this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
27 points (100.0% liked)

Infosec News

217 readers
58 users here now

A community posting Cybersecurity related articles.

founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, if they’re burner email addresses, fake names etc. provided to take advantage of promotions - then it really doesn’t matter.

If anything, it’s a good thing to salt the dataset to make it less valuable to would-be ne’er-do-wells.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I agree wholeheartedly, but how many on that list do you think are actually burners, and how many are kids?

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 19 hours ago

The optimist in me would like to think that a significant portion of them would be ‘dead’ emails, as kids would have used cringey addresses like xX_sephir0th_Xx@hotmail.com (I know I did! 😅); but honestly - given how pervasively online Gen Z/A are (and relatively tech illiterate), they’re probably almost all valid addresses.