Phishing Steals Spotlight at MIT Conference
Bob Brown writes "Companies are coping with spam, but phishing is another matter altogether, according to researchers at the annual MIT Spam Conference this week. From the article: "The response rate for phishing e-mails is much higher than for spam, says Paul Judge, CTO of messaging security maker CipherTrust. So while spammers have to send more and more unsolicited e-mail these days, as anti-spam filters get better at identifying and blocking spam, phishing attacks are well enough disguised that a higher percentage get through such filters, and more recipients click on them, he says."
The response rate for phishing e-mails is much higher than for spam, says Paul Judge, CTO of messaging security maker CipherTrust.
Gee, I wonder why...
Which would you click on? (Under the assumption you're a BoA customer)
Cl1ck H33RE F0R S|0ft V1A_GR_A!!!!!
or
Click here to update your account information.
Its a matter of logic. You can expect people to fall for things that look legitimate, not the things that just look utterly retarded, like most spam these days.
First phishing steals identities and now its stealing spotlights, too? And not just any spotlights, either - but MIT spotlights! This has got to stop...
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
http://reportphish.org/
Also, those of you who use GMail, there is a "Report Phishing" option under "More Options"
From the article: Among these were a proposal to improve Bayesian filter accuracy, a system for generating temporary e-mail addresses so that a person's preferred address doesn't have to be given out, spam filters based on adaptive neural networks, a new message-verification platform. (emphasis added)
This is called "keyed e-mail". I have used a keyed email system from Zoemail in the past and it works very, very well for this purpose. There is some extra time required for managing the keys, but the idea works great for me. (and no I do not work for them... I just think the technology works.)
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Especially if they catch you off guard. I consider myself as savvy as most on /. but even I've done double-takes on some of the better phishing schemes...esp when they catch me at a particularly hectic moment AND the email comes from some place I had been dealing with that very day.
I've never fallen for one obviously, but just the fact I have to stop and check things out for Kosherability shows how insidious phishing has become. There is just no way someone like my wife who is just savvy enough to browse the web and read email could spot the difference (which is why i severely restrict her browsing/email habits, but not every newbie is so lucky to have the surf-nazi on their back!)
There is a LOT of potential here for the unscrupulous. I don't even think phishing has even remotely reached its peak yet.
Random_Amber
If you visit a website and initiate an SSL session, the public-private key cryptography (along with the public root certificates imbedded in your browser) will verify that the website you're visiting is really who they say they are. (Or at least that Verisign thinks they are legit.)
I don't see why companies don't make a similar effort to cryptographically authenticate their e-mail. People use PGP for security advisories etc......, but I don't understand why all e-mail coming from my bank, coming from Paypal etc... shouldn't be signed.
If there was a portion of your e-mail window at the bottom right hand of your screen that said stuff like:
"This is an authentic e-mail from BankOfBlanBlah signed on 3/31/06 at 3:52PM" or "This is an unsigned e-mail. It is possible that this e-mail is fraudulent." or "This e-mail has an incorrect signature. It is highly possible that its contents are fraudulent."
My rough guess that e-mail authentication isn't done because (1) programmers are lazy and sending plain text is easier to program and (2) The way you do e-mail auth in e-mail clients is all different and a huge mess from a usability standpoint.
It might put at least a dent in some of this phishing stuff if people expected all e-mail from e-bay, paypal, their bank, amazon etc... to be signed.
I've gotten a few phishing emails, and man...when they guess a bank/credit card I actually use, my heart just jumps. I mean...I'm aware of phishing, and I know how to safely confirm whether the email is legit or not if I can't tell by looking at it, but there's always that second or two of real panic when I read the part about "problem with my account" and worry that it could be real. Spam I can safely ignore: even if some spam offers are legitamately good deals, they're still mostly just trying to sell me things I don't need to buy. I can safely ignore a regular spam and not worry I'm going to regret it later. But I can't do that if the message says my bank account has a problem. I have to deal with it right then and there...even if dealing with it just means proving to myself the email is bogus. So putting myself in the shoes of a less internet savy type who may not have heard of "phishing", I'm not the least bit surprised phishing emails get more hits.
Phishing is easier than spam to combat because it is constrained by the requirement to look authentic. And that can be used to virtually eliminate it.
Well, excuse me if I can't keep all your fscking domains straight, Citibank! How am I supposed to spot a phishing attack when you have 18 URLs on your list of valid ones? I think you could do a lot to help folks spot phishing emails if you would restrict yourself to your citibank.com domain. Then folks could remember, "You want citibank? Go to citibank.com."
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent