Ransomware Victims That Pay Up Could Incur Steep Fines from Uncle Sam

October 1, 2020
58 Comments

Companies victimized by ransomware and firms that facilitate negotiations with ransomware extortionists could face steep fines from the U.S. federal government if the crooks who profit from the attack are already under economic sanctions, the Treasury Department warned today.

Image: Shutterstock

In its advisory (PDF), the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said “companies that facilitate ransomware payments to cyber actors on behalf of victims, including financial institutions, cyber insurance firms, and companies involved in digital forensics and incident response, not only encourage future ransomware payment demands but also may risk violating OFAC regulations.”

As financial losses from cybercrime activity and ransomware attacks in particular have skyrocketed in recent years, the Treasury Department has imposed economic sanctions on several cybercriminals and cybercrime groups, effectively freezing all property and interests of these persons (subject to U.S. jurisdiction) and making it a crime to transact with them.

A number of those sanctioned have been closely tied with ransomware and malware attacks, including the North Korean Lazarus Group; two Iranians thought to be tied to the SamSam ransomware attacks; Evgeniy Bogachev, the developer of Cryptolocker; and Evil Corp, a Russian cybercriminal syndicate that has used malware to extract more than $100 million from victim businesses.

Those that run afoul of OFAC sanctions without a special dispensation or “license” from Treasury can face several legal repercussions, including fines of up to $20 million. Continue reading →

Who’s Behind Monday’s 14-State 911 Outage?

September 29, 2020
44 Comments

Emergency 911 systems were down for more than an hour on Monday in towns and cities across 14 U.S. states. The outages led many news outlets to speculate the problem was related to Microsoft‘s Azure web services platform, which also was struggling with a widespread outage at the time. However, multiple sources tell KrebsOnSecurity the 911 issues stemmed from some kind of technical snafu involving Intrado and Lumen, two companies that together handle 911 calls for a broad swath of the United States.

Image: West.com

On the afternoon of Monday, Sept. 28, several states including Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington reported 911 outages in various cities and localities.

Multiple news reports suggested the outages might have been related to an ongoing service disruption at Microsoft. But a spokesperson for the software giant told KrebsOnSecurity, “we’ve seen no indication that the multi-state 911 outage was a result of yesterday’s Azure service disruption.”

Inquiries made with emergency dispatch centers at several of the towns and cities hit by the 911 outage pointed to a different source: Omaha, Neb.-based Intrado — until last year known as West Safety Communications — a provider of 911 and emergency communications infrastructure, systems and services to telecommunications companies and public safety agencies throughout the country.

Intrado did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But according to officials in Henderson County, NC, which experienced its own 911 failures yesterday, Intrado said the outage was the result of a problem with an unspecified service provider.

“On September 28, 2020, at 4:30pm MT, our 911 Service Provider observed conditions internal to their network that resulted in impacts to 911 call delivery,” reads a statement Intrado provided to county officials. “The impact was mitigated, and service was restored and confirmed to be functional by 5:47PM MT.  Our service provider is currently working to determine root cause.”

The service provider referenced in Intrado’s statement appears to be Lumen, a communications firm and 911 provider that until very recently was known as CenturyLink Inc. A look at the company’s status page indicates multiple Lumen systems experienced total or partial service disruptions on Monday, including its private and internal cloud networks and its control systems network.

Lumen’s status page indicates the company’s private and internal cloud and control system networks had outages or service disruptions on Monday.

In a statement provided to KrebsOnSecurity, Lumen blamed the issue on Intrado.

“At approximately 4:30 p.m. MT, some Lumen customers were affected by a vendor partner event that impacted 911 services in AZ, CO, NC, ND, MN, SD, and UT,” the statement reads. “Service was restored in less than an hour and all 911 traffic is routing properly at this time. The vendor partner is in the process of investigating the event.”

It may be no accident that both of these companies are now operating under new names, as this would hardly be the first time a problem between the two of them has disrupted 911 access for a large number of Americans. Continue reading →

Advertisement

Who is Tech Investor John Bernard?

September 25, 2020
32 Comments

John Bernard, the subject of a story here last week about a self-proclaimed millionaire investor who has bilked countless tech startups, appears to be a pseudonym for John Clifton Davies, a U.K. man who absconded from justice before being convicted on multiple counts of fraud in 2015. Prior to his conviction, Davies served 16 months in jail before being cleared of murdering his wife on their honeymoon in India.

The Private Office of John Bernard, which advertises itself as a capital investment firm based in Switzerland, has for years been listed on multiple investment sites as the home of a millionaire who made his fortunes in the dot-com boom 20 years ago and who has oodles of cash to invest in tech startups.

But as last week’s story noted, Bernard’s investment company is a bit like a bad slot machine that never pays out. KrebsOnSecurity interviewed multiple investment brokers who all told the same story: After promising to invest millions after one or two phone calls and with little or no pushback, Bernard would insist that companies pay tens of thousands of dollars worth of due diligence fees up front.

However, the due diligence company he insisted on using — another Swiss firm called Inside Knowledge — also was secretly owned by Bernard, who would invariably pull out of the deal after receiving the due diligence money.

Neither Mr. Bernard nor anyone from his various companies responded to multiple requests for comment over the past few weeks. What’s more, virtually all of the employee profiles tied to Bernard’s office have since last week removed those firms from their work experience as listed on their LinkedIn resumes — or else deleted their profiles altogether.

Sometime on Thursday John Bernard’s main website — the-private-office.ch — replaced the content on its homepage with a note saying it was closing up shop.

“We are pleased to announce that we are currently closing The Private Office fund as we have reached our intended investment level and that we now plan to focus on helping those companies we have invested into to grow and succeed,” the message reads.

As noted in last week’s story, the beauty of a scam like the one multiple investment brokers said was being run by Mr. Bernard is that companies bilked by small-time investment schemes rarely pursue legal action, mainly because the legal fees involved can quickly surpass the losses. What’s more, most victims will likely be too ashamed to come forward.

Also, John Bernard’s office typically did not reach out to investment brokers directly. Rather, he had his firm included on a list of angel investors focused on technology companies, so those seeking investments usually came to him.

Finally, multiple sources interviewed for this story said Bernard’s office offered a finders fee for any investment leads that brokers brought his way. While such commissions are not unusual, the amount promised — five percent of the total investment in a given firm that signed an agreement — is extremely generous. However, none of the investment brokers who spoke to KrebsOnSecurity were able to collect those fees, because Bernard’s office never actually consummated any of the deals they referred to him. Continue reading →

Microsoft: Attackers Exploiting ‘ZeroLogon’ Windows Flaw

September 24, 2020
19 Comments

Microsoft warned on Wednesday that malicious hackers are exploiting a particularly dangerous flaw in Windows Server systems that could be used to give attackers the keys to the kingdom inside a vulnerable corporate network. Microsoft’s warning comes just days after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued an emergency directive instructing all federal agencies to patch the vulnerability by Sept. 21 at the latest.

DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) said in the directive that it expected imminent exploitation of the flaw — CVE-2020-1472 and dubbed “ZeroLogon” — because exploit code which can be used to take advantage of it was circulating online.

Last night, Microsoft’s Security Intelligence unit tweeted that the company is “tracking threat actor activity using exploits for the CVE-2020-1472 Netlogon vulnerability.”

“We have observed attacks where public exploits have been incorporated into attacker playbooks,” Microsoft said. “We strongly recommend customers to immediately apply security updates.”

Microsoft released a patch for the vulnerability in August, but it is not uncommon for businesses to delay deploying updates for days or weeks while testing to ensure the fixes do not interfere with or disrupt specific applications and software.

CVE-2020-1472 earned Microsoft’s most-dire “critical” severity rating, meaning attackers can exploit it with little or no help from users. The flaw is present in most supported versions of Windows Server, from Server 2008 through Server 2019. Continue reading →

Govt. Services Firm Tyler Technologies Hit in Apparent Ransomware Attack

September 23, 2020
66 Comments

Tyler Technologies, a Texas-based company that bills itself as the largest provider of software and technology services to the United States public sector, is battling a network intrusion that has disrupted its operations. The company declined to discuss the exact cause of the disruption, but their response so far is straight out of the playbook for responding to ransomware incidents.

Plano, Texas-based Tyler Technologies [NYSE:TYL] has some 5,300 employees and brought in revenues of more than $1 billion in 2019. It sells a broad range of services to state and local governments, including appraisal and tax software, integrated software for courts and justice agencies, enterprise financial software systems, public safety software, records/document management software solutions and transportation software solutions for schools.

Earlier today, the normal content on tylertech.com was replaced with a notice saying the site was offline. In a statement provided to KrebsOnSecurity after the markets closed central time, Tyler Tech said early this morning the company became aware that an unauthorized intruder had gained access to its phone and information technology systems.

“Upon discovery and out of an abundance of caution, we shut down points of access to external systems and immediately began investigating and remediating the problem,” Tyler’s Chief Information Officer Matt Bieri said. “We have since engaged outside IT security and forensics experts to conduct a detailed review and help us securely restore affected equipment. We are implementing enhanced monitoring systems, and we have notified law enforcement.”

“At this time and based on the evidence available to us to-date, all indications are that the impact of this incident is limited to our internal network and phone systems,” their statement continues. “We currently have no reason to believe that any client data, client servers, or hosted systems were affected.” Continue reading →

Chinese Antivirus Firm Was Part of APT41 ‘Supply Chain’ Attack

September 17, 2020
28 Comments

The U.S. Justice Department this week indicted seven Chinese nationals for a decade-long hacking spree that targeted more than 100 high-tech and online gaming companies. The government alleges the men used malware-laced phishing emails and “supply chain” attacks to steal data from companies and their customers. One of the alleged hackers was first profiled here in 2012 as the owner of a Chinese antivirus firm.

Image: FBI

Charging documents say the seven men are part of a hacking group known variously as “APT41,” “Barium,” “Winnti,” “Wicked Panda,” and “Wicked Spider.” Once inside of a target organization, the hackers stole source code, software code signing certificates, customer account data and other information they could use or resell.

APT41’s activities span from the mid-2000s to the present day. Earlier this year, for example, the group was tied to a particularly aggressive malware campaign that exploited recent vulnerabilities in widely-used networking products, including flaws in Cisco and D-Link routers, as well as Citrix and Pulse VPN appliances. Security firm FireEye dubbed that hacking blitz “one of the broadest campaigns by a Chinese cyber espionage actor we have observed in recent years.”

The government alleges the group monetized its illicit access by deploying ransomware and “cryptojacking” tools (using compromised systems to mine cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin). In addition, the gang targeted video game companies and their customers in a bid to steal digital items of value that could be resold, such as points, powers and other items that could be used to enhance the game-playing experience.

APT41 was known to hide its malware inside fake resumes that were sent to targets. It also deployed more complex supply chain attacks, in which they would hack a software company and modify the code with malware.

“The victim software firm — unaware of the changes to its product, would subsequently distribute the modified software to its third-party customers, who were thereby defrauded into installing malicious software code on their own computers,” the indictments explain.

While the various charging documents released in this case do not mention it per se, it is clear that members of this group also favored another form of supply chain attacks — hiding their malware inside commercial tools they created and advertised as legitimate security software and PC utilities.

One of the men indicted as part of APT41 — now 35-year-old Tan DaiLin — was the subject of a 2012 KrebsOnSecurity story that sought to shed light on a Chinese antivirus product marketed as Anvisoft. At the time, the product had been “whitelisted” or marked as safe by competing, more established antivirus vendors, although the company seemed unresponsive to user complaints and to questions about its leadership and origins.

Tan DaiLin, a.k.a. “Wicked Rose,” in his younger years. Image: iDefense

Anvisoft claimed to be based in California and Canada, but a search on the company’s brand name turned up trademark registration records that put Anvisoft in the high-tech zone of Chengdu in the Sichuan Province of China.

A review of Anvisoft’s website registration records showed the company’s domain originally was created by Tan DaiLin, an infamous Chinese hacker who went by the aliases “Wicked Rose” and “Withered Rose.” At the time of story, DaiLin was 28 years old.

That story cited a 2007 report (PDF) from iDefense, which detailed DaiLin’s role as the leader of a state-sponsored, four-man hacking team called NCPH (short for Network Crack Program Hacker). According to iDefense, in 2006 the group was responsible for crafting a rootkit that took advantage of a zero-day vulnerability in Microsoft Word, and was used in attacks on “a large DoD entity” within the USA.

“Wicked Rose and the NCPH hacking group are implicated in multiple Office based attacks over a two year period,” the iDefense report stated.

When I first scanned Anvisoft at Virustotal.com back in 2012, none of the antivirus products detected it as suspicious or malicious. But in the days that followed, several antivirus products began flagging it for bundling at least two trojan horse programs designed to steal passwords from various online gaming platforms. Continue reading →

Two Russians Charged in $17M Cryptocurrency Phishing Spree

September 16, 2020
22 Comments

U.S. authorities today announced criminal charges and financial sanctions against two Russian men accused of stealing nearly $17 million worth of virtual currencies in a series of phishing attacks throughout 2017 and 2018 that spoofed websites for some of the most popular cryptocurrency exchanges.


The Justice Department unsealed indictments against Russian nationals Danil Potekhin and Dmitirii Karasavidi, alleging the duo was responsible for a sophisticated phishing and money laundering campaign that resulted in the theft of $16.8 million in cryptocurrencies and fiat money from victims.

Separately, the U.S. Treasury Department announced economic sanctions against Potekhin and Karasavidi, effectively freezing all property and interests of these persons (subject to U.S. jurisdiction) and making it a crime to transact with them.

According to the indictments, the two men set up fake websites that spoofed login pages for the currency exchanges Binance, Gemini and Poloniex. Armed with stolen login credentials, the men allegedly stole more than $10 million from 142 Binance victims, $5.24 million from 158 Poloniex users, and $1.17 million from 42 Gemini customers.

Prosecutors say the men then laundered the stolen funds through an array of intermediary cryptocurrency accounts — including compromised and fictitiously created accounts — on the targeted cryptocurrency exchange platforms. In addition, the two are alleged to have artificially inflated the value of their ill-gotten gains by engaging in cryptocurrency price manipulation using some of the stolen funds.

For example, investigators alleged Potekhin and Karasavidi used compromised Poloniex accounts to place orders to purchase large volumes of “GAS,” the digital currency token used to pay the cost of executing transactions on the NEO blockchain — China’s first open source blockchain platform.

“Using digital crurency in one victim Poloniex account, they placed an order to purchase approximately 8,000 GAS, thereby immediately increasing the market price of GAS from approximately $18 to $2,400,” the indictment explains.

Potekhin and others then converted the artificially inflated GAS in their own fictitious Poloniex accounts into other cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum (ETH) and Bitcoin (BTC). From the complaint:

“Before the Eight Fictitious Poloniex Accounts were frozen, POTEKHIN and others transferred approximately 759 ETH to nine digital currency addresses. Through a sophisticated and layered manner, the ETH from these nine digital currency addresses was sent through multiple intermediary accounts, before ultimately being deposited into a Bitfinex account controlled by Karasavidi.”

The Treasury’s action today lists several of the cryptocurrency accounts thought to have been used by the defendants. Searching on some of those accounts at various cryptocurrency transaction tracking sites points to a number of phishing victims.

“I would like to blow your bitch ass away, if you even had the balls to show yourself,” exclaimed one victim, posting in a comment on the Etherscan lookup service. Continue reading →

Due Diligence That Money Can’t Buy

September 14, 2020
42 Comments

Most of us automatically put our guard up when someone we don’t know promises something too good to be true. But when the too-good-to-be-true thing starts as our idea, sometimes that instinct fails to kick in. Here’s the story of how companies searching for investors to believe in their ideas can run into trouble.

Nick is an investment banker who runs a firm that helps raise capital for its clients (Nick is not his real name, and like other investment brokers interviewed in this story spoke with KrebsOnSecurity on condition of anonymity). Nick’s company works primarily in the mergers and acquisitions space, and his job involves advising clients about which companies and investors might be a good bet.

In one recent engagement, a client of Nick’s said they’d reached out to an investor from Switzerland — The Private Office of John Bernard — whose name was included on a list of angel investors focused on technology startups.

“We ran into a group that one of my junior guys found on a list of data providers that compiled information on investors,” Nick explained. “I told them what we do and said we were working with a couple of companies that were interested in financing, and asked them to send some materials over. The guy had a British accent, claimed to have made his money in tech and in the dot-com boom, and said he’d sold a company to Geocities that was then bought by Yahoo.”

But Nick wasn’t convinced Mr. Bernard’s company was for real. Nick and his colleagues couldn’t locate the company Mr. Bernard claimed to have sold, and while Bernard said he was based in Switzerland, virtually all of his staff were all listed on LinkedIn as residing in Ukraine.

Nick told his clients about his reservations, but each nevertheless was excited that someone was finally interested enough to invest in their ideas.

“The CEO of the client firm said, ‘This is great, someone is willing to believe in our company’,” Nick said. “After one phone call, he made an offer to invest tens of millions of dollars. I advised them not to pursue it, and one of the clients agreed. The other was very gung ho.”

When companies wish to link up with investors, what follows involves a process known as “due diligence” wherein each side takes time to research the other’s finances, management, and any lurking legal liabilities or risks associated with the transaction. Typically, each party will cover their own due diligence costs, but sometimes the investor or the company that stands to benefit from the transaction will cover the associated fees for both parties.

Nick said he wasn’t surprised when Mr. Bernard’s office insisted that its due diligence fees of tens of thousands of dollars be paid up front by his client. And he noticed the website for the due diligence firm that Mr. Bernard suggested using — insideknowledge.ch — also was filled with generalities and stock photos, just like John Bernard’s private office website.

“He said we used to use big accounting firms for this but found them to be ineffective,” Nick said. “The company they wanted us to use looked like a real accounting firm, but we couldn’t find any evidence that they were real. Also, we asked to see an investment portfolio. He said he’s invested in over 30 companies, so I would expect to see a document that says, “here’s the various companies we’ve invested in.” But instead, we got two recommendation letters on letterhead saying how great these investors were.”

KrebsOnSecurity located two other investment bankers who had similar experiences with Mr. Bernard’s office.

“A number of us have been comparing notes on this guy, and he never actually delivers,” said one investment banker who asked not to be named because he did not have permission from his clients. “In each case, he agreed to invest millions with no push back, the documentation submitted from their end was shabby and unprofessional, and they seem focused on companies that will write a check for due diligence fees. After their fees are paid, the experience has been an ever increasing and inventive number of reasons why the deal can’t close, including health problems and all sorts of excuses.”

Mr. Bernard’s investment firm did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The one technology company this author could tie to Mr. Bernard was secureswissdata.com, a Swiss concern that provides encrypted email and data services. The domain was registered in 2015 by Inside Knowledge. In February 2020, Secure Swiss Data was purchased in an “undisclosed multimillion buyout” by SafeSwiss Secure Communication AG.

SafeSwiss co-CEO and Secure Swiss Data founder David Bruno said he couldn’t imagine that Mr. Bernard would be involved in anything improper.

“I can confirm that I know John Bernard and have always found him very honourable and straight forward in my dealings with him as an investor,” Bruno said. “To be honest with you, I struggle to believe that he would, or would even need to be, involved in the activity you mentioned, and quite frankly I’ve never heard about those things.” Continue reading →

Microsoft Patch Tuesday, Sept. 2020 Edition

September 8, 2020
56 Comments

Microsoft today released updates to remedy nearly 130 security vulnerabilities in its Windows operating system and supported software. None of the flaws are known to be currently under active exploitation, but 23 of them could be exploited by malware or malcontents to seize complete control of Windows computers with little or no help from users.

The majority of the most dangerous or “critical” bugs deal with issues in Microsoft’s various Windows operating systems and its web browsers, Internet Explorer and Edge. September marks the seventh month in a row Microsoft has shipped fixes for more than 100 flaws in its products, and the fourth month in a row that it fixed more than 120.

Among the chief concerns for enterprises this month is CVE-2020-16875, which involves a critical flaw in the email software Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 and 2019. An attacker could leverage the Exchange bug to run code of his choosing just by sending a booby-trapped email to a vulnerable Exchange server.

“That doesn’t quite make it wormable, but it’s about the worst-case scenario for Exchange servers,” said Dustin Childs, of Trend Micro’s Zero Day Initiative. “We have seen the previously patched Exchange bug CVE-2020-0688 used in the wild, and that requires authentication. We’ll likely see this one in the wild soon. This should be your top priority.”

Also not great for companies to have around is CVE-2020-1210, which is a remote code execution flaw in supported versions of Microsoft Sharepoint document management software that bad guys could attack by uploading a file to a vulnerable Sharepoint site. Security firm Tenable notes that this bug is reminiscent of CVE-2019-0604, another Sharepoint problem that’s been exploited for cybercriminal gains since April 2019.

Microsoft fixed at least five other serious bugs in Sharepoint versions 2010 through 2019 that also could be used to compromise systems running this software. And because ransomware purveyors have a history of seizing upon Sharepoint flaws to wreak havoc inside enterprises, companies should definitely prioritize deployment of these fixes, says Alan Liska, senior security architect at Recorded Future. Continue reading →

The Joys of Owning an ‘OG’ Email Account

September 2, 2020
265 Comments

When you own a short email address at a popular email provider, you are bound to get gobs of spam, and more than a few alerts about random people trying to seize control over the account. If your account name is short and desirable enough, this kind of activity can make the account less reliable for day-to-day communications because it tends to bury emails you do want to receive. But there is also a puzzling side to all this noise: Random people tend to use your account as if it were theirs, and often for some fairly sensitive services online.

About 16 years ago — back when you actually had to be invited by an existing Google Mail user in order to open a new Gmail account — I was able to get hold of a very short email address on the service that hadn’t yet been reserved. Naming the address here would only invite more spam and account hijack attempts, but let’s just say the account name has something to do with computer hacking.

Because it’s a relatively short username, it is what’s known as an “OG” or “original gangster” account. These account names tend to be highly prized among certain communities, who busy themselves with trying to hack them for personal use or resale. Hence, the constant account takeover requests.

What is endlessly fascinating is how many people think it’s a good idea to sign up for important accounts online using my email address. Naturally, my account has been signed up involuntarily for nearly every dating and porn website there is. That is to be expected, I suppose.

But what still blows me away is the number of financial and other sensitive accounts I could access if I were of a devious mind. This particular email address has accounts that I never asked for at H&R Block, Turbotax, TaxAct, iTunes, LastPass, Dashlane, MyPCBackup, and Credit Karma, to name just a few. I’ve lost count of the number of active bank, ISP and web hosting accounts I can tap into.

I’m perpetually amazed by how many other Gmail users and people on similarly-sized webmail providers have opted to pick my account as a backup address if they should ever lose access to their inbox. Almost certainly, these users just lazily picked my account name at random when asked for a backup email — apparently without fully realizing the potential ramifications of doing so. At last check, my account is listed as the backup for more than three dozen Yahoo, Microsoft and other Gmail accounts and their associated file-sharing services.

If for some reason I ever needed to order pet food or medications online, my phantom accounts at Chewy, Coupaw and Petco have me covered. If any of my Weber grill parts ever fail, I’m set for life on that front. The Weber emails I periodically receive remind me of a piece I wrote many years ago for The Washington Post, about companies sending email from [companynamehere]@donotreply.com, without considering that someone might own that domain. Someone did, and the results were often hilarious.

It’s probably a good thing I’m not massively into computer games, because the online gaming (and gambling) profiles tied to my old Gmail account are innumerable.

For several years until recently, I was receiving the monthly statements intended for an older gentleman in India who had the bright idea of using my Gmail account to manage his substantial retirement holdings. Thankfully, after reaching out to him he finally removed my address from his profile, although he never responded to questions about how this might have happened.

On balance, I’ve learned it’s better just not to ask. On multiple occasions, I’d spend a few minutes trying to figure out if the email addresses using my Gmail as a backup were created by real people or just spam bots of some sort. And then I’d send a polite note to those that fell into the former camp, explaining why this was a bad idea and ask what motivated them to do so.

Perhaps because my Gmail account name includes a hacking term, the few responses I’ve received have been less than cheerful. Despite my including detailed instructions on how to undo what she’d done, one woman in Florida screamed in an ALL CAPS reply that I was trying to phish her and that her husband was a police officer who would soon hunt me down. Alas, I still get notifications anytime she logs into her Yahoo account.

Probably for the same reason the Florida lady assumed I was a malicious hacker, my account constantly gets requests from random people who wish to hire me to hack into someone else’s account. I never respond to those either, although I’ll admit that sometimes when I’m procrastinating over something the temptation arises.

Losing access to your inbox can open you up to a cascading nightmare of other problems. Having a backup email address tied to your inbox is a good idea, but obviously only if you also control that backup address. Continue reading →