 manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX
 ·AT&T Southwest
 ·CMA Access
| Mail Changes Coming! Got this email today:
Dear AT&T Yahoo! Member, We're making some security improvements to your AT&T Yahoo! service. These changes will affect members who send or receive email from a desktop or mobile client program, such as Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Outlook Express, Eudora, Apple Mail, or Thunderbird. To continue sending and receiving email with your desktop or mobile email client program, please take the following steps by March 30, 2007. 1. Open your email client program. 2. Locate the email account settings for your particular client. 3. Change the POP server to pop.att.yahoo.com. 4. Change the SMTP server to smtp.att.yahoo.com. 5. Change the SMTP port to 465 and check the option labeled Use an encrypted connection (SSL). 6. Change the POP3 port to 995 and check the option labeled Use an encrypted connection (SSL). For detailed instructions on making these changes in Outlook and Outlook Express, please click here. The web-based version of AT&T Yahoo! Mail is not affected by these changes and will continue to be available at » mail.yahoo.com. If you have questions, please call us at 1-800-ATT-2020. Sincerely, AT&T Yahoo! Customer Care
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! |
|
GB34
join:2004-12-08
Adrian, MO | Just now made the changes to Thunderbird settings and it worked just fine, both sending and receiving. |
|
|
|
M9878
join:2002-12-31
San Antonio, TX | reply to manfmmd
I have been using port 587 for outgoing mail with the old server. Will this new 465 be as secure? |
|
 jimkyleBtrieve GuyPremium
join:2002-10-20
Oklahoma City, OK
kudos:2 | Everything should be encrypted, in both directions, with these new settings. I just changed over this afternoon and it's working nicely for me... |
|
p51d007Naa-P51d Mustang
join:2002-06-07
Springfield, MO | reply to manfmmd
Works ok. Not sure if I needed to or not, but I added those
ports in NOD32 IMON |
|
 koma3504AdvocatePremium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to manfmmd
Oh so now our incoming pop scanner on whatever A/V wont scan incomoming email?? Like it is already with worldnet accounts. |
|
 d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | Are you saying that your A/V scanner won't handle an SSL connection? You can handle that problem by piping the email request through stunnel. so that it looks like this:
email client <-- A/V scanner <-- stunnel <-- POP3 server
It looks complicated and unwieldy. Even though the initial set up can be difficult, once configured the arrangement is set and forget. I've used this for five years connecting to Worldnet with SAProxy in place of the A/V scanner with nary a problem.
The A/V program just needs a configurable hostmap file to set the incoming POP3 port to something other than the standard port 110. |
|
 nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to koma3504
I tried an experiment in 2003, when the sobig.f virus was rampant.
(1) I made sure that email scanning was turned off in my AV (this was McAfee enterprise).
(2) I deliberately sent myself a copy of a virus infected mail. This was accepted by my mail program without warning, and showed an attachment.
(3) I then tried to run the attachment. The AV immediately caught it and deleted the virus.
Most AV software is setup to catch viruses as they are loaded into memory. This works even if mail virus scanning is turned off.
NOTE: I did this experiment running as a limited user. That limits the damage even if a virus gets through.
Personally, I leave email scanning turned off, but I use a limited user account for most thing, including email reading. |
|
koma3504AdvocatePremium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | reply to d_l
The average user would not even have a clue on how to do that. Like most older folks as a example.
What if it was a exicuteable that would have normaly been detected by the software of Their choosing that They pay for for just that reason. And now you get infected because it can't scan it as it downloads.
By default most leave outlook express to send and recieve at start up. which I personally prefer to have to click on send and recieve.
So Now you will have more infected machines infecting countless other machines on a daily basis.
--
† Koma †
If YOu Don't Think It's Possable!! It's Acually A Reality!! The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay!!
Ya Don't Know The signal Till Ya Ride It!!
Voice Break's There's Trouble!! |
|
manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
·CMA Access
| Not if the AV has active scanning ( I believe that most , if not all of them do if they are running in the background). Like nwrickert  stated, when it tries to load into memory, the AV will stop it.
--
huh? | AIM | Speaker Pelosi?!?...OH THE HUMANITY! |
|
koma3504AdvocatePremium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | Some malaware is desighned when clicked on to disable your A/V So you would still be SOL. when it would be caught before it could attempt to exicute it. as it is now detected with the POP scanner as it downloaded it and Quarantine or disable access to said file. |
|
d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | Well hey, if there is really a hard and fast deadline of March 30, 2007, and some people can't reconfigure their A/V scanner for the new ports and SSL, then they won't be getting ANY mail so they won't be infecting countless other machines on a daily basis. Problem solved. 
Frankly the problem falls back on the A/V programmers for not permitting the use of 995 and SSL for POP3 connections! All email clients have been able use those for the past several years. This change is for email security when people are using their email clients off the AT&T network, e.g. when traveling. Heck, Worldnet instituted this security for travelers years ago.
Maybe AT&T will leave a backdoor server such as pop.sbcglobal.net for those who can't use SSL and won't be leaving the AT&T network? |
|
koma3504AdvocatePremium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX | Yes your probally correct on it falls back to the A/V Venders.
But that doesnt mean Att should make the internet less secure for all of us.
Those same people will call support on how to change the ports and were right back at Sqare one. They will be infecting countless other computers on a daily bases |
|
nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to d_l
Frankly the problem falls back on the A/V programmers for not permitting the use of 995 and SSL for POP3 connections! I'll have to disagree with that.
The way A/V does the email scanning, is to setup a proxy and redirect the mail through the proxy. That allows it to view the data stream from the email client.
The trouble with port 995 and SSL, is that the A/V would only see an encrypted data stream. Thus it would be unable to detect any virus because the encryption would hide it.
It would require the email client not use encryption, and then have the A/V proxy handle the SSL encryption. Setting it up that way is a bit complex for the average user, even if the A/V provides such encryption support.
Simplest is to just turn off the incoming email scanning, and let the A/V catch the virus if there is an attempt to load it into memory. |
|
nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to koma3504
Some malaware is desighned when clicked on to disable your A/V. The malware still has to be loaded into memory before it can disable A/V.
The only way clicking on malware can disable properly functioning A/V, is if that malware is not currently recognized in the A/V virus tables. In such a case, incoming mail scanning provides no additional benefit, since the malware would not be recognized there either. |
|
koma3504AdvocatePremium
join:2004-06-22
North Richland Hills, TX
1 edit | said by nwrickert:Some malaware is desighned when clicked on to disable your A/V. The malware still has to be loaded into memory before it can disable A/V. The only way clicking on malware can disable properly functioning A/V, is if that malware is not currently recognized in the A/V virus tables. In such a case, incoming mail scanning provides no additional benefit, since the malware would not be recognized there either. I'll have to disagree with this I have seen where the a/v did catch it but it still disabled the A/V and the task manager and regedit.
It's better to catch it as its downloading so it will disable access or Quarantine/Strip the file out of the email.
Giving the User the protection of not even being able to click on it.
--
† Koma †
If YOu Don't Think It's Possable!! It's Acually A Reality!! The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay!!
Ya Don't Know The signal Till Ya Ride It!!
Voice Break's There's Trouble!! |
|
d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | reply to nwrickert
I implied that the A/V would handle the SSL encryption when I blamed the programmers for not permitting the use of 995 and SSL. The A/V program would make the SSL connection on 995, do its checking, and pipe the email to 127.0.0.1 or localhost. The A/V programs are doing this now only connecting unsecured on port 110 instead of 995.
The email client would then simply connect to 127.0.0.1 or localhost using port 110 instead of directly to the AT&T POP server. It really isn't that complicated! Especially if the A/V programmers would finally get their programs up-to-date! |
|
nwrickertsand groperPremium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| AT&T tells its customers to set their email client POP settings to use port 995 with SSL.
The customer is expected to read that as "don't touch the email client POP settings, but go into your A/V settings, and set port 995 and SSL for POP in your A/V."
Sorry, but non-technical users will find that quite confusing. |
|
| reply to manfmmd
interesting, I never got notice of this... I still have @sbcglobal.net addresses too - any idea of these will eventually change?
--
my blog: »dfwdraco76.blogspot.com
my website: »www.thelifeofbrian.info/ |
|
| I did not receive this notice either.
I did try it and I receive an warning on the Security Cert. name does not match. |
|
