Hacker News Reader

> Each box has a 50 email limit (FIFO) which was immediately overwhelmed.

That makes me think the malicious author didn't expect this to spread as wide as it did.

It's my guess that Mailinator is extremely irrelevant to their plan.

They planned to propagate via BCC but they needed a "To:" address - preferably one that didn't bounce.

So they hit the "h" key awhile, then added @mailinator.com

Would it have made a difference if they made the "To:" a non-existent address? Would a bounce also prevent delivery to BCC recipients?

Technically, they have to defeat greylisting and server validity checks anyway to get mails accepted to most modern mail servers.

Why didn't they just send the email to the recipient? What does the BCC add in this context?

BCC recipients can't see (or contact) each other to mitigate the spread. If you look at the source code, it BCCs 99 contacts from the infected account per message.

This is probably some kid. cutpastemonkey the code from here:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/37321100/how-to-login-wit...

Probably sat in his bedroom right now waiting for the feds going 'wow that escalated quickly'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com