Not just an “outlook account” - any account in outlook, with default settings at least.
I run a mail server, mainly for me but a couple of friends have accounts on there too, and a while ago one friend reported apparently being locked out and it turned out that it was due to them switching Outlook versions and it was connecting via a completely different address to those that my whitelists expected sometimes at times when they weren't even actively using Outlook. Not only were active connections due to their interactive activity being proxied, but the IMAP credentials were stored so the MS server could login to check things whenever it wanted (I assume the intended value-add there is being able to send new mail notifications on phones/desktops even when not actively using mail?).
> but this feels like it breaks all sorts of security/privacy expectations.
It most certainly does. The behaviour can be tamed somewhat, but (unless there have been recent changes) is fully enabled by default in newer Outlook variants.
The above-mentioned friend migrated his mail to some other service in a huf as I refused to open my whitelist to “any old host run by MS” and he didn't want to dig in to how to return behaviour back to the previous “local connections only, not sending credentials off elsewhere where they might be stored”.
It looks like Microsoft Edge had the _ability to disable_ this added in 2020 or 2021, but it isn't currently the default and the Group Policy unintuitively only applies to unencrypted HTTP Connections.
Are you talking about NTLM hashes? It's a weak hash, but not the same as "sending your password". The biggest difference is that even a weak hash can't be reversed if the password has high enough entropy.
https://www.xda-developers.com/privacy-implications-new-micr...
No, I'll keep my credentials stored and used locally, thanks.
Yeah you're right, if you don't specify the password (eg. -u user), it prompts you for it
>there obviously isn't a legit user account [email protected] with a password of password either at microsoft or at the Japanese imap server.
But presumably the fact it's there at all suggests it's a required parameter? Maybe "password" is just a placeholder, but it's unclear based on the command line transcript alone.
It was the Ethernom Beamu, company now defunct.
>I would expect such a feature to use end-to-end encryption for the data
How would "end-to-end encryption" when such features by definition require the server to have access to the credentials to perform the required operations? If by "end to end" you actually mean it's encrypted all the way to the server, that's just "encryption in transit".
This is what Zoom claimed was e2ee for a little while before getting in trouble for it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45458482
Its entirely their end to their end encrypted. You don't get any privacy.
If we had competent regulators this sort of blatant willful negligence would constitute false advertising.
Already many years ago I remember installing a firewall on my phone and noticing in surprise that Outlook was not connecting at all to my private mail server, but instead only sending my credentials to their cloud and downloading messages from there.
The only Android mail client not making random calls to cloud servers was (back then) K-9 Mail.
or the “See Plans and Pricing” on the homepage?
Christ, my poor grandmother…
Hold up, does this mean outlook sends your full credentials to Microsoft when you try to set up an outlook account? I'm sure they pinky promise they keep your credentials secure, but this feels like it breaks all sorts of security/privacy expectations.