Skip to main content

What exactly hosts the mail on ijkfamily.com?

So what exactly hosts the mail on ijkfamily.com?

To sum up: Right now, it appears to be just the Trump organization email servers, which does not inspire confidence in their security.

Best as I can tell, as of 8pm Pacific time, it appears that it's hosted by the same servers running Trump org email, possibly hosted by "BBH Solutions" Here's what I did:

1) dig ijkfamily.com MX
yields:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
ijkfamily.com. 3055 IN MX 0 ijkpph01.ijkfamily.com.
ijkfamily.com. 3055 IN MX 0 ijkpph02.ijkfamily.com.

2) dig ijkpph01.ijkfamily.com
yields:
ijkpph01.ijkfamily.com. 3600 IN A 144.121.114.12

3) OK, let's try to telnet to port 25 and see what happens:

telnet 144.121.114.12 25
Trying 144.121.114.12...
Connected to 144.121.114.12.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 MAILHOST01.TRUMPORG.COM ESMTP Mon, 2 Oct 2017 23:03:16 -0400

4) TRUMPORG.COM? Well a server can be configured to say anything here, but, that's interesting. Let's do a sanity check here starting from the "trumporg.com" domain:
dig trumporg.com MX
-->trumporg.com. 3600 IN MX 0 mailhost01.trumporg.com.
dig mailhost01.trumporg.com
-->mailhost01.trumporg.com. 3600 IN A 144.121.114.12

Yup, same IP address as for ijkfamily.com, and therefore, same mail server. Presumably, it's whoever runs the Trump org IT, which is not in fact a commercial mail provider as far as i know. Various researchers in 2016 pointed out Trump org email servers were "horribly insecure" (https://thehackernews.com/2016/10/donald-trump-email-server.html, for example).

None of this inspires confidence.

5) Addendum: Going to http://whois.urih.com and plugging in the 144.121.114.12 address (to see who's hosting the actual servers, or at least proxying them) yields:

http://www.bbhsolutions.com/about-us/
BBH Solutions
2131 Jericho Tpke
Garden City, NY 11040

I don't know of any connection here but the DNS entries seem pretty conclusive -- this isn't being run by a commercial mail provider, but by Trump org internal IT (or vendor(s)).

[Originally published Oct 2, 2017 at https://plus.google.com/115608553892438743738/posts/Fj7vkKssvND]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with creation date metadata in PDF documents

Last night Rachel Maddow talked about an apparently fake NSA document "leaked" to her organization.  There's a lot of info there, I suggest you listen to the whole thing:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-to-news-orgs-heads-up-for-hoaxes-985491523709

There's a lot to unpack there but it looks like somebody tried to fool MSNBC into running with a fake accusation based on faked NSA documents, apparently based on cloning the document the Intercept published back on 6/5/2017, which to all appearances was itself a real NSA document in PDF form.

I think the main thrust of this story is chilling and really important to get straight -- some person or persons unknown is sending forged PDFs to news organization(s), apparently trying to get them to run stories based on forged documents.  And I completely agree with Maddow that she was right to send up a "signal flare" to all the news organizations to look out for forgeries.  Really, really, really import…

Why I'm No Longer On The Facebook

I've had a Facebook account for a few years, largely because other people were on it and were organizing useful communities there.  I stuck with it (not using it for private information) even while I grew increasingly concerned about Facebook's inability to be trustworthy guardians of private information.  The recent slap on the wrist from the FTC for Facebook violating the terms of its prior consent agreement made it clear that there wasn't going to be any penalty for Facebook for continuing to violate court orders.
Mark Zuckerberg claimed he had made a mistake in 2016 by ridiculing the idea of election interference on his platform, apologized, and claimed he was turning over a new leaf:
“After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it.  This is too important an issue to be dismissive.” It turns out, though, that was just Zuck ly…

Personal Web Discovery (aka Webfinger)

There's a particular discovery problem for open and distributed protocols such as OpenID, OAuth, Portable Contacts, Activity Streams, and OpenSocial.  It seems like a trivial problem, but it's one of the stumbling blocks that slows mass adoption.  We need to fix it.  So first, I'm going to name it:

The Personal Web Discovery Problem:  Given a person, how do I find out what services that person uses?
This does sound trivial, doesn't it?  And it is easy as long as you're service-centric; if you're building on top of social network X, there is no discovery problem, or at least only a trivial one that can be solved with proprietary APIs.  But what if you want to build on top of X,Y, and Z?  Well, you write code to make the user log in to each one so you can call those proprietary APIs... which means the user has to tell you their identity (and probably password) on each one... and the user has already clicked the Back button because this is complicated and annoying.