u/heartgoldt20

Let’s hear everyone’s plan, since so many people keep saying we need more players but when asked what, where and who most people fall quiet so for anyone feel free to share your thoughts and ideas.

So part of my job is running phishing simulations to test how our staff respond. Normally I keep it pretty tame fake shipping notifications, "your password expires today," that kind of thing. This time I decided to go for realism (Template from the campaign solution we use that was edited a bit). I spoofed our CEO's email using a classic homoglyph trick swapped the "m" for "rn" and the "i" for "l" in the domain, so at a glance it looked completely legit unless you were really staring at it. Subject line: something about an upcoming reorganization.

The trick was in the header and CEO behaviour. I sent it to every high-risk profile in the org, but the message body/header made it clear it was only meant for management as in, "this is confidential, intended for leadership only." Turns out that's basically catnip. People who technically weren't supposed to see it were the most curious to open it and see what they "weren't supposed to know." Classic forbidden-fruit effect, and it worked way better than I expected. Besides also the CEO never e-mailing these people directly which is already alien behaviour.

The email said the attached file had details on the restructuring, but to view it you'd need to log in with your credentials "for confidentiality reasons." Urgency + exclusivity + authority + a little FOMO, all in one shot.

the click-through and credential-entry rate was rough. Genuinely uncomfortable to look at in the report. A few people who definitely weren't management were the fastest to click, which tells you everything about the "not meant for you" trigger.

Multiple people got really angry at the phishing e-mail that was sent even tho I personally think if you really looked at it.

1. Our name convention was incorrect.

2. l instead of i and rn instead m

3. The ceo would never contact them through e-mail

I did get an earful from my supervisor about it. (Apparently in one of our branches there really is a reorganization going on. Which I knew nothing about.

So part of my job is running phishing simulations to test how our staff respond. Normally I keep it pretty tame fake shipping notifications, "your password expires today," that kind of thing. This time I decided to go for realism (Template from the campaign solution we use that was edited a bit). I spoofed our CEO's email using a classic homoglyph trick swapped the "m" for "rn" and the "i" for "l" in the domain, so at a glance it looked completely legit unless you were really staring at it. Subject line: something about an upcoming reorganization.

The trick was in the header and CEO behaviour. I sent it to every high-risk profile in the org, but the message body/header made it clear it was only meant for management as in, "this is confidential, intended for leadership only." Turns out that's basically catnip. People who technically weren't supposed to see it were the most curious to open it and see what they "weren't supposed to know." Classic forbidden-fruit effect, and it worked way better than I expected. Besides also the CEO never e-mailing these people directly which is already alien behaviour.

The email said the attached file had details on the restructuring, but to view it you'd need to log in with your credentials "for confidentiality reasons." Urgency + exclusivity + authority + a little FOMO, all in one shot.

the click-through and credential-entry rate was rough. Genuinely uncomfortable to look at in the report. A few people who definitely weren't management were the fastest to click, which tells you everything about the "not meant for you" trigger.

Multiple people got really angry at the phishing e-mail that was sent even tho I personally think if you really looked at it.

1. Our name convention was incorrect.

2. l instead of i and rn instead m

3. The ceo would never contact them through e-mail

I did get an earful from my supervisor about it. (Apparently in one of our branches there really is a reorganization going on. Which I knew nothing about.

Goodmorning,

We are trying to setup SSO within Netsuite and Entra idP.

But to our avail we are constantly getting this error:

Notice

Exception while processing SAML response: This service provider is not the intended audience.

Does anybody have the same problem and if so how did you resolve it?

We’ve got the usual stack in place (Defender for O365, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, Purview labels, user awareness training) but obviously nothing catches 100% of it. I’m thinking about building a Copilot/Power Automate agent that reviews flagged or borderline mail and scores it on classic phishing signals like urgency/pressure language, sender-domain mismatches, spoofed display names, weird links, etc.

Not trying to replace the SEG, more like a second-opinion layer for the stuff that already got through or landed in a gray zone. Curious if anyone’s actually done this and whether it’s worth the effort vs. just tuning what we have.

(Sick of also telling people if you don’t expect an email I would not trust it)

Ik denk het toch stiekem wel dat we een aardig team al hebben zo. Misschien nog extra op het middenveld maar de rest is wel prima zo.

So this is something that’s been sitting on my chest and I need an outside perspective because I genuinely don’t know if I was wrong here.
Last night I went out around 11pm to be with my younger brother. He was facing a major life decision something that could genuinely change the trajectory of his life and even though he already had his agent and my dad with him, I felt like I needed to be there. That’s just the dynamic our family has. I wanted to be his voice, his mediator, someone in his corner who wasn’t just there professionally.
My wife didn’t want me to go. But I went anyway. Before I left, I handled everything put the baby to sleep, fed him, showered with him. He was out for the night. My wife was almost asleep herself. I figured it was fine.
I came home and she was angry. Said I chose my family over her.
Honestly? That annoyed me. I didn’t really see the problem. But she kept pushing it, and eventually I snapped. And here’s where I might be the asshole.
I said: “You chose your family over me too you went back to your home country while you were pregnant, and then called me saying you wanted an abortion.”

That’s something we’ve never really talked about properly. When she went back to visit her family during the pregnancy, I was on the other side of the planet. And she called me saying she was thinking about an abortion. I felt completely helpless. Scared. Alone. I couldn’t get to her. I couldn’t even be close to her. And that feeling has never really left me.
I want to be fair I know it was hard for her too. Going back, talking to her parents, processing everything she was processing. I don’t want to dismiss that.
But I was thousands of miles away, unable to do anything, receiving that call. And I never said anything about it. Until last night, when I was annoyed, and I just… let it out.

So, AITAH. Was I wrong to snap and bring that up?

Additional info:

It is just a one time thing her not wanting me to go. The reason was simply because she didn’t want me to go.

She didn’t run to her country but more forced we did talk beforehand about not having an abortion but I guess when she was alone her parents got to her she did not end up doing it. Which was the reason I did not want her to go.

Idk why I said it just came out maybe just something that lingered deep within me she doesn’t know nor I guess really cared about how I felt during that time. I didn’t mean to hurt her ofcourse and apologized after.

Ik ben benieuwd of anderen dit ook hebben meegemaakt, want ik begin me ondertussen behoorlijk machteloos te voelen.
Er is ingebroken in mijn auto op een parkeerterrein waar overal camera’s hangen. Ik heb direct aangifte gedaan. Nog geen dag later kreeg ik te horen dat de zaak werd afgesloten vanwege capaciteitsproblemen. Na contact op te nemen werd de zaak weer geopend, maar de volgende dag werd deze opnieuw gesloten met als reden dat de dader niet herkenbaar zou zijn op de camerabeelden.
Dat vond ik al vreemd, dus ik ben zelf naar de eigenaar van het parkeerterrein gegaan om te informeren naar de beelden. Daar bleek dat de politie helemaal nog niet langs was geweest om de camerabeelden op te vragen of te bekijken.
Het wordt nog gekker.
De persoon die heeft ingebroken bleek blijkbaar niet de slimste. Hij is daarna naar een juwelier gegaan met spullen die afkomstig waren van de inbraak. De juwelier kreeg argwaan, heeft contact met ons opgenomen en heeft ons zelfs een foto van de man kunnen geven. Daarnaast beschikken we inmiddels ook over zijn telefoonnummer.
Dus op dit moment hebben we:
Camerabeelden van de locatie van de inbraak.
Een foto van de verdachte.
Een telefoonnummer van de verdachte.
Een juwelier die mogelijk als getuige kan optreden.
En toch lijkt er niets te gebeuren.
Wanneer ik contact opneem krijg ik vooral te horen dat er personeelstekorten zijn en dat ik binnen een paar dagen teruggebeld zal worden. Ik begrijp echt wel dat de politie het druk heeft en dat er keuzes gemaakt moeten worden, maar als een zaak met deze hoeveelheid informatie al direct wordt afgeschreven, wat moet er dan nog meer zijn voordat er wél iets wordt onderzocht?

Looking for a sanity check.
Current situation:
Employees can request to work while on vacation.
They fill in a form with start/end dates.
Based on the approved dates, we add them to a continent-specific Entra ID group.
Conditional Access allows sign-ins only from a predefined list of countries within that continent, always with MFA.

Any country outside the approved list requires separate internal approval.
If they need company resources, they connect through VPN from their company laptop.
The concern raised is that while someone is on vacation, they could also sign into company resources from their personal phone (Outlook, Teams, etc.) because Conditional Access is currently allowing the approved location, not necessarily a specific device.

One proposed solution is to issue company phones and allow those on vacation.
My issue with that logic is:
If employees can still access company resources from their personal phones while abroad, then issuing work phones doesn’t really improve security. The location-based access still exists, and the personal device remains a valid access path.

To actually gain security value from company phones, wouldn’t we need to:
* Block personal devices from accessing company resources.

Otherwise we’re simply giving people an extra device while the original risk remains.

Am I missing something here?

How are other organizations handling employees working from abroad/vacation locations? Are you relying on location-based Conditional Access, compliant devices, VPN, MAM policies, or a combination of those?

EDIT: We can’t yet restrict access to managed devices yet because not everyone has a device yet (replaced with old Citrix way) besides that wouldn’t that also stop BYOD from accessing Outlook and other applications etc.

I had an interesting discussion with my wife and sister-in-law about abortion, and it got me thinking about how differently people can view the same issue.

For context, we’re all Christians. Personally, I would never choose abortion, although I also recognize that other people have the freedom to make their own choices.

My wife said she believes abortion may be justified in certain circumstances, such as cases involving rape or other situations where the pregnancy was not voluntary. My sister-in-law’s position was more along the lines of “it’s her body, her choice.” While I understand where both of them are coming from, I see things differently.

My view is that abortion is ultimately the ending of a human life. Because of that, I see it as a form of killing, and from my Christian perspective, something that falls under “thou shall not kill.” I also believe that God knows us before we are even formed in the womb, so I don’t see the unborn child as just a collection of cells. I believe a soul already exists and that the child has been given the opportunity for life.

Where the discussion became difficult was when we talked about extreme cases, such as pregnancies resulting from rape. I completely understand why someone in that situation might choose abortion, and I believe God is just and understands circumstances far better than we do. However, even in those situations, I struggle to separate the act itself from what I believe is still the ending of a human life.

So my question is this: If someone believes that life begins before birth, is it logically consistent to support abortion in certain circumstances? And for those who support abortion rights, how do you reconcile the moral question of ending what could become a human life?

Genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives.

Goodmorning, first time parent here and I am quite unsure of what to do. My little one who is now 10 months was having a temperature of 41 so we rushed to the gp and said he had an ear infection in both ears. The little is just not himself also threw up for the first time ever, wants to be held the whole time. Just really nervous especially since he isn't acting like himself.