emailed me an announcement that I could get the info elsewhere, that's not the same."
This is something few others than Scott would say.
And that's why other people get socially engineered into ransomware attacks so easilyl
You get a +1 and a Thumbs up for that!
-
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
And honestly, if you said "well I emailed you the info" I'd say "Um, no, you emailed me an announcement that I could get the info elsewhere, that's not the same."
This is something few others than Scott would say.
Imagine if I call you and tell you that a package is in the mail. It would be insane to say that I sent you the info over the phone, right?
Why do people treat it differently there?
I don't think that's a good example. If you want to use mail - then I'd say something close would be the note left on your door that the package wasn't left because your porch wasn't a secure location, so we left it at the PO for you to pick up.
-
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@TAHIN said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in [O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems](/topic/9231/o365-and-encrypted-mail-to-other-email-the user almost certainly does not have a Microsoft account and instead of sending them their data we've are forcing them to sign up with a third party vendor who is holding their data until they get them as a customer (even if only as a free one.)
Yeah, the fact that it has to be an entire MS account on the part of the recipient would be a dealbreaker for me.
Yeah, I don't like that "a third party owns your data" thing. It is the same with Zix and everyone else. I'd find that very distasteful as a customer. It's my data, you have a secure way to send it to me already, why do I have to make an account with a third party to get my own data over a channel that is already secure?
Because it's not really secure. The admins of the system of email you use have full access to that data.
You are contradicting yourself. You just said a few posts up that Zix does exactly this anyway it the recipient's domain is also a Zix customer. What is on the other end simply does not matter. We all keep telling you that. It only matters that you send from your server to theirs are encrypted.
-
@Kelly said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Dashrender Just get hit by a Cryptowall variant. Everything is encrypted at rest then. Problem solved.
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/fc/fc7e1b09bcb54f86aa53394b8047e95261357c74410860202c8d6f3ea2787b53.jpg
-
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
And honestly, if you said "well I emailed you the info" I'd say "Um, no, you emailed me an announcement that I could get the info elsewhere, that's not the same."
This is something few others than Scott would say.
Imagine if I call you and tell you that a package is in the mail. It would be insane to say that I sent you the info over the phone, right?
Why do people treat it differently there?
I don't think that's a good example. If you want to use mail - then I'd say something close would be the note left on your door that the package wasn't left because your porch wasn't a secure location, so we left it at the PO for you to pick up.
No, that's nothing like it. You did NOT try to make a delivery and fail, you refused the agreed upon delivery method, went with a different one and only used the agreed upon one to notify me of the other one and then use terminology to sound like you did what we had agreed on.
It is exactly the phone example and nothing like your "you weren't home" example.
-
If this is a consistent and regular communication would setting up S/MIME be an option?
-
@Kelly said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
If this is a consistent and regular communication would setting up S/MIME be an option?
That's tantamount to GPG. So I would agree, when you get to that level, that kind of thing makes sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Kelly said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
If this is a consistent and regular communication would setting up S/MIME be an option?
That's tantamount to GPG. So I would agree, when you get to that level, that kind of thing makes sense.
How is S/MIME tantamount to GPG?
-
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Kelly said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
If this is a consistent and regular communication would setting up S/MIME be an option?
That's tantamount to GPG. So I would agree, when you get to that level, that kind of thing makes sense.
How is S/MIME tantamount to GPG?
By being essentially the same thing...
-
I'm now on the hunt for others who are suggesting, or agreeing that TLS is enough to get the OCR auditors off your back if/when you get one.
I found http://www.hitechanswers.net/7-hipaa-compliant-assumptions-can-trip/
Our email provider offers TLS encryption, so we’re secure in sending email attachments.
TLS encryption is a great tool to help secure emails in transit, but only works if both sides of the email transaction are configured properly. Many consumer email providers aren’t equipped to support TLS encryption for their subscribers. If your email provider is only using opportunistic TLS and the recipient doesn’t support TLS, emails with PHI could be transmitted with no encryption at all. You may want to think twice about sending PHI over email, particularly when other, more secure methods are available.So this is promising. Disable opportunistic TLS, i.e. require TLS and the problem is solved. I really do wonder how many systems we email that don't support TLS?
Time to look at the logs I guess - but that will have to wait until June - Deploying Win10 now.
-
Here's a vendor that basically makes it's living off TLS only connections for HIPAA compliant email delivery.
-
And I found instructions on how to implement TLS required (aka Forced TLS) on an Exchange server.
http://o365info.com/configuring-the-option-of-force-tls-in-exchange-on-premises-environment-part-4-12-tls/ -
Well this is three years old but this guy really doesn't like only using TLS - but he doesn't specifically mention locking your server down to sending TLS only.
http://betanews.com/2013/09/02/5-big-myths-surrounding-computer-security-and-hipaa-compliance/
It's about 1/3rd the way down.
frankly I see a lot of things I don't like/agree with in this writeup.
-
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
Well this is three years old but this guy really doesn't like only using TLS - but he doesn't specifically mention locking your server down to sending TLS only.
http://betanews.com/2013/09/02/5-big-myths-surrounding-computer-security-and-hipaa-compliance/
It's about 1/3rd the way down.
frankly I see a lot of things I don't like/agree with in this writeup.
He claims that GMail doesn't have TLS. That's definitely not true. His whole theory is based on assuming that no one does TLS, but who doesn't do TLS?
-
Overall, I skimmed, but he had a lot of good points and even points to us over on SW. But the TLS bit, and he admits he just researched it and might not know, seems to rest on the theory that no one offers TLS for the end users.
-
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
Well this is three years old but this guy really doesn't like only using TLS - but he doesn't specifically mention locking your server down to sending TLS only.
http://betanews.com/2013/09/02/5-big-myths-surrounding-computer-security-and-hipaa-compliance/
It's about 1/3rd the way down.
frankly I see a lot of things I don't like/agree with in this writeup.
He claims that GMail doesn't have TLS. That's definitely not true. His whole theory is based on assuming that no one does TLS, but who doesn't do TLS?
Well today, many do, But I won't say most do.
That write up is 3+ years ago. -
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
Overall, I skimmed, but he had a lot of good points and even points to us over on SW. But the TLS bit, and he admits he just researched it and might not know, seems to rest on the theory that no one offers TLS for the end users.
I agree, this part is majorly outdated - three years ago, They might not have. I'd have to dig through and find the blog posts when Google, etc, enabled it by default.
-
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
Overall, I skimmed, but he had a lot of good points and even points to us over on SW. But the TLS bit, and he admits he just researched it and might not know, seems to rest on the theory that no one offers TLS for the end users.
I agree, this part is majorly outdated - three years ago, They might not have. I'd have to dig through and find the blog posts when Google, etc, enabled it by default.
Google has had opportunistic TLS enabled since 2012 at least because I set up forced TLS with a single domain back in 2012 at a client that uses what ever Google calls the old Postini product.
-
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
@Dashrender said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
Well this is three years old but this guy really doesn't like only using TLS - but he doesn't specifically mention locking your server down to sending TLS only.
http://betanews.com/2013/09/02/5-big-myths-surrounding-computer-security-and-hipaa-compliance/
It's about 1/3rd the way down.
frankly I see a lot of things I don't like/agree with in this writeup.
He claims that GMail doesn't have TLS. That's definitely not true. His whole theory is based on assuming that no one does TLS, but who doesn't do TLS?
Well today, many do, But I won't say most do.
That write up is 3+ years ago.The real question is... who doesn't?
According to PC World, GMail was 100% by 2010, Yahoo offered it at the time of the above article and forced everyone to it by 2014: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2085700/as-yahoo-makes-encryption-standard-for-email-weak-implementation-seen.html
We know that Microsoft does. Rackspace does, I guarantee that Amazon does. Unless we are worried about the Zix kinds of companies avoiding it just to create insecurity in order to implement it again at high cost another way... who is there to not have TLS? Basically every major free player and anyone running their own systems either have it by force or must not have it by intention - in either case, not our concern.
The only question is... who is on hosted, insecure email? My guess is, no one that you can find.
-
@scottalanmiller said in O365 and encrypted mail to other email systems:
The only question is... who is on hosted, insecure email? My guess is, no one that you can find.
Those aren't the people I'm worried about - at least not the free hosted ones for sure.
I'm more concerned with hospital, lawyers, small clinics, etc and what they are using for email. As discussed here and elsewhere for years, these guys move at a glacial pace. Many of them are super cheap too, so they look at subscription plans like O365 and it's forever payments, and make the sometimes invalid assumption that it costs more than a self hosted solution (now personally - there many times where self hosted is cheaper, but it's also riskier) so they refuse to move. It's these people that we have no idea if they have TLS implemented or not. Of course we'd love to hope that they are, but until we try, we have no clue.
