Slashdot Mirror


Paypal Advises Users To Stop Using Safari

eldavojohn writes "Over concerns for lack of an anti-phishing mechanism for Safari, Paypal is telling its Mac users to use another browser. An author from Ars Technica reveals that he has been using Camino and has fallen victim to a Paypal related phishing scam via e-mail so this story must hit home for him. 'Currently the Apple browser does not alert users to sites that could be phishing for your info, and it lacks support for Extended Validation. PayPal is, of course, a popular site among phishers in their neverending search for personal information, user IDs, and passwords. While it's not entirely fair singling out Safari (other Mac browsers like Camino also lack this support), it is perhaps at least a helpful reminder of the threat.'"

362 comments

  1. Maybe Apple should... by gillbates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tell Safari users to stop using PayPal...

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      C'mon.

      Apple is deficient here - no doubt about it. If you want Mom & Pop to click "pay now", you don't expect 'em to be able to parse "http://www.barclays.validation.co.uk". You don't have to be an "idiot" to fall for this - just outside your area of expertise.

      I have replaced Safari with FireFox on every friend and family mac I get my hands on. Re-theme it, copy and paste the icon resource, and they don't notice the change!

      Except for the missing ads - thanks to Ad Block+

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 2, Funny

      Paypal will have to tell phishing sites to copy this Safari warning as well, which I'm sure they will be happy to do.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    3. Re:Maybe Apple should... by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What theme do you recommend as the most "mac-like" and minimalist in screen real estate? and what do you mean copy and paste the icon resource.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    4. Re:Maybe Apple should... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      why con them, most mac users i know use firefox anyway.
      Dont forget fission https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1951 , to get rid of the status bar, although its important to change the setting so you can hover links

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    5. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Firefox3 betas come with a new very Mac-like theme, called Proto. I believe you can download it for Firefox2 as well

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    6. Re:Maybe Apple should... by MacDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      C'mon.

      Apple is deficient here - no doubt about it.

      Deficient eh? I use Omniweb. Same issues I'm sure, but I'm comfortable with it. I have something I feel is far more secure than a colored URL bar and Extended Validation box that begs for attention... I have an encrypted system wide keychain that is not going to have a username/password for paypa|.com. I might not catch that pipe as a lower case L... I my not catch a cyrillic character that looks just like an 'a' in there, but my keychain aware browser certainly will. It won't have a password for that domain, and that will instantly alert me to the fact that something is fishy. Proceed to open a new window and manually enter the address as a test... I rely on my keychain so much, I generally don't know the password for most websites I use, so I therefore cannot be suckered into revealing it. I'm sure Safari can be configured the same way.

      Instead of railing on Apple for not adopting the technologically deficient solution of other browser makers, perhaps they should instead focus on what is IMHO a superior approach to security... No dice on Windows Safari, sure, but on the Mac I have no fear of phishers.

    7. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I tried using Firefox 3 beta 3, and after 2 painful weeks, I switched back to Safari. If you're going to make it look like a Mac application, it should behave like a Mac application.

      After I tried to drag the FF3b3 window by its draggable-looking status bar for about the 3 billionth time, I gave up and went back to Safari.

      Giving Firefox (with the new Mac theme) to a Safari-using friend is a good way to get your (now former) friend to insist you unbreak his Mac, and then leave him the hell alone.

    8. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What theme do you recommend as the most "mac-like" and minimalist in screen real estate?
      Please - that's like asking for "the most Windows-like and stylish".

      Minimalist use of screen real estate is not a Mac virtue: Apple's principle is that screen real estate should be used well, not minimally. That's why they've made a big deal out of having bigger icons than Windows, for example, even though that means the Dock takes up about three times as much screen real estate as Windows' taskbar. Big icons = easier to hit = more efficient for the user. You aren't wasting that space, you're trading it for your time. And I assure you, unless you flip burgers or something then your time is valuable enough that you can certainly justify buying a bigger screen if you really need more working space.

      (Incidentally, I do rather wonder why, with modern Macs all having wide-aspect monitors, the default Dock position is still along the bottom of the screen, and why windows still have their toolbars along the top rather than down the side, but those are whole other cans of worms...)
    9. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Foxdie

      iSafari Leopard

      Resource? Command "I" to "get info" on Safari. Click on the Icon, and Command "C" to copy. Command "I" on FireFox to "get info". Click on the Icon and Command "V" to paste. Close all dialogues.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    10. Re:Maybe Apple should... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So why is closing a Mac window harder than threading a needle? And with the close button so small, why do standard dialogs generally lack an "OK" or "Close" button, with the expectation that we use those itty-bitty buttons way up in the corner?

      Oh, but it's Apple, that means the UI is good by definition!

    11. Re:Maybe Apple should... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Apple is deficient here - no doubt about it. If you want Mom & Pop to click "pay now", you don't expect 'em to be able to parse "http://www.barclays.validation.co.uk". You don't have to be an "idiot" to fall for this - just outside your area of expertise. And if the phishing filter doesn't alert them, do you want to encourage Mom & Pop to go ahead and enter their credit card info on an unknown URL opened from an e-mail message? I, for one, welcome our new botnets with phishing web pages running on infected desktops overlords.

      I have replaced Safari with FireFox on every friend and family mac I get my hands on. Re-theme it, copy and paste the icon resource, and they don't notice the change! Maybe they want, but people here will certainly notice that their blogs no longer benefit from Apple's built-in spellchecker for text fields. You shouldn't muck with people's machines unless there is a compelling reason. Someday they will want to educate themselves using system help or a introductory book. How easy would it be with all your customizations?
    12. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      If I don't change it they always click the damnned compass. Even when It's pulled from the dock.

      Easier to camouflage than re-train! They don't complain about the difference, and say "Thanks!"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    13. Re:Maybe Apple should... by er3s · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Lol,

      It's not fair to single out Safari, why not? Apple singles out Microsoft whenever they get the chance. It sucks when your flaws are in the spot light eh? Suck it up buttercup. Maybe if Steve spent less time pulling devs from other teams to work on the iPhone, Safari might have a phishing filter. The iPhone, still not 3G and it's almost 2 year, nor a Canadian version, tisk tisk. Man, i guess you needed those 18 bucks a month from AT&T customers to make up for all that R&D.

    14. Re:Maybe Apple should... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let Safari/Firefox save your username/password. Then when it doesn't auto fill-in, you know something is up.

      Safari is better for this strategy since it uses the secure key chain and not the - last time I checked - weak obfuscation that Firefox uses.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why is closing a Mac window harder than threading a needle? And with the close button so small, why do standard dialogs generally lack an "OK" or "Close" button, with the expectation that we use those itty-bitty buttons way up in the corner?


      Why does Microsoft Windows have such big titlebars and buttons on all windows? Why does it always have these unnecessary 'ok' 'close' buttons everywhere? Why doesn't it have fast, easy keyboard shortcuts for most tasks?

      Actually, the huge, hunking graphics in Windows is as good enough reason as any to avoid it.
    16. Re:Maybe Apple should... by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 1

      How exactly would they notice that when Firefox has built-in spell checking too? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your main point, but I think it would be erroneous to assume the type of computer users he's talking about will ever want to learn about how computers work.

    17. Re:Maybe Apple should... by misleb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have replaced Safari with FireFox on every friend and family mac I get my hands on. Re-theme it, copy and paste the icon resource, and they don't notice the change!


      And with Firefox 3, you don't even need a theme. They look very similar now. Firefox 3 even seems to use the Aqua style widgets.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    18. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3

      The day I let a browser/OS save credentials to my critical, financial account information is the day Tom Cruise goes straight.

      I spent five years doing pen/VA for banks and insurance companies. I take none of this crap for granted.

      Physical security of your laptop becomes far too high a risk.

      "Keychain" is for .Mac, not Lloyd's.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    19. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1, Troll

      So why is closing a Mac window harder than threading a needle? And with the close button so small, why do standard dialogs generally lack an "OK" or "Close" button, with the expectation that we use those itty-bitty buttons way up in the corner?


      Are you some sort of cripple? It's a mouse. It's an extension of your hand. Just aim the cursor. Slow movements are more precise, fast movements are coarser.

      And I have no idea what you could possibly mean by dialogues lacking certain buttons. Give me an example.

    20. Re:Maybe Apple should... by catwh0re · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While I agree that anti-phishing features would be a plus for Safari.(go download an extention like you do for any other browser) I think the problem should be addressed on the Paypal end. After all their website, links to ebay and methods are severly lacking as is it - even when you aren't diverted to a phishing scam there are a whole list of reasons not to use paypal.

    21. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dwater · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've been using the same version of FF for a while now too. I can drag it's window around w/o any problem. Did I misunderstand your complaint?

      I 'never' use Safari, and don't consider my Mac 'broken' (any more than it usually is).

      --
      Max.
    22. Re:Maybe Apple should... by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      Compared to Vista, and even XP in some areas, it's definitely minimalist. The default icon size in Vista is HUGE, and there are so many beveled edges and circles everywhere that there's just an immense amount of wasted space.

      I would say that MacOS X has generally become more minimalist in both its spacial and overall feel. Leopard had a few drawbacks (3D dock, transparent menus), but even then it toned down a lot of needless flair in other areas.

      I would generally agree that MacOS X isn't exactly what I would call minimalist, but the trend seems to be moving in that direction, where-as Windows keeps getting more flashy with more "wow, jeepers!" appeal. And I would say that Windows has never been very good about screen realestate either. Menubars on every window? Give me a break.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    23. Re:Maybe Apple should... by fangorious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would complain about you breaking keychain integration, most people I know hate when someone does crap like that, and they just stop asking for your help because they're afraid you'll just break something else.

    24. Re:Maybe Apple should... by fangorious · · Score: 1

      it's not your choice to make for other people though.

    25. Re:Maybe Apple should... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you some sort of cripple?
      Another Mac fan shows his people skills.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another Mac fan shows his people skills.


      Why shade truths? One of my maths professors, who contracted polio in his younger years, was quite content to use that term to describe himself, when it was relevant.

      Unless you have some physical condition that prevents it, there's really very little excuse for poor mousing skills. If the mouse doesn't track properly, or isn't weighted correctly, buy a new one.
    27. Re:Maybe Apple should... by navyjeff · · Score: 2

      I never had a problem with Cmd-W, Cmd-Q or Tab/Spacebar.

    28. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Actually the main complaint I have on Lepoard is that the dock does not work as well as the Vista equivalent and it takes up a huge amount of real estate. That and the difficulty of navigating between windows - until I found the window navigation key this morning, but even so, not as slick as the task bar.

      But despite everything I find that OSX is a good enough Windows substitute to not immediately run off to install boot camp and a windows partition. But thats largely bacause the MacBook Air only comes with an 80Gb drive so there are incentives to avoid using unnecessary space.

      Of course if it was not for the Mac cultists, I might have bought a mac long ago.

      Now if Apple would only arrange the mouse button so that when running windows you could click on one side or the other to provide a two button mouse substitute, I would without question recommend the MacBook Air as the nicest ultraportable to run Vista on. I would not buy the Lenovo AS300, the Lenovo I would consider as the alternative is the convertible X61 tablet PC.

      On the Safari issue, come on guys, at this point it is fair to suggest that people choose browsers with support for EV certificates and other anti-phishing technology. I did have a plug in written for Firefox after there were press comments about the delay.

      Yes Safari should have anti-phishing technology built in. I have no ideas what their plans are in that space, I would expect that they are working on it. But, from the point of view of stopping Internet crime, I am much less worried about when Safari has certain features or not than whether they are willing to share some of their unrivaled knowledge in the usability space. The fact is that Security Usability is a very hard topic and nobody is doing it well today (Apple included, sorry). The difference is that unlike product usability, security usability cannot be a product differentiator. The security of the Internet will always be the security of the least secure machines. Think different is a recipe for failure when teaching security to consumers.

      If they started participating in CAB-Forum and the W3C Web Security Context Working group, I am sure they would find it to their mutual benefit.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    29. Re:Maybe Apple should... by pookemon · · Score: 1

      It's called usability. Most, if not all, dialogs only have one set of "OK" and/or "Close" buttons - so they're not "everywhere". How much information do Mac's have in their dialogs that would prevent them from being able to fit a 22 pixel high button? They generally don't take up much space, and generally DO have keyboard shortcuts. And what shortcuts are you missing exactly? Perhaps we can help you...

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    30. Re:Maybe Apple should... by sigzero · · Score: 1

      I like FF3...

    31. Re:Maybe Apple should... by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't trust it on my laptop, either. If someone is sitting on your home computer, you've got bigger problems than the password to your eBay account.

      But if I did have it on my laptop, I'd sure as hell change my passwords the first chance I get.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    32. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Malekin · · Score: 1

      Maybe the beta versions do, but the latest stable version on the Mac does not. There are also quite a few other things that make it disconcertingly "un-mac-like." That's the whole reason the Camino project exists.

      Hopefully version 3 will bring Firefox on the Mac up to scratch.

    33. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes Safari should have anti-phishing technology built in.

      It does - it's called the Keyboard-Chair-Interface. If the user is too stupid/lazy/whatever to learn about online security or even care about it then they lose their right to complain when they do stupid thing online and get ripped off. You would apply similar cautions when buying things from bricks and mortar stores as well (ie you wouldn't hand your credit card to some random kid in the store. You'd want to make sure they had on a name tag or the store uniform or other so you could be reasonable sure they worked there).

      Get real people. Stop blaming the software for the faults of the idiot users. They're too fucking stupid to use computers safely and they'll never learn. Why are they allowed to persist wasting everyone's time?

    34. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if they shaved 22px off the dock, they would have room for OK & Cancel buttons in dialogs!

    35. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Good Seuss...

      I have a brother-in-law (MD from Harvard) who had autologin on his MacBook. I convinced him of the sheer insanity of not having a password on his login.

      I cannot however, get him to change this password from his first name: 4 chars.

      AAAAHHHRG! What good is a "keychain" - when the folks it offers protection are too numbnuts to use it effectively?

      Breaking keychain integration is a boon.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    36. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

      These are people who say: You do security for a living. How do I keep from getting my credit card stolen on the Internet? Can you help me?

      Not a choice I sneak on to their computer, in the dead of night! :-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    37. Re:Maybe Apple should... by hjf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Are you some sort of cripple? It's a mouse. It's an extension of your hand. Just aim the cursor. Slow movements are more precise, fast movements are coarser.
      are you retarded or just plain stupid? read the fucking GGP! he was saying that os x has big icons to make them easier to hit and save time, and now you come and tell me that I have to waste time aiming the close button! fucking apple fanbois, get your stories straight!

      jesus!
    38. Re:Maybe Apple should... by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      You know what the best anti-phishing technology is? Not being a retard. There's something in Safari called "The Status Bar". It shows you the url of the link you're hovering over. There's also "The Address Bar". It's where you punch in your address and shows you what the url of the site you're surfing is. Then there's the "Don't click on links in emails, you dumbass idjit." That's a big one too.

    39. Re:Maybe Apple should... by nwf · · Score: 1

      Or more to the point: why waste time mousing when Macs all come with keyboards? Command-W is still the fastest, and it works across almost all applications, unlike every other OS I've used where nothing is standardized. Not that I don't use Windows and Linux daily, mind you...

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    40. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously had problems comprehending the thread. Someone was talking about large icons, and another was pointing out the small close buttons as a counterpoint.

      And you're rude like me too, and there's not so much excuse for that :). Maybe we are entitled to park in the handicapped[1] parking spots - guard: "What's wrong with you?", answer: "Politeness deficiency syndrome".

      [1] I think disabled is a far more inaccurate term than handicapped. Maybe it's because I'm a computer nerd - when something is disabled it's not expected to do much. A comatose person is disabled, a dead person is disabled. Cripple is most certainly more accurate for your prof than disabled. It's obvious he had a brain.

    41. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I wouldn't trust it on my laptop, either."

      "But if I did have it on my laptop, I'd sure as hell change my passwords the first chance I get."

      This seems like a bit of an illogical statement, along the lines of calling to cancel a lost credit card. You seem to be making the claim that a laptop with those saved credentials can be lost, which is a good enough reason to not make use of it, and yet people have been losing and canceling credit cards for years, a laptop is much easier to notice missing than a piece of plastic, and the problem wouldn't be hard at all to fix.

      Personally I commit my passwords to memory and let my computer auto-fill them, the auto-fill for convenience (and because the chances of me losing my laptop, my primary computer which is pretty much on my person at all times and has a high strength login password among other security measures are slim to none) and the memory so that I can get into them without my computer, whether it be to change them or simply to get to them from another computer.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    42. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speed is as good an excuse as any. On a Windows machine I can swing my mouse from one part of the screen to another and end up on the close button with 90% accuracy, primarily because of its size. On macs (and the distro of linux my school uses) I have to swing the mouse over, then spend a few extra seconds lining it up because of how small the close button is. Sure, it's only a few seconds, but convienience is a factor in OS choice, and Window's close buttons got that part right a lot more than Mac (if you can avoid the ever present 'there's no space between the restore to default and close buttons, be careful' problem, which is usually irrelevant if you don't use non-maximized windows much).

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    43. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      Command (that's the apple key right?) + Q and Command + W. One thing (especially in firefox) I see a lot is users closing firefox with a Command + W, which doesn't quit the application. I have no idea why and honestly haven't looked into it, but on the resource intensive machines that my digital artists use it is a necessity to be Command+Q'ing their way out.

      That said my Windows XP and my Debian Etch installation both seem to do quite well with Alt+F4 and Ctrl+W, so maybe I'm missing something.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    44. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Get real people. Stop blaming the software for the faults of the idiot users. They're too fucking stupid to use computers safely and they'll never learn. Why are they allowed to persist wasting everyone's time?

      If you built a light switch that electrocuted people when used incorrectly your company and you would be sued into oblivion and good riddance.

      Blaming the user is what the software industry has been overly fond of, but nowhere near as fond as the banks. We could eliminate card present fraud in the US by deployment of Chip and PIN (done right, not cheap and nasty as is the cause of the recently reported issues in the UK). Why are people calling this Internet crime, not bank fraud as it should be?

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    45. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why doesn't it [Windows] have fast, easy keyboard shortcuts for most tasks?

      Enter - hit the default button. Closes all those annoying "OK" dialogs.

      Space - hit the currently selected button. Like a left mouse-click, but for the soul.

      Tab - Switch between buttons/check boxes/tabs/etc in a form. Use arrow keys to select an option from a series of radio buttons.

      Shift+Tab - Switch between buttons/check boxes/tabs/etc, but going the other way.

      Windows+R - Bring up the "Run" dialog.

      Windows+E - Bring up Explorer.

      Windows+D - Minimize everything to your desktop. (Or restore everything again.)

      F1 - Help.

      CTRL+C or CTRL+INS - Copy files/selected text/etc. to clipboard. (Sorry, meta+C.)

      CTRL+V or SHIFT+INS - Paste files/selected text/etc. from clipboard.

      ALT+F4 - Close current program or dialog box.

      CTRL+SHIFT+ESC - Bring up task manager.

      CTRL+ALT+DEL - You should know what this does. Also brings up "Windows 2000" style login from the welcome (user selection) screen in XP.

      You can run Windows without a mouse. No, really, you can - my desktop only has icons for games with long paths hidden in program files. With Windows 98 (and maybe others) you could set the default shell in WIN.INI or some other file to the command prompt instead of explorer.exe - the effect was a DOS-looking computer that could run all your Windows 98 apps! (My parents didn't see the novelty in this.)

      As for honking graphics... Aero! (ducks)

      But, I use a DAS Keyboard 2 and type 140 wpm on a slow day. I hate the lag time involved in reaching for the bloody 2-dimensional X,Y coordinate translocator, so I use these shortcuts daily. I'm sure there are others; these are just the ones that came to mind.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    46. Re:Maybe Apple should... by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      That and the difficulty of navigating between windows - until I found the window navigation key this morning, but even so, not as slick as the task bar. F9 - Lets you see all open windows and choose what you want (you can even tab trough so no pesky mouse movement)
      F10 - Lets you see all windows of just the active application (cmd+tab to change apps, plus if you continue to hold down cmd as you tab through, you can hit Q and quit the app without even switching)
      F11 - show the desktop
      F12 - Dashboard (widgets)

      You do mention a Mac Air, I haven't used one, but if it's like other mac laptops, only F11 and F12 aren't doubled up as contrast keys, but those are changeable in sys prefs.

      [sic]you could click on one side or the other to provide a two button mouse substitute ctrl+ click makes it a right click.

      I don't know about you, but I prefer to use the mouse as little as possible, and from my experience, it's easier to live mouse-less on a mac than on windows. I don't know about vista because I haven't touched it out side of display computers at stores. So when you say "the dock does not work as well as the Vista equivalent" I don't know what you mean other than the task bar which I feel is worthless.
    47. Re:Maybe Apple should... by vertigoCiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firefox 3 even seems to use the Aqua style widgets. Seems being the operative word.
    48. Re:Maybe Apple should... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well it sounds like you know your way around a keyboard,so from one windows user to another-what is the keyboard combo to make a new folder? I have a mac buddy and he is always bitching about having to use the mouse to make a new folder.I too wouldn't mind it if I could just pop a couple of keys and make a new folder when I need one.So do you(or anyone else) know of a keyboard combo that will make a new folder?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    49. Re:Maybe Apple should... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      You missed Alt+Tab which switches between open applications/explorer folders.

    50. Re:Maybe Apple should... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0, Troll

      There are also quite a few other things that make it disconcertingly "un-mac-like."

      You say that like it's a bad thing.

      (mods- this is it.slashdot.org, you're only allowed to battle as holy apple warriors on apple.slashdot.org)

    51. Re:Maybe Apple should... by beav007 · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly proficient at getting around the windows GUI with a keyboard ( more than I am with Gnome :( ) - my biggest issue is getting to the system tray with the keyboard.

    52. Re:Maybe Apple should... by matria · · Score: 1

      Huh? My Firefox 2.0.0.12/Mac most certinly (certainly) does have built-in spell check. As far as I know, that's the latest stable version. (and I delibrately (deliberately) misspelled a word or two here just to make sure; they have a red dotted underline, and right-clicking gives me a context menu with the suggested correct spelling and an "Add to Dictionary" option)

    53. Re:Maybe Apple should... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      ..But then there are the people who buy Apple computers because 'all the wires and stuff and Windows and all is soo confusing.'

      I am not speaking of ALL Apple customers, mind you. I used to know a guy who made his living hacking tight mean DSP code. He was an enthusiastic Mac user.

      But let's face it. He was a very atypical Mac user.

    54. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Moofie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You know you can resize the dock, right?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    55. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why and honestly haven't looked into it,
      I looked into it once, and it's the fault of some idiot firefox/windows developer and their aim to be consistent across platforms. once upon a time it worked properly (pre 2.0 iirc) then one release it stopped working. cmd + w one the last tab of a window no longer closed the window (yet left the app running, the mac way).

      some nimrod on the windows side of things decided that because on windows closing the last tab quit the program they should disallow it completely. on all platforms. even ones where closing the window and quiting the app are completely separate, commonly used functions. they complete broke a long-standing paradigm on one platform in order to attempt to create a new one on another platform
    56. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Apple is deficient here - no doubt about it.

      Just a tad over zealous here. I am a Mac user and I have switched to firefox because I prefer and I have re-themed it just for fun... but I do not see that idiotic idiot proofing is a good reason. The emphasis should be on the user to not click through 'Your paypel acunt need to by reaortotised' type links. Idiotic idiotproofing just creates better idiots who are more gullible when the next scam comes along because they start to seriously believe that it is someone else's responsibility to protect them.

      It is your own responsibility to protect yourself.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    57. Re:Maybe Apple should... by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 1

      You missed just ESC on its own - which selects cancel at the current dialog.

      --
      Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
    58. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Malekin · · Score: 1

      Then I am equally confused, as the Firefox 2.0.0.12/Mac I just downloaded doesn't. Further, I can't find any option in the menus / preferences to turn it on.

    59. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Zemran · · Score: 1

      and they just stop asking for your help because they're afraid you'll just break something else.

      Great idea :-) and how long will they leave me alone for?

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    60. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      So do you(or anyone else) know of a keyboard combo that will make a new folder?

      You could always use the menus in the Explorer window. Alt-F W Enter (or Alt-F W F). This is the same as clicking on the menus.

      One of the worst things that Microsoft did was to defaulting to remove the underlines from the keyboard equivelents of menus, fields and buttons. If you tap the Alt key in a dialog box it underlines all the keyboard short cuts. For example, to click on the Advanced button in a random form, I typed Alt-D. I didn't have to move the mouse to it, or even tab to get to button. It is much faster than having to dive for the mouse.

    61. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      If you must know, the context was two guys (I was one one of them, he was the other) with physical disabilities chatting it up.

      My point:
      If you have a good mouse, and properly adjust your mouse's acceleration, aiming your mouse is trivial. It does not require finely honed or even average level hand-eye coordination.

    62. Re:Maybe Apple should... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If you feel like overdoing it I'll add that you can even use MS Paint with just the keyboard. I don't think anyone would want that but it's possible. When you start using non-Microsoft programs you'll probably still need your mouse though.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    63. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to communicate to a user-interface designer-- you don't say

      "I'm physically challenged. Fix the interface"

      you say

      "I can't operate a mouse with more than one button" or "I have trouble keeping my hand steady" or one of a thousands of other symptoms. Euphemisms make people feel better. Accurate descriptions are useful.

      If you're talking to a busybody, say whatever you like.

    64. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      my biggest issue is getting to the system tray with the keyboard

      Yes, I have never found a direct way of getting to that. You can bring up the Start menu with the Windows key (or Ctrl-Esc if your keyboard doesn't have one of those). Then hit Esc to get rid of the menu. Now you can hit the tab key to access the different toolbars, including the Quick Launch and System Tray. On my system configuration, I have to do Windows Key, Esc, Tab, Tab, Tab.

      Once on the System Tray, you can use the arrow keys to move to the different icons. Enter will perform the default action that clicking on the icon would have. The menu key (or Shift-F10) brings up the context menu.

      Hmmm. I just found that you can access the desktop when you tab past the system tray, even though other windows are still in front of it. You can use the menu key to access the context menu of the desktop. I just got into the desktop properties with Opera still maximised. If you have an icon selected on the desktop, then pressing menu key will get the context menu of that icon. You can de-select the icon by pressing Ctrl-Space. Then the menu key will access the desktop menu.

    65. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      That's a good list there. Because Windows started in the days when mice were almost unheard of, there has always been an emphasis on keyboard access to everything. This contrasts with the Mac that always came with a mouse, and so it is reasonable to assume that people can click on a button. Keyboard access was not so important.

      For more information, people might like to have a look at the Windows Keyboard Access FAQ. I haven't read it too closely, but it looks like it might be a good place to start learning about keyboard shortcuts.

    66. Re:Maybe Apple should... by iamacat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why, you want your Linux browser to sport Windows XP title bar, ignore -display directive, omit support for .tar.gz files, require Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V for copy and paste and ignore middle mouse click...?

    67. Re:Maybe Apple should... by LKM · · Score: 1

      You're probably used to Windows' mouse acceleration curve. Spend a week with a Mac and you'll do just as well there as you do on Windows. You're right about the lack of space between the close and resize buttons on the Mac. Pre-X versions of Mac OS did this a lot better.

    68. Re:Maybe Apple should... by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

      I'm fed up of the attitude that people deserve to get stung because they couldn't tell they were using a phishing site. Perhaps we know what we're looking for, but that doesn't mean less sophisticated web users do.

      The web browser is the window onto the internet- it should do everything it can to alert the user if they are using an unsafe site. The more layers of technology the better. EV Certificates, site blacklisting, etc etc.

      Also, we need to shake off the idea that "the lock icon means you're safe". All it means is the connection is secure; you could still be on a phishing site.

      Browsers should do more to encourage people to check what site they are on before they enter their info. I reckon Firefox 3 has got the right idea. Firefox 3 beta has a 'site info' icon right next to the address bar. You can click this at any time to find out what site you're connected to, if the connection is secure, and to learn if you have visited the site before.

      We'll never stop phishing or any type of fraud, but browser developers need to get their finger out and wake up to the fact that there's a lot of people out there who don't know how to protect themselves. It doesn't mean they're stupid and they certainly don't deserve to get phished.

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    69. Re:Maybe Apple should... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Get real people. Stop blaming the software for the faults of the idiot users.

      The software is always to blame. When designing the UI, you already knwo that most users aren't going to be experts at your software. There's no excuse to creating crappy user interfaces.

    70. Re:Maybe Apple should... by iamacat · · Score: 2

      why do standard dialogs generally lack an "OK" or "Close" button

      Which standard dialogs are you talking about? Open, Save and Quit dialogs definitely have non-titlebar buttons for each possible action. Would be kind of hard to use them otherwise since they are actually sheets and share the titlebar with document windows.

      Offhand, I can only confirm that applications' about Dialogs are lacking buttons. Do you really bring them up often enough to have trouble using the titlebar to dismiss them?

    71. Re:Maybe Apple should... by NotAgent86 · · Score: 1

      On a Mac use Command-Shift-N

    72. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

      Trust Slashdot. The "Apple" segment consists of a number of articles ragging on Apple. And some of it's real, but a lot of it is just a bunch of freetards making stuff up.

    73. Re:Maybe Apple should... by NotAgent86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So which windows version came before the mac?

    74. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Thwomp · · Score: 1

      What happened to the anti-phising measures that were planned for Safari 3? I can't find any reference to this functionality in the Windows version. :-/

    75. Re:Maybe Apple should... by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Because those buttons don't need to be that big. I rarely if ever use any buttons or dialogs to make programs open, work, or go away. I use keyboard shortcuts for everything almost. The mouse is used primarily for design work, and focus specific needs. The OS, and programs are made with this in mind, and the actual dialog windows you use with a mouse as more of an afterthought.

    76. Re:Maybe Apple should... by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      These are really slick: http://www.takebacktheweb.org/

    77. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      C'mon.
      I have replaced Safari with FireFox on every friend and family mac I get my hands on. Re-theme it, copy and paste the icon resource, and they don't notice the change!

      Except for the missing ads - thanks to Ad Block+ A lot of Mac users would notice the change. For me, Firefox 3 doesn't even LOOK like a Mac, let alone feel like one.
    78. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tell Safari users to stop using PayPal..."

      Ah, yes... because when anybody else has a security problem, by default it's Microsoft's fault. And when Apple users have a problem it's anybody but Apple's fault...

    79. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dangitman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Re-theme it, copy and paste the icon resource, and they don't notice the change!

      Yeah right. Firefox fails because of the way it handles text fields in a totally non-Mac-like way. Have your cursor at the end of a single-line text field (like the URL entry field) and want to go back to edit something at the beginning of the line? In just about every other Mac application, you simply hit the up-arrow once, and it goes to the beginning of the line of text. But not in Firefox, for some reason. Instead, I have to hold down the left-arrow and wait for it to get to the start of the line.

      The same thing shits me when using Ubuntu. How can major applications get such basic text navigation so wrong? Changing the "theme" to look like something else isn't going to fix fundamental interface flaws. Firefox also has problems with the behavior of drop-down menus and selecting items in them.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    80. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      ..But then there are the people who buy Apple computers because 'all the wires and stuff and Windows and all is soo confusing.'

      That sounds pretty intelligent to me. Only a stupid person would say "I love wire clutter, and Windows is so awesome". How does the above preference indicate any kind of mental deficiency?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    81. Re:Maybe Apple should... by drsmithy · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why doesn't it have fast, easy keyboard shortcuts for most tasks?

      Uh, what ? Windows is one of the *best* out there for keyboard access. It's _leagues_ ahead of any version of MacOS ever released.

    82. Re:Maybe Apple should... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Actually the main complaint I have on Lepoard is that the dock does not work as well as the Vista equivalent and it takes up a huge amount of real estate.

      This isn't really a Leopard-specific complaint, either. The Dock has been a UI train wreck since its first release (although various OS X releases have improved and/or worked around some of the problems).

    83. Re:Maybe Apple should... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      And, if you do use the mouse a lot, do yourself a favour and set up corner activation. To switch between Safari windows, I throw the mouse at the top-left corner, and can then see all of my browser windows, slightly reduced in size (or a lot reduced in size if I'm on my laptop screen), then just click on the one I want. For all (unhidden) windows, I throw it to the top-right corner.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    84. Re:Maybe Apple should... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Someone please mod this up. My US bank recently changed its sign-in thing to use a Java applet, so Safari no longer auto-fills the username and password fields. I constantly think it's a phishing site as a result. My UK bank has a long account number that is auto-filled and then a short PIN that I have to type every time (but is short enough for me to remember) and asks me for two letters from my passphrase in a drop-down box (so key loggers can't get them).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    85. Re:Maybe Apple should... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      It has spell checking, but it's completely useless. Rather than add an API so extensions could provide spell-checking support, they added more bloat. Every single other OS X application uses my system-wide spellchecker. This has two major advantages over the FireFox one:
      1. It's locale-aware. I still haven't figured out how to tell the FireFox one that I am not in the US (and shouldn't need to, since user locale is a systemwide setting on any modern OS, including Windows and *NIX). I found something that looked right, but it didn't work.
      2. Words I have added to the dictionary in any application over the last five years are present.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    86. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, I use a DAS Keyboard 2 and type 140 wpm on a slow day.
      So what. Chuck Norris uses a custom keyboard with black letters painted on white teeth he kicked out, and he can also punch you in the neck with his tongue. Now, that's impressive!
    87. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dwpro · · Score: 1

      if you have the key that functions as right click (the one just to the right of my windows key) you can hit it then w,f to create a new folder.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    88. Re:Maybe Apple should... by BodhiCat · · Score: 1

      Despite being a Apple user for many years, I have stopped using Safari and now use Opera exclusivly. Safari is fast for most web pages, but its video support is abyssmal. Also Opera has bit torrent built in, don't need to find another application. Used both for a while, but then figured why not just use Opera exclusivly. I expected great things from Safari when it was first released. About all it has done is to get Microsoft to stop supporting Explorer for Macs. (Yes, Explorer sucks, but there are some sites that require it.) C'mon Steve, can't you get your people to do better?

    89. Re:Maybe Apple should... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I have replaced Safari with FireFox on every friend and family mac I get my hands on. So did I, but I've put them all back to Safari. A week is all one needs to tire of the incessant hanging beach ball and crashes in Firefox. I'm so tired of the "feature" that lets me restart my session where I left off the LAST time Firefox crashed, that I'm full-time back with Safari.

      Convenience will always trump security, even if it shouldn't.

    90. Re:Maybe Apple should... by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I tried to install fox die in Firefox 2 and nothing happened. The instructions on the mozilla site seem a bit cryptic. It asks you yo edit a file in a path that does not exist on my computer. that is it asks me to edit xxxxxxx.default/chrome/... I don't have anything at that point with a suffix defaults. I do have myname and defaults.eds there and thesedo have the chrome files. But when I edit the files as requested and restart nothing actually changes. In my add-on themes foxdie is the selected theme. got a clue for me?

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    91. Re:Maybe Apple should... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      even though that means the Dock takes up about three times as much screen real estate as Windows' taskbar. True, however, you can fit about three times as many icons in the dock as you can the taskbak. Seems like a fair trade-off.
    92. Re:Maybe Apple should... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Enter - hit the default button. Closes all those annoying "OK" dialogs. Space - hit the currently selected button. Like a left mouse-click, but for the soul. Tab - Switch between buttons/check boxes/tabs/etc in a form. Use arrow keys to select an option from a series of radio buttons. Shift+Tab - Switch between buttons/check boxes/tabs/etc, but going the other way. Windows+R - Bring up the "Run" dialog. Windows+E - Bring up Explorer. Windows+D - Minimize everything to your desktop. (Or restore everything again.) F1 - Help. CTRL+C or CTRL+INS - Copy files/selected text/etc. to clipboard. (Sorry, meta+C.) CTRL+V or SHIFT+INS - Paste files/selected text/etc. from clipboard. ALT+F4 - Close current program or dialog box. CTRL+SHIFT+ESC - Bring up task manager. CTRL+ALT+DEL - You should know what this does. Also brings up "Windows 2000" style login from the welcome (user selection) screen in XP. His point exactly. He asked for quick AND easy, not a huge jumbled mess of a bazillion key combos. My gripe (which has been an easy target since 1995) with Windows is that there is no rhyme or reason or consistency with any of the keyboard "shortcuts". When is it CTRL? When is it ALT? Who uses the Windows key anyway? What a mess!
    93. Re:Maybe Apple should... by theurge14 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Minimalist use of screen real estate is not a Mac virtue:

      Big icons is your only example of this? On the contrary:

      * The 'Maximize' button will only open the app window as large as the content inside of it requires, it will not fill the screen.
      * One menu bar along the top for all open windows ensures no screen space is wasted with repeated displays of a menu bar.
      * Mac OS X automatically resizes dialog boxes to accommodate the content inside of them.
      * Dialog boxes that open off the edge of the screen will be automatically moved back into the screen along with the rest of the app, and when closed the OS will shift the app back where it was before you opened the dialog box.
      * Most apps do not have a 'background' window as to allow interaction with the desktop while the app is open. One common example is Photoshop.

      Most Windows users I observe maximize all their open apps to completely cover the desktop and use the Start bar as a full-screen task-switcher. In other words, a multi-tasking MS-DOS.

    94. Re:Maybe Apple should... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'll expand my logic for you :)

      My laptop is primarily used for work, and I don't really need to have passwords on it. I pay all of my bills from my desktop. So for my laptop, I don't need to take the added risk of storing passwords on it if I don't have to.

      I know from past experience that logging on to each site in turn and changing my password is a very long and tiring process :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    95. Re:Maybe Apple should... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      You know you can resize the dock, right? Not only that, but you can also have it auto-hide!

      I never liked auto-hide in MS Windows, but it work great on my Mac. Maybe it's due to having larger icons.

    96. Re:Maybe Apple should... by krunk7 · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't it have fast, easy keyboard shortcuts for most tasks?

      Actually, windows has a far better keyboard shortcut system then Mac. This is coming from someone whose been using macs almost exclusively for years. On of my biggest complaints about OSX is its lack of a consistent, concise set of keyboard shortcuts for mouse-less navigation. Sure, every menu item can have its own of key binding but this does nothing for cross applications usability.

      Take windows, CTRL+F always goes to the File menu item. CTRL+E to the Edit. Each of the menu items has one letter underlined so a quick glance will tell you what it is. But it's almost invariably the first letter. Once you are in the menu, selecting an item is similar. O would bring you to Open and S to save (course if you know the direct key binding you can CTRL+S).

      Leopard is the first of the OSX series to attempt to address this huge gap in navigability. Its new Help search feature is quite snazzy. It's still not quite there though. Say I'm wondering "Hmm, what kind of edit functions does this application have?" or "Damnit, I know what I need to do is in the Edit menu, but I can't remember what it's called.", Well, unless you can make a god guess there's still no way to hop directly to the Edit menu.

      Requiring a mouse for operation is a *huge* usability gap and also requires that I carry one more thing around in my toolkit just to get the job done on our servers when the need arises.

    97. Re:Maybe Apple should... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      And I assure you, unless you flip burgers or something then your time is valuable enough that you can certainly justify buying a bigger screen if you really need more working space

      and that sir is the kind of elitist attitude that is so off putting to many non mac users. it is also one of the reasons macs have been and will remain niche (at least compared to the total computing market). The Apple philosophy is not that your screen should be used well, rather it should be used well if you spend enough money. The bigger the screen the better that interface seems to work. If you can't afford to spend the money, you still have a very large dock taking up valuable real estate.

    98. Re:Maybe Apple should... by HorsePunchKid · · Score: 1

      A handy one you left out:

      SHIFT+F10 - Bring up the context menu; essentially like a right-click.

      As an example, SHIFT+F10 W F will create a new folder in Explorer, or SHIFT+F10 R will bring up the Properties dialog for a file.
      --
      Steven N. Severinghaus
    99. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Are you some sort of cripple? Another Mac fan shows his people skills. Bet he'd have been more polite if you said you had Aspergers, or one of the other geek chique diseases.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    100. Re:Maybe Apple should... by kc0re · · Score: 1

      You++ EPIC FAIL on the other guy's part.

    101. Re:Maybe Apple should... by orgelspieler · · Score: 1
      I have to use Alt-F W Enter, since some hair-brained engineering app took over the F for some screwy filetype I never use.

      another useful one is F2 - select/edit the filename (same as return on a Mac)

      Then there's the mysterious Backspace to go up a directory level (Command-up on a Mac). Contrast with Alt-Left to go back in your history (say, if you follow a shortcut). But in IE backspace goes back. Odd.

      One thing I always found stupid was having to hit Command-O to Open a file, but this is getting wildly off-topic, so I'll just shut up now.

    102. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      In XP, at least, that's a switch under Display Properties | Appearance | Effects. I turn the accelerator hiding off on every new install. Whoever decided that hiding an important visual cue was a good idea needs to get whipped.

    103. Re:Maybe Apple should... by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      Do Macs not have the "Home" key? Because that'll get you to the beginning of the line in any Windows/Linux input field I've seen. I would hardly call it a major flaw that the "Up" key doesn't do this, to me that doesn't really even make sense (i.e. you are not moving up)--what happens when you are navigating the URL history drop-down? Does up then change its function to scrolling through the items instead of text navigation? Because when I do that on Linux/Windows, up/down scrolls the history, while home/end navigates to the beginning and end of a line. Now that I think about it that way, I'd say that Macs are the ones with the flawed interface.

      And I have no idea what you're talking about with drop-down menus. It must be a Mac-centric problem, because I've never had any issues in either of the other operating systems I've mentioned.

    104. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      Macs always hide mice, before they were popular on IBM clones?

      I also forgot - F6 in Internet Explorer sets focus to the URL bar.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    105. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      Actually its F3 on the MacBook Air.

      I know about control click, it would be seriously tedious using that in Windows.

      Fortunately the multitouch trackpad might have a solution here, two finger tap maps to a right click. Only problem being that it may not work in Windows under boot camp, but should under a VM I would guess.

      It is pretty interesting though that really the only feature of the Mac Book that disqualifies it as the best lightweight, non-tablet laptop to run Windows on is the lack of a two button mouse. I really would not consider the Lenovo as being its equal.

      Now if Apple could only get over their earlier blunder with the Newton and make a tablet format laptop they would win on every front. I would pay an extra $500 for a tablet. Not because I would want handwriting recognition but because what I really want is a really big iPhone for Web Browsing, media surfing and such. A tablet is also pretty useful for facilitating group discussions, sketching and the like.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    106. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      Apple is deficient here - no doubt about it. If you want Mom & Pop to click "pay now", you don't expect 'em to be able to parse "http://www.barclays.validation.co.uk". You don't have to be an "idiot" to fall for this - just outside your area of expertise.


      No, you have to be an idiot. This is not a "Pay Now", it's an email scam. And even then, if you see a "Pay Now" in an email, you'd better check the address bar, since the link address does not appear in email clients. If you don't check, you're not expert enough to use the computer for ordering stuff online, so you're gonna learn the hard way. And you'll be refunded ayway, because it's fraud. And if th BCC decides you're too stupid to deserve a refund, since you're too stupid to check the address bar, then the fraudster can only max out your card, and that's what, now, $-3,000? If you can aford a CC, then you have a job, so you can repay that eventually. Since those scams are automated, I suppose they try to get a sum they can reasonably expect to get on the first try, like $100 to $1000.
      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    107. Re:Maybe Apple should... by webheaded · · Score: 1

      That's so true. I can close windows and stuff with blinding accuracy and without even LOOKING at the close button. Some may say they're obnoxiously huge, but I personally think they're well designed. :)

      And no, I'm not a Microsoft fanboy or something. There are things here and there that they do in fact do well.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    108. Re:Maybe Apple should... by jafac · · Score: 1

      windows+R->cmd.exe to open a dos shell. navigate to the location, mkdir . qed.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    109. Re:Maybe Apple should... by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Thinking for the least tiny bit makes everything really simple and clear.
      Ctrl makes you control whatever object's selected or active. Used with C, it's copy, A selects All, F finds within. Doesn't usually affect the window as such, just it's contents.
      Alt Interacts with the window menu and the window itself. Try Alt + F for the former, Alt + F4 for the latter.
      The windows key is used by most people who work with computers (as opposed to play. Those folks either don't have a windows key (victims of Steve's RDF) or are really cool 'cause their keyboard's got a switch to turn it off (Logitech G15 Gamer keyboard)). Opens the start menu when used on it's own, affects the system as a whole (R(un) and E(xplorer) launch apps, D takes you to the desktop and back).
      Ctrl + Alt tend to be user- as well as a few pre-defined, system-wide shortcuts. Think CAD, think CA + Anything user-defined.

      Most of my experience with MSFT products is very consistent in this regard; beating anything but a console and maybe ratpoison by far. I haven't really worked with Vista, YMMV there. I also haven't spent more than a few quick eval sessions with Mac OS X, but the "shortcuts" over there seemed extremely crowded to the point of near-unusability. Seven-key shortcuts may seem intuitive for an emacs user; they aren't for me. With the same amount of documentation (none) available, Windows is my clear favourite for keyboard-only input. OS X doesn't really cut it, quite similar to both Gnome and KDE.

    110. Re:Maybe Apple should... by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      While some of your points are accurate, I have to put in my 2 cents. First of all, I absolutely dispise notebooks with more than one button. 2-button mice... I'm sold at hello, but the way you opperate a trackpad is ergonomically very different, and it's extremely awkward to move your thumb behind your hand to use a second button. And a mighty-mouse style trackpad button would be a disaster (I'm still not completely convinced of the mighty-mouse, even after I've had one for about 6 months, although I LOVE the scroll ball). No, I've learned to love using command-click for contextual menus, and I wouldn't want to go back.

      Secondly, the dock is actually much more real-estate friendly than the taskbar because it doesn't have the text right beside the icon. One can only open about 7 windows in XP/Vista (that is, as long as you have the QuickStart on, and that is a must for me) before things start to get cluttered. You can also resize the dock to any size. The dock also has no separators or beveled buttons to get in the way. People just tend to keep the dock a bit taller than the task bar (not sure why), but if you size it down, it's much more efficient.

      As for Safari, I agree that they should have anti-phishing built-in. But knowing Apple, after this, we'll see an update to it in about 3 weeks.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    111. Re:Maybe Apple should... by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      Ahh I see. I guess you could say, ONCE you know the keyboard shortcuts (and practice them a lot, given the endless myriad of combinations) Windows 'might' have better keyboard navigation for power users. However, I can teach somebody pretty much every essential keyboard shortcut in MacOSX in half the time as Windows, and their retention will come twice as fast. Mac shortcuts are intuitive (applekey+q=quit) as opposed to the windows variations (alt+f4, wtf?) In other words, lack of documentation (or not, you just haven't looked) doesn't matter, because figuring out keyboard shortcuts on your own is faster and more intuitive with Mac OS X (plus every short cut is clearly labelled in the menus). Also, there are no "two-step" keyboard shortcuts in Mac OS X that are so prevalent in Windows. (I'm sitting at home now, so pardon me for not having a tangible example, but the gist is many times in Windows I find myself doing one shortcut to open a menu item then a second shortcut to pick the item in that menu).

      I will grant you one thing; personal preference and "what you know" will definitely make you faster by using keyboard combos of your preferred platform over the other. I'm just stating from a clean slate, a new user will adapt to the OSX ways MUCH faster.

    112. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dwater · · Score: 1

      Place the mouse cursor over the status bar. Press the mouse button. Move the mouse. Note that the window does not move. Now try placing the mouse cursor over some empty space on the toolbar. Press the mouse button. Move the mouse. Note that the window still does not move.

      Repeat this experiment with every other application in the Applications folder, like iTunes, Safari, iCal, Address Book, iPhoto, and Font Book. Note that you can drag all of them from any place on the window that looks like brushed metal. Indeed, you are quite correct. I have never tried to drag a window by anything other than the top window bar.

      Sounds like you have a valid complaint, though it's one I don't personally hit. I wonder if this works on other platforms - I regularly use MS Windows and Gnome on X11 - which would be why I never try it.

      I hate other aspects of Aqua that are supposedly considered 'correct'. Please correct me if I'm wrong... For example, you can only resize a window using the bottom right of the window, and don't get me started on the brain-dead 'single-menu-at-the-top-of-the-screen' thing - if you use many different windows on different parts of a big screen, it's just plain irritating to have to move the pointer all the way up to the top just to access the menu (even worse if you have multiple screens). ...but that's an different discussion.
      --
      Max.
    113. Re:Maybe Apple should... by catwh0re · · Score: 1

      They're TBA still. The code is still in there, but they're needing a bit more ripening for reliability purposes. I notice a lot of the anti-phishing tools aren't overtly effective.. probably something that the webkit team are improving on.

    114. Re:Maybe Apple should... by darthflo · · Score: 1

      lack of documentation (or not, you just haven't looked)
      That's what I meant to say. Sorry for not having made it clear; I was talking about learning by doing without using too much documentation where unnecessary.

      "two-step" keyboard shortcuts [...] "two-step" keyboard shortcuts
      Those only apply to menu shortcuts and make, imo, the process a lot more intuitive and powerful. Take, for example, Windows Explorer's New File shortcut (Menu - N I think, but somebody said W in this thread). After pressing two keys, you get an extensible menu allowing you to create some 26 new Files at the press of a button or an unlimited by selecting the matching line with your cursor keys. After using the shortcut, your muscle memory will remember to add pressing Enter for a new folder or T for a new text file (assumption; I'm not near a windows box right now. It's a single key press, anyways). Menu - N - Enter is the same amount of keypresses as Apple - Option - Someletter, but Apple - Option won't get you a menu of different tasks to perform (in this case: file types to create), Menu - N will.
      In the end it's probably a question of personal preference and habit (I, for one, find mac keyboard commands horribly unintuitive and couldn't see myself swapping my ThinkPad's 8-row-keyboard for a cramped (referring, in this case, to using most keys twice and thrice with modifiers. Think Arrows/Home/End/PgUp/PgDown) MacBook one.

      I'm just stating from a clean slate, a new user will adapt to the OSX ways MUCH faster.
      Again, I disagree. Personal preference and experience in helping others have shown the Windows way to be working quite well for many people. I'll adjust my opinion upon seeing a trustworthy, peer-reviewed case study with a sufficiently large and realistic group of participants. Feel free to do the same, insist on your opinion, but let's not make this thread a he-said-she-said style debate. Thanks.
    115. Re:Maybe Apple should... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      It's weird, because the way to 'upgrade' Macs is generally to plug in a bunch of USB or IEE-1394 devices. The Mac Mini is a veritable ocotopus once you've added enough to make it a useful machine. Talk about wire clutter...

    116. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      So which windows version came before the mac?

      Quite right. I did mean to say that mice were unheard of on the PC, not unheard of in general. The first mouse that I ever used on the PC came with a free copy of Windows 2.0. I never bothered to install it. Maybe the mouse came with Windows. Either way it was cheaper than buying a mouse by itself. We had to buy it because we had written our software to work with a mouse in DOS, but had never tested it until we were just about to ship.

    117. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      :-(

      Not in Vista, any longer.

      Another reason to bitch about this "glass turd".

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    118. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Do Macs not have the "Home" key?

      Laptops don't have a home key (you need to use modifier keys). Even on keyboards with a home key, its position is not as convenient, and if you are navigating text you are already using the arrow keys anyway.

      that doesn't really even make sense (i.e. you are not moving up)

      It doesn't make sense? You are traveling upwards through the text - i.e, towards the beginning. If there is no previous line, then the beginning is the beginning of that line of text. It makes perfect sense.

      Now that I think about it that way, I'd say that Macs are the ones with the flawed interface.

      It's entirely beside the point whether you think it makes sense or is flawed.

      If you are writing an application for a particular platform, it is a major error to break behavior that works consistently on that platform. Should application writers switch the corner that the close window button is located on your platform, just because the application writer doesn't like it? Should I disable the middle button in a UNIX/Linux application because I don't like the way users use it?

      That you don't think this is a problem is quite amazing, and I guess it illustrates a certain mentality - that our interfaces should be inconsistent mish-mashes. Which has always been a problem with Linux and Windows to a large degree. One of the things that makes the Mac attractive is the much more consistent interface. Although Apple themselves are starting to mess with that, it's still not as bad on other platforms. But apparently the Firefox developers don't give a shit.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    119. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      P.S:

      And I have no idea what you're talking about with drop-down menus. It must be a Mac-centric problem, because I've never had any issues in either of the other operating systems I've mentioned.

      Why would it be a Mac-centric problem, when every other browser/application on the Mac has drop-down menus that work properly? I'd say that pretty clearly makes it a Firefox-specific (or Firefox for Mac specific) problem. Again, it seems to be about Firefox developers not caring about established interface standards, and just doing it their own way.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    120. Re:Maybe Apple should... by dangitman · · Score: 1

      It's weird, because the way to 'upgrade' Macs is generally to plug in a bunch of USB or IEE-1394 devices.

      Which, of course, is a complete load of horseshit. One would think you would update your knowledge given how much you talk about Apple products. But maybe your goal is to be purposefully misinformed as a means to trolling?

      The Mac Mini is a veritable ocotopus once you've added enough to make it a useful machine. Talk about wire clutter...

      Never heard of wireless devices? My Mac Mini is very useful, and it has only two things plugged into it - the HDTV it uses for a display, and an EyeTV tuner. It takes up less space than a DVD player or amplifier, and has no wire clutter. What makes my Mac Mini not useful? Not that the Mac mini is the typical Mac, anyway.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    121. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Foppel · · Score: 1

      Enter - hit the default button. Closes all those annoying "OK" dialogs. That is the most single stupid tip you want to teach anybody when it comes to phishing and malware. 'Just hit enter when it asks you "cancel" or "ok"' -shaking head-
    122. Re:Maybe Apple should... by stewbacca · · Score: 1
      I'll avoid personal opinion debates and just point out that there have been so many studies over the past 20 years with Apple pretty much being the leader of the pack in anything related to user interface, it isn't hardly worth my time to reiterate here. Do we seriously need ANOTHER study to point to the obvious? I'd send you my grad research, but it's mostly on how learning transfer is improved through good design (plus, it hasn't been signed off on yet). Although it isn't OS X vs. Windows per se, it does borrow heavily from concepts gleaned from Apple human interface guidelines. In my study, when applying Apple-based human interface guidelines to Interactive Multimedia Instructional lessons (self-paced, no instructor), learning transfer increased in every iteration, usually around 70%. Maybe I'll delve into the Microsoft guidelines I saw posted online a few weeks back and see if they add to, detract from, or have no affect on my findings...but I digress...

      As you and I both point out, personal preference plays a huge role. Someone tech savvy with a foundation in Windows is going to be fine there. I even use some of the more tricked out keyboard shortcuts in Windows (but not before having to figure out what they are). But NEW users will learn Applekey+Q = quit much faster than they'll learn Alt+F4. Once they realize that Q=quit, they intuitively figure out that S might just mean "save". In any case, what you find "unintuitive" about pressing applekey+O to "open" a file is based largely in your investment in Windows traditions, but pretty intuitive to anyone without a strong windows foundation. I think you and I have a fundamental difference of what "intuitive" means. Being able to figure it out based on previous successes and failures, through trial and error, learned outcomes and expected behaviors is what makes something intuitive, not just giving a system a whole lot of powerful (yet convoluted) keyboard controls.

      Here's another example I like to use since I used to live in England. Opt + 3 for the pound symbol on a Mac may not seem intuitive, but compared to the ASCII key combination of alt+ 163, it's a dream combo. Wash and repeat for nearly ANY special character. The Option key on a Mac, combined with any of the number row keys gives you some sort of special character, whereas if you push the Windows key (in the same relative location as the option key for Mac) then some key combo that isn't valid, you launch the start menu and whatever else you have imbedded in there. This goes completely against the rules of user interface design in that no object should have two seemingly unrelated functions (one launches the start menu, the other does a million unrelated things--everything from locking your terminal, to launching the "run" command, to opening/closing/minimizing some/all windows, and that, only IF you press the correct combo). Who knows where it takes you if you fat-finger or make a mistake. With OS X, you see the character, and you erase it if it is the wrong one and try another one. This is why it is intuitive. When the user is confronted with an unexpected result, the user can easily backspace and experiment with another combo. Not so if you've pushed the Windows key and locked your workstation instead of launching Notepad as you intended. So much stuff can happen in Windows if you push the wrong shortcuts without giving the user any indication of what they've done.

      Don't get me started when it comes to typing foreign language characters either! Option U for "umlaut" plus the letter you want to have an umlaut on makes a hell of a lot more sense than alt + 0196, 0203 , 0207, 0214 Ü ,0220 (uppercase letters) and alt +0228 ë0235 ï0239 ö0246 ü0252 (lower case). In the time it took me to look up those Alt codes in Windows, I could have finished my German language email ;-)

    123. Re:Maybe Apple should... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Switch to KDE. Hold down alt key, and any non-maximized window is now draggable from ANY part of the window, including the text area I'm typing in now. And that works with all apps, not just browsers.

      Free sometimes IS better ...

    124. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I found that bug a few days ago. Turn off the "always show the tab bar" option, and closing the window behaves properly again.

      On a Mac, closing a window should never cause an app to quit, only an explicit quit should quit. And Apple is guilty of it too, now - System Preferences and iPhoto quit when you close the window. It's REALLY infuriating sometimes.

    125. Re:Maybe Apple should... by darthflo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stupid science, having a different opinion than me again ;)

      Anyways, there's an easy, system-independent solution for at the very least your input troubles: Localized keyboards. You seem to be using lots of international characters (ë is french, ö is german, £ english), you may want to try the German (Switzerland) keyboard layout. It's a bit more convoluted than en-US (up to four or five characters on a single key), but it does have all the chars you get on en-US, all the chars you need for german, french, italian, conversations about english, american or european currencies.

      Check it out

    126. Re:Maybe Apple should... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Stupid science, having a different opinion than me again ;) Well, to your credit, user interface design can be considered a "soft science" at best! I only wrapped my research up in a more "scientific" sounding educational context. In my experience thus far even Education is still a hard sell as a science.
    127. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Apple is interested in proactively securing their OS and Core parts of OS. It is matter of months Safari and any application will get a Sandbox function just like Spotlight has since 10.5.0. It is close to Java's sandbox arch.

      The OS will be able to give Safari.app or any application restrictions limiting its access to OS parts/calls which it should never have anything to do with. That is something very advanced, expensive Windows proactive security solutions do with performance penalty.

      What Paypal and Extension fans expect is, the same company bothering with that complex technology to give unrestricted access to any "extension" without no viable security model, no source review (as they will whine), no mandatory security certificate to operating systems default browser. Does it make sense to you? The "default browser" is the key here. I don't want Safari to have any kind of extension which can watch current URL for example. For me, it is a security/privacy risk. Rather than that, I work with banks giving a J2ME Password generator for free, have "sign in badge" kind of functionality, use a good mail service which will have at least Clam (free!) to detect phishing URLs.

      I said the same thing in Macworld comments, as ICQ back from 2003 proves, it is trivial to watch Safari's current URL for any C++ application. It can read Safari URL to send URL to friend. Instead of whining, Paypal and banks can provide a anti phishing or a free password manager application for free.

      Paypal guy also forgets that OS X users trust their OS/Browser (unlike MS) and they frequently use systems own password manager functionality. Safari autofill and Keychain won't buy those scam URLs at all.

    128. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1


      Tell Safari users to stop using PayPal...

      Users decide their own. For example I purged my Paypal account since they have that kind of Security guy on top of all security/integrity of the system. Read the lines of "EV Certificates", guy is clearly having something with MSFT and Verisign.

      I am out of Paypal until that guy is fired. I am a customer, I am always right.

      BTW- Slashdot should put other options for purchasing/updating subscriptions. We can't buy anything using our operating systems insecure browser ;)

    129. Re:Maybe Apple should... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      * The 'Maximize' button will only open the app window as large as the content inside of it requires, it will not fill the screen.
      This was one thing I hated, on the macbook clicking that button on safari would result in a window that didn't fill the screen but was too big to use the rest of the screen for much else.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    130. Re:Maybe Apple should... by sunami88 · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, but ya, bite me mods.

      @Z34107: Try this little app if you use key commands alot...

      --
      Sex. Drugs, and Unix.
    131. Re:Maybe Apple should... by tyrione · · Score: 1

      switch to NEXTSTEP. It still trumps both on behavior and consistency.

    132. Re:Maybe Apple should... by hobbit · · Score: 1

      and asks me for two letters from my passphrase in a drop-down box (so key loggers can't get them). I use the keyboard to navigate drop-down boxes, you insensitive clod!
      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    133. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1
      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    134. Re:Maybe Apple should... by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

      http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75459 mentions a lot of shortcuts, including command-shift-n, the key-combo for new folders.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  2. scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    An author from Ars Technica reveals that he has been using Camino and has fallen victim to a Paypal related phishing scam via e-mail so this story must hit home for him.

    Yes, blame the browser. It's certainly not because he's an idiot.

  3. This has huge ramifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Safari could lose one of its two users. Opera may have a chance to double its user share, though.

    1. Re:This has huge ramifications by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While Opera may not have the market share of Firefox, it does run a helluva lot better than IE / Firefox / Safari on lower-end and older hardware.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  4. In other news... by ninjapiratemonkey · · Score: 1, Informative

    Microsoft advises Windows users to stop using internet explorer, due to lack of security.

    --
    01110000 01010111 01101110 00110011 01100100
    1. Re:In other news... by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      More like eBay advising Windows users to stop using IE. Paypal doesn't develop Safari.

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft advises Windows users to stop using internet explorer, due to lack of security.


      I know you are trying to be funny, but have you looked into security advisories on IE7 in protected mode (Vista)? I'll give it some more time, but they are getting close to make you eat that joke. Which is good, isn't it?
    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Like they say: 7th time's a charm.

    4. Re:In other news... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      IE is perfectly secure .... as long as you stay off the Internet.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:In other news... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I was going to post "wait, IE existed before version 4?", but then I realized that I'm pretty sure I've used IE 2.

      Damn you for making me dredge up that painful, painful memory.

      (Also, you're forgetting that there was also IE 5.5 in there at least, and according to wikipedia, 4.5. So more like... 9th try is the charm. Which hey, has three as a factor.)

    6. Re:In other news... by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Funny

      .....and we're not even sure about that.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    7. Re:In other news... by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      USB storage autoruns, notices it's not on internet... install something that hooks into IE, whose core is used in basic System functions.
      Now it's snarfed your bank info from some notepad you keep.

      USB Key gets into an internet connected machine someday, its autorun notices that there's an internet connection, so it uploads what it found.

    8. Re:In other news... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      A base install of Windows NT 4.0 comes with IE 2.0 installed.

      You can't even use IE 2.0 to connect to www.microsoft.com to download a better web browser. It's a really weird thing. You would think that Microsoft would have included something on their main web page just for IE 2.0 on NT to route someone running a new NT install to a friendly haven on Microsoft's server to like, uh, allow them to install a newer browser, but they don't and haven't for years and years now.

  5. IE by webmaster404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So wait.... you shouldn't use a (decently) secure browser such as Safari that is partly open-source, while you should use a browser that is fully proprietary (though with anti-phishing) and has a track record of being insecure? Not to mention how easy it is to keylog most Windows systems have already? Honestly, I think that making sure your browser is secure is much more important then making sure your info isn't going to an incorrect site.

    --
    There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    1. Re:IE by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good point- the types of people who would install/use another browser, probably already do check.

    2. Re:IE by teh+moges · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This used to be a valid point, but Safari ships with OSX and a lot of users get Firefox installed by their tech-savvy friends. Still, there is a very simple way of getting around these problems:
      1) No financial institution should ever ask for your email address. Ever. Not as a required field, not as an optional field. The person signing up should be informed that they are deliberately not being asked for this information either.
      2) The exception to this: Reminders. These are setup WHILE logged in to the site, and the email address is stored in relation to the reminder, not the account profile (so it will be indirectly linked, but a helpdesk person won't see it when troubleshooting account information).
      3) All reminder emails are plain text only, with a clear message informing the user not to trust this email or any other email and to log in to the website by typing the address into a browser only.

      Like was said above, people don't need to be stupid, they just need to be out of their expertise. I'm not a security expert, but through my knowledge of computers, I know when I get sent a phishing email, I know how to surf safely. You can't expect everyone to be the same though. This is just a case of needing to inform the users, and to keep reminding them.
      * The method shown above is not foolproof, in the case of DNS attacks, or websites with similar names (user types in address, typos, and is sent to another site).

    3. Re:IE by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      secure browser such as Safari that is partly open-source

      Just out of curiosity... were you able to type the phrase "partly open-source" with a straight face?

    4. A browser being open source does not induce some form of hand-waving magic where it by virtue of being open source is secure.

    5. Re:IE by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      1) No financial institution should ever ask for your email address. Huh? How am I supposed to communicate with my online bank if they don't have my email? Statements like this are why I think the balance between security and convenience are out of whack (too far to the security side). The 'risk' of giving my bank an email address is far outweighed by the convenience of banking from the comfort of my living room.
    6. Re:IE by webmaster404 · · Score: 1

      A browser being open source does not induce some form of hand-waving magic where it by virtue of being open source is secure.

      No but it sure is much more secure then the proprietary alternatives. Think of all the holes that IE has, a prime example of a proprietary browser with a proprietary technology (Active X) giving most of the flaws it has.
      --
      There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
    7. Re:IE by Burz · · Score: 1

      * The method shown above is not foolproof, in the case of DNS attacks, or websites with similar names (user types in address, typos, and is sent to another site). That's why your advice is mostly bunk. And where it isn't, a person couldn't rely on it for certainty. That's what https/SSL is for, and shame on you for not mentioning it.

      User checks the address bar for A) the lock and B) the domain spelling. Absent any warning dialogs or malware infection or gross idiocy on the bank's end, the connection proof against phishing, DNS attacks etc. (But you cannot do just one or the other: You must check both at the same time!)

      Sadly, despite its simplicity, most people don't know how to properly use https and this includes much of the 'techie' set. IMO this means that most people don't really know how to use a web browser.

  6. OpenDNS to the rescue by bstadil · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just change your DNS to OpenDNS and you are covered. OpenDNS monitors Phising sites and will not let you resolve to it. You don't need to sign up just use their nameservers at 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220. It's free. If you sign up you get some additional cool features like blocking selected domain types Like Pron if that's not your thing.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
    1. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Aegis+Runestone · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. This might be useful for me, and others people. :)

      --
      -Aegis Runestone-
    2. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by karmatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OpenDNS monitors Phising sites and will not let you resolve to it.
      That's assuming, of course, that it's using a unique DNS name. For pages hosted on SourceForge, Geocities, etc. it won't do anything at all, and may provide a false sense of security.

      Furthermore, it's really easy to create phishing pages that will only show their contents to humans, and not spiders.

    3. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's free. If you sign up you get some additional cool features like blocking selected domain types Like Pron if that's not your thing.

      oh, and you also get some other cool features, like having any email, ssh, IM, or well, all, of your network connections go to OpenDNS servers when connecting to broken, mistyped, or if-they-just-feel-like-it, domains.

    4. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by fm6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      OpenDNS monitors Phising sites and will not let you resolve to it.
      OpenDNS monitors known phishing sites. Phishers really should update the database when they start a new site, but for some strange reason, they rarely bother.
    5. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Peaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Furthermore, it's really easy to create phishing pages that will only show their contents to humans, and not spiders. Isn't it equally easy to create spiders that look like humans?

      Does there phishing information originate from a spider, anyhow?
    6. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenDNS also redirects your google searches through a transparent proxy of theirs. Remember last week when you googled "buttsex with chickens"? They have a log of it.

    7. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

      OpenDNS is not the absolute solution for this. You need to check your every time you change your network location since some ISPs and corporate networks will not allow you to use external DNS servers and you need to make sure you have the correct DNS servers for your location. However, if allowed, OpenDNS is a good solution if you are in doubt.

    8. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by STrinity · · Score: 1

      OpenDNS is nice for many reason, but if you're relying on it to protect you from phishing, you're screwed. The only real protection is not to enter your password for any financial site unless you've typed the URL yourself.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    9. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Lunis+Neko · · Score: 1

      I just have to say, despite being a bit offtopic, that some people (including me) can't bring themselves to use OpenDNS when they shove Yahoo! search down your throat, instead of not showing a search at all, or letting you pick your search. They have even said "we use yahoo, get the fuck over it" (paraphrased ;) Beyond that, OpenDNS isn't an anti-phishing service. It's simply a DNS that blocks access to /known/ phishing sites. I can only assume they get a list of phishing sites from some other service every few days and sync their blacklist to the service's blacklist. I'd be willing to bet, though I don't have any "science" to back it up, that most people fall for phishing scams LONG before the phishing site is added to even 1 blacklist. Therefore relying on those kinds of services instead of the, and I'm sorry if this is the wrong term, heuristics that some browsers (like Firefox) use to determine that a site is phishing for your "lewtz."

    10. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by bstadil · · Score: 1

      On your last point. Sure it would be better to have 2 levels of protection but 1 is better than none. I don't get your point about Yahoo search. Can you elaborate. I use OpenDNS and I use Google as my default search engine. I switched to OpenDNS a few weeks ago and everything on my end works the same except for a small speed increase in page loading.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    11. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Lunis+Neko · · Score: 1

      When you type a word into the address bar, it would normally propagate (at least for me) as a google query. Type amazon into the bar and off to amazon you go. But when I used OpenDNS, instead of carrying me away to a google "I'm feeling lucky" result it took me to an OpenDNS page saying "This word isn't a URL and isn't one of your keyword shortcuts." and show a Yahoo! search page. This, according to a blog entry at OpenDNS, is intentional, and they don't have any plans to change it. It's frustrating for me because I very often use the lucky search results to get to common places like amazon, google, or even to, for example, a band website that I don't know. Type feist into the address bar and you automatically have feist's website.

    12. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Burz · · Score: 1

      OpenDNS monitors known phishing sites. Right, and Https is what protects users from phishing sites both known and unknown... assuming people aren't too lazy to check the domain spelling.
    13. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Huh? How does having an encrypted connection protect you from phishing? If you're decoyed to a bogus site, does it matter whether your connection is encrypted or not?

    14. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Burz · · Score: 1

      (sigh)

      Please read up on https/SSL/PKI technology used in web browsers. The SecurityNow podcast did a nice series introducing cryptography and the certification schemes it makes possible.

      Cryptographically-signed certificates are verified by the browser and a trusted third party (the certificate authority) as a pre-condition for establishing the link. The encrypted nature of the link is almost beside the point: SSL certs guarantee that the site (somedomain.com) you think you are talking to is the real McCoy. That is why the lock is displayed on the address bar, because it signifies the validity of the domain name currently being accessed.

      The certs cannot be faked without being detected by the browser. An attacker would have to somehow steal the private key of the site you're connecting to, or the CA's private key, in order to stage a MITM, arp cache or similar attack undetected.

      The system assumes that you know beforehand what domain name(s) you want to connect to. It doesn't try to decide for you which sites are "good" or "bad", it simply ensures that the "bankofamerica.com" server you're connecting with is the one that was actually registered with the CA. Thus, you have to check domain spelling.

    15. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by fm6 · · Score: 1

      OK, I forgot that web server certificates, in addition to supporting encyrption, are supposed to help protect folks from bogus web sites. Why did I forget? They're totally ineffective. People forget that they're supposed to look for the lock icon when entering confidential data. Or when they get that mysterious message dialog complaining about an invalid certificate, they treat it like all the dozens of other messages they don't understand, and click whatever button lets them get on with what they were doing. Banks gave up on them long ago, which is why I have to identify a cute picture every time I access my checking account online.

      Contrary to what you think, this is not "laziness". Scams always have an element of social engineering. You forget that, and all your fancy technology just gives you a false sense of security.

      What I want is a certificate scheme that verifies not just that you're access a certified site, but automatically displays who the certificate was issued to. That feature would not only help prevent phishing, it would provide a mechanism for identifying email users.

    16. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by Burz · · Score: 1

      The card maker wants to be Windows only so don't buy it. Sooner or later hardware vendors will have to come around. My experience asking people about this for nearly two years tells me 100% that you are wrong. People aren't even told how to use https properly these days ("look for the lock" doesn't cut it), if they are even told at all. Your opinion represents the failure of techie culture in giving up on the general population, and quite frankly I am tired of hearing the cop-outs and lazy, elitist sneering about browser users from incompetents such as yourself. You (and many others) have done the equivalent of forgetting that a car uses a transmission to connect the engine to the wheels.

      Scams always have an element of social engineering. And they succeed far more when users are left ignorant and unable to make the right choice.

      You forget that, and all your fancy technology just gives you a false sense of security. Oh, so we are railing against "fancy technology" on Slashdot, are we? Well, you are using a computer and a web browser to say that, buster, so you sound like a hypocrite.

      What I want is a certificate scheme that verifies not just that you're access a certified site, but automatically displays who the certificate was issued to. That feature would not only help prevent phishing, it would provide a mechanism for identifying email users. The address + lock doesn't just show that you are accessing "a certified site", it shows that the actual address being displayed is itself cryptographically signed and has connected you to the actual physical server(s) the registrant intended. i.e. the address itself is a keyed identity that is proof against tampering.

      Most people will not want a certificate dialog popping up every time a secure page is accessed. To see this info you can click the lock when the address bar turns yellow (you probably forgot that too) or you can write a small browser plugin to do this automatically if one doesn't already exist.
    17. Re:OpenDNS to the rescue by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The card maker wants to be Windows only so don't buy it. Sooner or later hardware vendors will have to come around. My experience asking people about this for nearly two years tells me 100% that you are wrong. I didn't write that. In fact, I agree with you on this point.

      Scams always have an element of social engineering. And they succeed far more when users are left ignorant and unable to make the right choice. By all means, inform the user. I submit that current technology does a lousy job of informing the user.

      You forget that, and all your fancy technology just gives you a false sense of security. Oh, so we are railing against "fancy technology" on Slashdot, are we? Well, you are using a computer and a web browser to say that, buster, so you sound like a hypocrite. I'm not railing against technology, I'm railing against the false sense of security technology can bring. To quote Bruce Schneier, security is a process, not a product.

      As long as we getting personal: you sound like a jerk.

      What I want is a certificate scheme that verifies not just that you're access a certified site, but automatically displays who the certificate was issued to. That feature would not only help prevent phishing, it would provide a mechanism for identifying email users. The address + lock doesn't just show that you are accessing "a certified site", it shows that the actual address being displayed is itself cryptographically signed and has connected you to the actual physical server(s) the registrant intended. i.e. the address itself is a keyed identity that is proof against tampering. So what? It doesn't bleeping do the job. That's not my opinion, that's consensus of every serious security expert.

      Here's the procedure the user is supposed to follow:
      1. Verify the presence of the lock icon.
      2. Look at the url, and parse out the part the identifies the domain name of the site.
      3. Match the domain name against the domain name that you found out somehow is the official one for the owner of the site.
      Even if people could remember to do all this, it assumes too much technical skill. This is a classical case of a techie designing a procedure for use by non-techie, and and totally failing. You or I call figure out what all that crap in the address bar means at a glance. Most people cannot. The whole protocol needs to be redesigned to communicate in a simpler, clearer manner, and that's actually happening.
  7. What nonsense. by gnutoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    IE over Safari? Really? I can understand wanting a good free browser like Firefox on OSX but IE? Do they even have IE 7 for OSX yet? The article Ars points to says that this is driven by IE7 users not quiting PayPal. The fishing stuff is pure speculation and not even Microsoft thinks IE7 fishing protection is effective:

    Last year, researchers at Microsoft and Stanford University published a study showing that, without training, people were unlikely to notice the green address-bar notification provided by EV certificates.

    Barrett says data compiled on PayPal's Web site show that the EV certificates are having an effect. He says IE 7 users are more likely to sign on to PayPal's Web site than users who don't have EV certificate technology, presumably because they're confident that they're visiting a legitimate site.

    Over the past few months, IE 7 users have been less likely to drop out and abandon the process of signing on to PayPal, he said. "It's a several percentage-point drop in abandonment rates," he said. "That number is... measurably lower for IE 7 users."

    Rather than percieved security, I think the reason they see more IE7 users still logging in is because IE7 users are the kind of sheep that move along when prodded. They are using Windows, right? Like sheep to the slaughter, every day.

    I've got a paypal account. I don't use it much because I don't use Ebay much. I would never use an emailed link to visit the site because it's just as easy to find the right page through Paypal itself. If they make it hard, they don't deserve my business.

    1. Re:What nonsense. by Knara · · Score: 2, Informative

      AFAIK there will never be an IE7 for OS X

    2. Re:What nonsense. by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 1

      Do they even have IE 7 for OSX yet?
      Barring a freak reversal of market share, nothing beyond IE 5.5 will ever be released for Macs.
    3. Re:What nonsense. by Gerhardius · · Score: 1

      Insightful comments, especially the sheep one. I have met more sheep in the IT field than any where except anyone involved with supply in the Army. Just like the sheep who pay sticker price; the sheep who buy "this season's" fashions; the sheep who grovel at the feet of MS, Google or Apple; the sheep who bleat about paying for anything; the sheep who think some flavor of *nix will save the world; folks who imbue anything with the prefix "i" as being a product of genius. The world is full of them.

    4. Re:What nonsense. by anexkahn · · Score: 1

      Microsoft no longer supports any version of Internet explorer on the Mac: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for_Mac

      --
      Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
    5. Re:What nonsense. by Ox0065 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if PayPal got some competent programmers for their website, and it started consistently worked properly for browsers other than iE... ...then they might get more people with decent browsers visiting their site.

      People who are sensible enough to object to using iE for banking.
      People who are a little over x86 & ready to... ...move on to something better

      --
      thx e
    6. Re:What nonsense. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I use Firefox and never had any trouble with it. The harsh truth is that Safari sucks ass and pretty much always has. It lags way behind even IE, much less Opera and Firefox.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. here phishie phishie by themushroom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, if you're not checking what's in the URL of your browser, or are in the habit of clicking on links in email blindly, you get the phishing you deserve. The best protection mechanism in any browser against phishing is your eyes, looking at the address bar.

    snark: And Safari users are advised to stop using PayPal.

    1. Re:here phishie phishie by Niten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, if you're not checking what's in the URL of your browser, or are in the habit of clicking on links in email blindly, you get the phishing you deserve.

      I'm all for exercising personal responsibility, but I'd never argue that anybody 'deserves' to fall victim to a phishing scam.

      The fact of the matter is that there are some people (my grandparents, for example) who like to use the Web, but who are perhaps just a little bit senile and might one day fall for this sort of thing. If even an Ars Technica writer can fall for it, how can we expect an 80+ year-old to constantly exercise due vigilance?

      I'm actually quite OK with this PayPal advisory: the kind of people who will act upon it -- computing amateurs, basically -- probably should be using a browser that raises a big fat red flag when it hits a known scam site, and I'd recommend that such people use Firefox, Opera, or even IE 7 rather than Safari. The rest of us, those who are clueful enough to know how to protect themselves, aren't really the ones that PayPal is addressing here.

    2. Re:here phishie phishie by VirusEqualsVeryYes · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look, if you're not checking what's in the URL of your browser, or are in the habit of clicking on links in email blindly, you get the phishing you deserve.
      You're an ass.

      If you are not in the habit of checking all open ports and immediately downloading updates, would you deserve the theft of your ID private information and loss of data that could ensue?

      If you are in the habit of leaving your doors unlocked, would you deserve the devastating destruction and theft that could ensue?

      If you are in the habit of not getting your brakes checked, would you deserve the highway pileup that could ensue?

      If you are not in the habit of meticulously checking your condoms for poked holes, would you deserve the unwanted baby and life-ruining court battles that could ensue?

      As they say, the loudest critics are usually the worst offenders. I'm sure a few scenarios could knock some perspective into your thick skull.
    3. Re:here phishie phishie by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look, if you're not checking what's in the URL of your browser, or are in the habit of clicking on links in email blindly, you get the phishing you deserve.

      On this I must disagree. Right now the best solution probably is double checking URLs, but that is realistically not a good solution for the majority of people. Apple (and every other browser developer) should be working on a a URL whitelist/greylist/blacklist detection and warning technology. I'm not sure, however, that they should rush to deploy such technology. It might be better to wait until it is reliable enough to provide real benefit without providing a false sense of security. Right not IE has such a technology, but reviews show it to be of little, practical use. I know Apple is working on such technology and depending upon how effective it seems to be, it might be best that they have not rolled it out for Safari yet. I do think there s a real demand for this type of technology and developers should be trying to fill that need.

      snark: And Safari users are advised to stop using PayPal.

      Well... I might say all security minded users might be well advised to stop using Paypal. We have Google Checkout now who would want to use Paypal?

    4. Re:here phishie phishie by dutin · · Score: 1

      The only items you've pointed out that is unrealistic is the condoms and port checking analogy. The rest are what you get when you're an ass. If you leave your keys in the car and it gets stolen in most states, YOU get a ticket as well as the person who is arrested for auto theft. If you're a moron, you get what you deserve. It's not hard to lock your house or car, get regular maintenance on your car, or not click links in email you didn't know you were getting.

    5. Re:here phishie phishie by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Why is double checking the URL not a good solution for most people? Are they blind? If they cannot preform such a simple operation then they should not be using the internet. If you want a car analogy, "If I can't be relied on to observe traffic around me while driving, then I should not be driving, regardless of how necessary society says driving is."

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    6. Re:here phishie phishie by sabernet · · Score: 1

      I remember a well publicized phishing site with the name paypa1.com

      Yes, that last letter was the numeral 1. pretty hard to tell, huh? Especially if the font wasn't serifed.

      How about those sites which used the multilingual capabilities of certain browsers like firefox to list non-anglo-roman characters into the address bar which looked similar or identical to the literal versions of those letters?

      The fact is, the phishers are crafty, generally more crafty then your Average Joe when it comes to internet trickery.

    7. Re:here phishie phishie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are not in the habit of checking all open ports and immediately downloading updates, would you deserve the theft of your ID private information and loss of data that could ensue?
      Yep.

      If you are in the habit of leaving your doors unlocked, would you deserve the devastating destruction and theft that could ensue?
      You bet.

      If you are in the habit of not getting your brakes checked, would you deserve the highway pileup that could ensue?
      You better believe it.

      If you are not in the habit of meticulously checking your condoms for poked holes, would you deserve the unwanted baby and life-ruining court battles that could ensue?
      Um, what? How about "if you're in the habit of having sex so much with crappy condoms, do you deserve the baby that's the logical result of having sex?" The answer, of course, is yes.

      Of course, no one gives a shit about being responsible anymore, it's always someone else's fault, isn't it? Get over it. If you get phished, it's your own fucking fault.

    8. Re:here phishie phishie by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why is double checking the URL not a good solution for most people?

      First, because as more and more services become dependent upon URLs there are fewer and fewer URLs that don't have some feature that might indicate they are really a phishing attempt. Also, as the Web becomes more international more characters that look the same or very similar are introduced. More and more legitimate e-mail messages, even automated ones, reference Web sites. Am I going to look at every single e-mail I get from Netflix to make sure the URL that pops up really is NetFlix? Maybe, or maybe I won't sometime and if the tab that loads does not have a warning, maybe I'll mistake it for Netflix. Maybe I will look, but maybe I won't notice it is netf1ix.com instead of netflix.com. Everyone makes a mistake now and again and most people are nowhere near as security conscious as I am.

      Can you honestly say there is no way you would ever make that mistake? Can you honestly say there is no way your grandmother or 8 year-old nephew could not make that mistake? Technology to automatically verify the identity of a Web server is useful for everyone and I believe there is a real demand. If that demand is ignored, people will go elsewhere, maybe to IE7 where they feel safer, or maybe to Opera. Web browser developers ignoring that demand will probably lose out. If you don't want to use it, don't worry. I'm sure Firefox will let you turn it off, and if it won't, will you can always fork it.

      Are they blind?

      Some of them are, certainly. I know it takes my friend a lot longer to listen to a page via an audio interface or even read it using his braille board. By default, I don't even think it reads the URL and if it did it would be a huge annoyance for him.

      Oh did you mean that as a rhetorical question? Too bad, it is a real concern.

      If you want a car analogy, "If I can't be relied on to observe traffic around me while driving, then I should not be driving, regardless of how necessary society says driving is."

      By that logic, we should all be observant enough to check our coolant levels before driving too. After all, once in a great while it is too low and the engine will overheat. Why bother to put a heat sensor and warning light on the dash? What are you, blind or something? If you can't check your engine coolant periodically you should just walk everywhere.

    9. Re:here phishie phishie by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      And all are defeated by "don't click financial links in an e-mail". No need to check the links, just don't do it, period.

    10. Re:here phishie phishie by paving-slab · · Score: 1

      Personally I think the best solution is to always enter an incorrect user name and password first (or even none). If it's accepted it's a phishing site, if not it's genuine.

      I suppose they may cotton on to this, though, and send an "incorrect password entered" page back by default. Hmm, perhaps I should enter the wrong information twice...

    11. Re:here phishie phishie by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Personally I think the best solution is to always enter an incorrect user name and password first (or even none). If it's accepted it's a phishing site, if not it's genuine.

      I use the same machine for most tasks and it manages all my passwords for me. If I have to type anything, well it probably is a phishing attempt.

    12. Re:here phishie phishie by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If you are in the habit of leaving your doors unlocked, would you deserve the devastating destruction and theft that could ensue?

      If you are in the habit of not getting your brakes checked, would you deserve the highway pileup that could ensue?

      The insurance companies would think so in both cases, you'd be completely on the hook if there was evidence of negligence.

      If you are not in the habit of meticulously checking your condoms for poked holes, would you deserve the unwanted baby and life-ruining court battles that could ensue?

      Again, I'd say yes. If one doesn't want a baby, I'd suggest that a person not have sex in the first place. It's really just that simple. Think that the sexual urges are too strong to resist? Well, there's a lot of people manage that manage it. Maybe the people that don't would rather blame their instincts than assume responsibility for the choices they make. Sure, it's difficult, but nothing good is ever achieved without sacrifice.
    13. Re:here phishie phishie by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Fake websites are only part of the problem. My aunt (not very computer literate) recently got scammed on ebay, but not from a fake site. The seller forged a fake email from ebay that described how to finish the transaction via Western Union :\

      She is new to the internet, and to her WU sounded like an acceptable means of making the payment. She's never had to wire money before, and didn't understand the risks. So yes, WU should have set off all kinds of alarms, but you've got to consider many people have a different sense of trust. When she showed me the email from ebay in her yahoo inbox, I was shocked. It was too damned good. Yahoo let it in with a forged domain, ...@ebay.com not gobbeldygookfoobar-ebay.com, there were no misspellings, and it looked very real even to me, other than the bad advice.

      So anyway, I'm not completely sold on this being solely the end user's responsibility to verify everything, even websites. A beginner wouldn't even know what https is or what the address bar is telling them. There are lots of things we could do to make the internet safer for beginners. Many of us had it easy when we got started on the net, maybe we gave out our IP address in a chat room and got win-nuked, or have been the recipient of an email bomb, or had an IRC room stolen. Now, beginners are getting duped and scammed out of real money all too often, and we look down on them because it's so easy for _us_ to distinguish what's trustworthy or not.

      Ah... thanks.

    14. Re:here phishie phishie by CastrTroy · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you are the kind of person who would fall for this thing, then you shouldn't even have an internet banking login. If you can't handle it, don't use it.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    15. Re:here phishie phishie by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

      These people are the ones who turn off anti-virus because it doesn't allow them to open that picture with the .exe extension...

      Why do we need to dumb everything down? Just the other day I saw on sneaky one that got by IE7... Thank GOD the user noticed and only clicked on it to check it out...very impressive.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    16. Re:here phishie phishie by dn15 · · Score: 1

      Personally I prefer to just never follow links to PayPal, my bank, etc. when found in emails or on another website. If I get an alert that I need to sign in and do something, I open a new window and type "paypal.com" or whatever the case may be. It's kind of hard to get phished when you are the one entering the address you visit, no matter what browser you use.

    17. Re:here phishie phishie by Niten · · Score: 1

      I take it you're not a fan of anti-lock brake systems either? You know, if you can't handle traditional braking techniques, don't use a car?

      But like the automobile, the Web has become a necessary part of everyday life in the U.S.; many people simply cannot "opt out" of the Internet and still function in business and in society. So I really have no problem with adding basic safety features, like the Google blacklist, to web browsers, to help out the more accident-prone among us. And I have no problem telling people that they should use a browser with these safety features over one that lacks them.

    18. Re:here phishie phishie by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      Mod parent up, if not already at +5.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    19. Re:here phishie phishie by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Is it really entirely necessary to do online banking? Sure, using the web for other stuff could be considered mandatory, but what's to stop you from not using online banking. I know tons of people who don't use online banking, just because they like the traditional method better.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    20. Re:here phishie phishie by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      If you are not in the habit of meticulously checking your condoms for poked holes, would you deserve the unwanted baby and life-ruining court battles that could ensue? Um, what? How about "if you're in the habit of having sex so much with crappy condoms, do you deserve the baby that's the logical result of having sex?" The answer, of course, is yes. Spoken like the typical celibate slashdotter. All condoms can break, and you only need to have sex the once. Shit happens. Get a life and date smarter women, for crying out loud. And now for the "NUH UH! I GET LAID ALL THE TIME! WITH REAL HUMANS!"
    21. Re:here phishie phishie by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      you get the phishing you deserve Nobody, no matter how stupid, is ever guilty of being a victim of a crime. Nobody deserves phishing, period. Quit blaming users and start prosecuting criminals.
    22. Re:here phishie phishie by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well stated! My guess is the other guy is a programmer, complete with propensity to blame the user for everything, and that you are more of a people manager. And to the guy a few lines down, I have to call BS that "most" States issue tickets to the owners of stolen vehicles who don't secure them properly. Evidence?

    23. Re:here phishie phishie by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Most people don't know what an URL is or how one works, so telling them to check their URL won't do anything to stop phishing.

    24. Re:here phishie phishie by themushroom · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to say anyone deserves to be phished. I meant that if a person shifts responsibility for their online safety to software and doesn't use their wetware, shit happens.

      And thank you to the people who modded this from 5 to 2. Kisses!

  9. Phishing protection? Really? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The kinds of people who fall for phishing scams aren't likely to pay attention to what PayPal advises them to do.

    So why not cut the middleman and just advise them to not fall for phishing scams -- that is, to always verify https://www.paypal.com/ in the URL?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:Phishing protection? Really? by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 5, Funny

      DON'T CLICK ON THAT LINK!

      It might be a phishing scam!

    2. Re:Phishing protection? Really? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I agree. Besides I don't need a phishing filter. What I need is something that jumps out at me and says "Caution! This might be legitimate." I almost instinctively trashed Paypals ToS last time they sent one out.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Phishing protection? Really? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Does paypal offer the ability to sign (via PGP) the legitimate emails they send? I'm not a user, so I wouldn't know, but I think it would be a good feature. For a company who deals with money, and who's only way of contacting their customers is through email, it would be nice if you could really verify that the email they actually did sent was legitimate. I know that it wouldn't be for everyone, and that most people probably wouldn't know what to do with signed emails. However, for those of us who do, it would be a very welcome feature.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Phishing protection? Really? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Well spotted!

      The link is, in fact, a phishing site. It's much safer to do business through here:

      http://www.bankofanerica.com/

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:Phishing protection? Really? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind S/MIME, either.

      But the answer is no, as far as I know. Haven't looked into it recently, though.

      Also, it would be kind of a pain to work into my current spam system, though I'm sure it's possible.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    6. Re:Phishing protection? Really? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind S/MIME, either.

      But the answer is no, as far as I know. Haven't looked into it recently, though.


      S/MIME would be good, though they have just started using DKIM, which is nice, for a change.

      At least MailScanner doesn't bleed all over their mails with fraud warnings these days - it did just a year or so ago. I guess they read some of my rants and took them to heart. ;)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. Maybe in Safari 3.1? by Christopher+Rogers · · Score: 1

    Apparently Safari 3 was supposed to have anti-phishing technology when it was released alongside Leopard but it got cut. Perhaps this will push Apple to complete it for the next (hopefully soon) release of Safari.

  11. How good Ars Technica writers at tech and reviews by Blahbooboo3 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Ars technica just dropped in my book. The writer couldn't pay enough attention to avoid a phishing scam?? Wonder how much attention he gives to his reviews and news items...

  12. Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by edalytical · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's called the address bar. It's very easy to use, just type where you want to go and press return. Before entering sensitive information into a browser window check the address bar and make sure you are where you think you are. I know your mom and my mom might not fully understand the address bar, but I think it would be easier for them to learn about it than installing a new browser.

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    1. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by Drogo007 · · Score: 1

      And just hope and pray that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_cache_poisoning hasn't happened, or your simple little fix is worthless

    2. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by edalytical · · Score: 1

      That is beyond simple phising...I'm not an expert, but I think it's called pharming...it's also less inconspicuous to law enforcement and technically more difficult.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    3. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But DNS cache poisoning isn't really a browser issue, is it? (although I suppose a browser exploit could be used to pollute the local DNS cache on a user's machine)

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    4. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Of course, in the case of a really neat phishing where the address is really close, this may not work all the time. Do you actually check every link you follow to make sure it's correct? maybe, say, if it was e-mailed from a personal friend or something?

      I'm sure a lot of doctors would say that if people just washed their hands more, you wouldn't get as sick... but if you DO get sick, they don't just tell you "Pft, too bad, you should have washed your hands. Next."

      Besides... if it's possible for a browser to be *gasp* more secure than it is now, at no "freedom" loss, shouldn't we be all for it? May as well start arguing that Linux is worse than Windows because Linux is TOO secure and encourages carelessness in users' activity. You really should have to check all your ports, they should all default to open so you can get into the habit of checking what ports are open... or something. :)

    5. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      Yes, but some addresses look like legit ones. Some might use some Unicode characters, others might use a domain that looks resonable, and other can play with .com .org .edu part of the domain, remember whitehouse.com?

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    6. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by kindbud · · Score: 1

      It's called the address bar.

      Yes of course! Why didn't they realize that DNS has been an absolutely reliable indicator of the authenticity of a site, ever since DNSSEC was implemented way back in 1997.

      I'll tell you why: because that happened in an alternate reality, not this one!

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    7. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by kindbud · · Score: 1

      Before entering sensitive information into a browser window check the address bar and make sure you are where you think you are.

      Oh, and I almost forgot about iframes. You know, that feature that lets you put another site inside your site, without changing the address bar or showing an obvious frame border? Yeah.

      By the way, chances are I am not behind a firewall or proxy, can we get that stupid condescending message changed to just "Slow down Cowboy, do you think this is a discussion forum?"

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    8. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      That's what TLS is for. Of course, I've accepted certificates before even though they weren't valid / weren't issued by a trusted CA (obviously not for PayPal, though).

    9. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by edalytical · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of replies are bringing up valid points, but I also think the address bar is your first line of defense when it comes to phising. For the most part avoiding scams is a matter of detecting the scam. Informed users are a far cry better than a browser features users wont understand in the first place.

      --
      Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
    10. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by MMInterface · · Score: 1

      My mom, no not really. Installing a new OS would be easier than teaching her to do anything. Installing a browser like Firefox is quick and easy. My mom has a bad memory, she is clumsy and her eye sight isn't even that good. Using the address bar would just send her to the wrong place. She would type the wrong address. She wouldn't even know how to tell if the url in address bar is the right one or not. And she would quickly dismiss the idea out of frustration in the unlikely even that she agreed to try it in the first place.

    11. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Why are you following a link to go to your banking site? Why is your friend emailing you the URL to your bank? I don't check every link. But when I go to my banking website, I type in the URL myself, or click on the bookmark. And then I look for the little lock on the bottom of my screen. Probably not completely impenetrable, but until the rest of the world gets a whole lot smarter, most phishers won't try anything more advanced.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    12. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by toddestan · · Score: 1

      To be fair, from my understanding of how anti-phishing filters work they wouldn't catch DNS poisoning, as the URL would still be legit.

      Or have the anti-phishing filters advanced to the point where they now check IPs too?

    13. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      "Pft, too bad, you should have washed your hands. Next."

      Huh, mind said that. Then tried to stick a scalpel in my chest.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    14. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      My anti-phishing mechanism is called "Firefox" and it's much easier than manually typing every goddamn URL I go to just because I can't let go of the crap-ass Safari browser.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:Every browser has and anti-phishing mechanism by hr+raattgift · · Score: 1
      An alternate reality in which DNSSEC does not suck?

      The DNS is a generalized database; since at least Project Athena's Hesiod (1983), and in IETF standards since at least RFC 1464 (1993), storing management and user information in the DNS has been commonplace. Why? Because it's useful to have a distributed hierarchical database with a light weight and rapid query/response, good failure resilience, decent caching, and a host (pardon the pun) of other features. It's especially useful when the keys are aligned with the hierarchy of DNS names anyway.

      Some of this information is private for a variety of reasons, and servers are often configured to give it only to particular ranges of addresses.

      Encrypting the sensitive RRs with a pre-shared key would be feasible (give or take the difficulties in the "pre-" part, which are probably soluble with DHCP), but that eliminates the light weight and rapid query/response because encrypted information tends to require large responses, leading to partial-loss/full-retransmissions risks, or [T]TCP, both of which increase the total amount of data, state, and time-to-acquire-answer.

      However sometimes the domain name parts themselves are sensitive, and that conflicts badly with DNSSEC as it exists now because of NSEC following. NSEC3 is now at best experimental and subject to substantial change, in spite of the wording in the I-Ds. Split domains are hard, DNSSEC makes it harder.

      Dynamic DNS updates and DNSSEC don't interoperate well at all, and Secure Dynamic Update and NSEC3 still have some open interoperability problems. This is a bear in a world where one acquires new A or especially AAAA RRs by arriving on a LIS supporting DHCP or prefix autoconfiguration (for example) but want to maintain a consistent global hostname.

      DNS has been an absolutely reliable indicator of the authenticity of a site


      No, it's an indication of authenticity of the origin of the DNS information one gets from some random cache, including negative caching information (NXDOMAINs), and it also provides additional data integrity as a side-effect.

      Making authentic information cacheable is a useful goal for scalability reasons.

      However, DNSSEC does this in a way which precludes a number of other practical uses of the DNS, for which the answer "don't use the DNS for private data, replicate the DNS hierarchy in another separate directory system!" is not currently realistic.

      Moreover, the scalability win of caching data which are authentic for the duration of the ttl is clawed back by the increase in TCP-based transfers caused by zone enumeration (or the extra caching of large amounts of probably extraneous data to try to mitigate that for the originating server).

      Authentic DNS information is useful in determining the binding between sets of entries in the DNS (typically that the fully qualified DNS name has an A or AAAA RR and that the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA. or IP6.ARPA. DNS names point back to the FQDN). This does not tell you whether the IP/IPv6 routing system will take your packets to the target you want -- routing attacks, interception attacks, and subverted hosts are not detected by DNSSEC.

      Where DNSSEC helps (a little) is in the promulgation of PKI public keys that can detect these attacks, either at the application/service level (as with TLS) or at the network level (IPSEC). However, DNSSEC is not necessary for distributing PKI keys tied to the DNS hierarchy (one can still verify public keys out of band), and TLS is unlikely to be replaced by cleartext application conversations protected by opportunistic IPSEC ESP.

      Sadly, my take on DNSSEC is that what it does is so readily misunderstood, even by people who are familiar with the DNS, that the standards are going to remain fluid for a while, and deployment will happen only by early adopters who have the time to adapt to the possible changes.
  13. That's about the size of it. by gnutoo · · Score: 1

    The Yahoo article has more information and reasoning. I link to it, quote it and give an alternate explanation here. Basically, Paypal is losing customers of all browsers but least of all from IE7 users. I think this is because IE7 users are sheep not people sharp enough to have noticed a new tool.

  14. I hate to say it. by Higaran · · Score: 1

    But I really hate the mac commercials where they talk all that crap. "I guess that mac's aren't way more secure than pc's." But then again it's all about how stupid the user is, it's doesn't have that much to do about the system at all.

    1. Re:I hate to say it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safari isn't anymore insecure than IE because it doesn't highlight the url field green when matching against the EV cert. EV certs are a scam anyway, you're already paying $200-$300 a year for an SSL cert and now they want you to pay $500+ for another cert. The companies that can truly benefit from them are priced out anyway...

      The problem isn't that Macs are less secure than Windows. The problem is the stupid windows users going to the Mac side because they don't understand the technology that they use daily. Would you hand someone a chainsaw without them ever using one? Probably not. Why shouldn't people understand that before you enter information, check to make sure you know who you're giving it to. Are these the same people who give their SSN out to random callers on the telephone?

      You can't efficiently program away stupidity, just like you can't legislate security.

    2. Re:I hate to say it. by Gerhardius · · Score: 1

      Hilarious fanboy logic: Windows users going to Macs are at fault...right.

  15. i've gotten those scam e-mails before... by kesuki · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/paypal_scam.html

    mine was similar, only it claimed they were doing a fraud investigation about fraudulent use to my account.

    they use the images and everything it looks exactly like a paypal e-mail, only the hyper link when you hover over it says a different website than in the email message. (they're doing a simple html trick, which is always the first thing i look for)

    I've seen them do the same thing with say, yahoo mail login sites, etc. one of my less savvy friends got her IM name stolen for use sending IM spam.

    safari is bass acwards to not show the real url on a tool bar! i couldn't live a day without that feature.

    1. Re:i've gotten those scam e-mails before... by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, Safari does show the REAL url on the toolbar.

      Maybe you're the confused one.

    2. Re:i've gotten those scam e-mails before... by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean the status bar, and safari hides that by default because it can be erronously updated with javascript. In other words, if you're relying on the status bar, you're your own worst enemy.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    3. Re:i've gotten those scam e-mails before... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      ahh well, i also have a firewall that blocks all the badies, i didn't say i relied on it, i said i couldn't live without it. people on slashdot often times have very long urls that hide say goatse links. and last i checked, yahoo mail doesn't run javascript. they also (optionally) block the loading of say 1x1 pixels in e-mails, or all loading of pictures from urls etc.

    4. Re:i've gotten those scam e-mails before... by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      If you still want to keep the status bar hidden in Safari, an alternative in Safari is to drag a link around.
      The target URL will appear.

  16. Browsers cannot help by wardk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    those too ignorant to leave URL's in emails ALONE

    the headline could have also just said "Paypal tells idiots to stop clicking on paypal emails"

    but that would potentially stop the 1 in 1000000 clicks that are legit and paypal would not want that transaction to not happen, so it's message to us is to stop using Safari.

    isn't anything going on worth reporting? this is filler...

    1. Re:Browsers cannot help by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not really true, I am good enough to avoid those phishing mails, but most people isn't. And sometimes I saw even gmail's filter let some pass, when I checked one of those sites for curiosity I was actually surprised by how it works in firefox, the page is much darker and a sign appears telling you the site is a dangerous counterfeit, that probably could cause a heart attack to some users, but at least will prevent them from falling in the sam.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    2. Re:Browsers cannot help by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The major problem is that paypal actually uses email to communicate with their customers. Telling people to ignore emails from paypal isn't really what they want.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Browsers cannot help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant scam* . I am starting to think preview should be mandatory for everyone :) OR perhaps finally add that edit button since slashdot's system is so paranoid you can't even reply shortly after you made a post.

  17. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Apple fan boys aren't going to like this story.
    Nope. Didn't take long for several posts to start calling IE7 uses sheep. So ironic that it is funny as hell.
  18. They've had it too good for too long... by SterlingSylver · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if there's group of users that has been told repeatedly that their computer is safe from viruses, that it "just works," and that they don't need to be concerned with computer threats of any kind...it's Apple users. Sitting in their offices, wearing their turtlenecks and sipping their lattes, the only thing about phishing they've heard about is that it happens to other people. Uglier people. They're not used to having to defend themselves, not like Windows users. Windows users have a battle-scarred paranoia...they've seen worms that can rewrite their BIOS, steal their credit cards, and kidnap their firstborn. Their 50 yard stares have been earned by fixing their mom's computer for the eighth time this month, and damnit if they're going to lose another computer to some Ethiopian scammer...not after the last time. Their nightmares are the stuff of Steven King novels, the earlier stuff with lovecraftian clowns and superplagues that are the start of apocalyptic battles between good and evil. Their best days on the internet involve life and death struggles against the next pop-up, because it might be their last. Ironically, Mac users have never had to live with the terror that clicking on that "win a free iPod" might just cause their computer to explode, spamming their grandmother with anal tranny porn on its way out. Maybe it's time they should... ...wait, what the hell was I talking about?

    1. Re:They've had it too good for too long... by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Windows users have a battle-scarred paranoia...they've seen worms that can rewrite their BIOS, steal their credit cards, and kidnap their firstborn.

      And the fuckers STILL just click every YES button that pops up.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:They've had it too good for too long... by homesteader · · Score: 1

      Hey, some of us drink Breve's . . .

    3. Re:They've had it too good for too long... by matria · · Score: 1

      I had to laugh at this overgeneralized characterization! I'm sitting in a shabby flat with loose tiles on the floor, a leaky ceiling, cracked walls, in a living room empty except for a sofa that was given to me, using an iBook I paid for out of earnings from websites designed and developed on an ancient Compaq laptop. Oh, I have a cup of water on the floor next to the sofa. The sun is shining, the birds are singing in the tree outside the open window; life is good.

      This is not looking for sympathy, I'm quite happy with my lifestyle, just poking at this perception of Mac users in general. I don't even like coffee, and only have the vaguest idea of what a latte is. But I do know computers. Almost 20 years experience of building, repairing, and programming PCs and AS/400 is why I've got a Mac even when I don't have a TV. Don't like TV, anyway. But I do use Firefox, mostly for Firebug.

    4. Re:They've had it too good for too long... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I would just like to add that I don't even OWN a television, independent cinema is the ONLY cinema as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't be caught dead in an SUV.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  19. Yahoo article from Infoworld vanished. by gnutoo · · Score: 1

    Infoworld still has the original article, but I can understand wanting to pull a story like that.

  20. don't blam Safari by twotailakitsune · · Score: 1

    PEBKAC.
    Yes Safari could do better, but lighting does not strike twice. Apple did good by going to OS10, but don't think they will do a lot more.

    The user has to tell the different from bad sites and the real site.

    If a girl called you saying they are from your bank asking for the numbers on your Bank card would you give it to her? ... okay, lets try it this way. would a person with a IQ above room temp; in Celsius? ... Is there anyone who would not fall for that?

    1. Re:don't blam Safari by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If a girl called you saying they are from your bank asking for the numbers on your Bank card would you give it to her?

      I think I speak for almost all of Slashdot when I say, "Is she cute?"

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:don't blam Safari by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      The user has to tell the different from bad sites and the real site.

      Yeah, and on my old truck I had to shift gears by hand using a double clutch and putting it in 4WD mean climbing out and locking the wheels by hand. That doesn't mean users don't want something easier and better.

      If a girl called you saying they are from your bank asking for the numbers on your Bank card would you give it to her?

      No, but I never get calls from my bank. I do get regular e-mail messages from various Web services. I do enjoy having my cell phone tell me the identity of callers automatically, without my having to get out a little black book and check before answering. Given that my computer is even more of a general purpose device than my phone, I'd like it to manage the same functionality.

      Don't get me wrong, it isn't a deal breaker right now and prematurely releasing technologies that are not ready for mainstream use might do more harm than good (I'm looking at you IE 7). Still, better identity verification for Web sites sounds useful to me, and essential for my mother and father and nieces.

  21. Now it's back. by gnutoo · · Score: 1

    Has Yahoo moved to Server 2007 or something? Weird.

  22. Oh, stop whining. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All Paypal did was have a faq containing a list of anti-phishing features & browsers that support those features.

    They don't recommend against Safari, they just recommend browsers that support anti-phishing features.

    No doubt when Apple gets around to adding these features (pity Safari's not OSS, or it could be added easily by third parties), PayPal will add them to the list.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    1. Re:Oh, stop whining. by Osty · · Score: 1

      pity Safari's not OSS, or it could be added easily by third parties

      What does that have to do with being OSS or not? Safari has an extension model just like IE, and neither are open source. Prior to IE7, several third-party extensions added anti-phishing support for IE (MSN, Google, etc), and as far as I can tell there's nothing in Safari's extension model that would prevent others from doing the same there as well. OSS vs. non-OSS doesn't even come into play here.

    2. Re:Oh, stop whining. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with being OSS or not?

      I'm afraid that it is an OSS issue. You see, anti-phishing functionality appeared (briefly) in Safari 3.0 betas. If Safari was OSS, you could just use that code rather than writing a completely new extension.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    3. Re:Oh, stop whining. by rubah · · Score: 1

      pity Safari's not OSS But Webkit is.
    4. Re:Oh, stop whining. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with being OSS or not? Safari has an extension model just like IE, and neither are open source. Prior to IE7, several third-party extensions added anti-phishing support for IE (MSN, Google, etc), and as far as I can tell there's nothing in Safari's extension model that would prevent others from doing the same there as well. OSS vs. non-OSS doesn't even come into play here.

      Well put and there actually is such a plug-in for Safari that comes with the 1password password and identity management software. (Although it is not a whitelist/blacklist setup, but instead relies more upon the fact that it is really obvious a page is not genuine when you can't automatically log in using your 1password identity.)

    5. Re:Oh, stop whining. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Yes, but webkit isn't a browser, and you can't add anti-phishing functionality to it.

      Thanks for adding to the discussion tho' - very helpful.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  23. Re:How good Ars Technica writers at tech and revie by Niten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm very happy for you, that you've never made a single careless mistake in your life. However, please do try to have a little mercy on those of us who are merely human, especially when we're honest enough to admit it.

  24. Use IE? One problem... by Myrkridian42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There is *NO* Internet Explorer for Mac!

    Microsoft stopped making (and supporting) IE for Mac in 2003. See for yourself.

  25. Link? by tehniobium · · Score: 1

    I can't seem to find this "advice" anywhere on their page...(using safari (win) of course)

    Anyone care to lend a link?

    --
    No kitty, this is my pot pie!
    1. Re:Link? by BoChen456 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you are at the real pay pal site? Check the address bar. Check your dns setting and hope to god your router or any router along the route was not comprimised. Seriously though, whether its ie or safari, the internet is just plain insecure these days.

    2. Re:Link? by tehniobium · · Score: 1

      Haha, yea of course I'm sure :)

      --
      No kitty, this is my pot pie!
  26. clicking links in email = bad by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    ummm...doesn't paypal's parent company eBay advise users not to click on links in email? And that they should manually type in the address (www.ebay.com) then go about their business? (eBay's security tip about email)

  27. Re:How good Ars Technica writers at tech and revie by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Step 1: Assume that any e-mail you get is a phishing attempt.
    Step 2: There's no step 2. There's no step 2!

    It's not exactly rocket science.

  28. Fish all you want... by cybereal · · Score: 5, Informative

    I bought the $5 keyfob for paypal and ebay, (plus it works on my verisign openid provider) and this phishing problem is no longer an issue for me.

    They can get my paypal username and password, but they still need the electronic key that only *I* have. I suggest anyone who actually uses paypal get one of these, they are trivial to use and paypal is selling them incredibly cheaply.

    --
    I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
    1. Re:Fish all you want... by aitala · · Score: 1

      I got one as well. I find it very useful for eBay and PayPal....

      Eric

      --
      Eric Aitala
      www.f1m.com
    2. Re:Fish all you want... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      I would, but PayPal refuses to allow my country to buy them. They're for the US, Canada, and Australia or something like that only.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    3. Re:Fish all you want... by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      If they're anything like SecurIDs, you've still got problems.

      There are known attacks against the key, and if you put name, password, and ID into a bad site, it has a chance of shoving that data into paypal before the number changes, so they can take their time transferring the money out.

      Don't fall for a false sense of security.

    4. Re:Fish all you want... by xant · · Score: 1

      This is a very odd market. People who are aware enough of security to get a key fob, but ignorant enough to think they can fall victim to a phishing scam?

      Dude, they can't get you if you just don't click on email links. Hell, all you even have to do is look at the link in the status bar to see there's something wrong with it.

      --
      It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    5. Re:Fish all you want... by Hallx · · Score: 1

      ever head of Man-in-the-middle?

  29. PayPal/eBay vying for Microsoft bid? by catmistake · · Score: 1

    PayPal & eBay, with a one-two punch, get you coming and going. With all their delicious revenue, the best they can do to proect their users is to attempt to shuck the blame on the little guy. That is information technology genius. Forget spending thousands on security analysis... they keep your private info safe with a single finger.

  30. Whew!! by spungebob · · Score: 1

    For a minute there I thought this was about Safari

    Nevermind...

    --
    It takes an idiot to do cool things - that's why it's cool!
  31. Re:Oh boy by Gewalt · · Score: 0

    Actually, we love this kind of stuff.

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  32. Re:How good Ars Technica writers at tech and revie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Ars technica just dropped in my book. The writer couldn't pay enough attention to avoid a phishing scam?? Wonder how much attention he gives to his reviews and news items...

    He said it was late and he was tired. However, he also said this,

    At least I was lucky enough to realize I screwed up and was able to change my login information on that, and other sites, right away.
    Which seems to mean he was using the same password on multiple sites. This is a very bad idea, especially when on of the sites involves money.
  33. Uhm, no by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Honestly, I think that making sure your browser is secure is much more important then making sure your info isn't going to an incorrect site.
    This is most assuredly wrong. You see, the browser can be completely secure and if you are loging into a fake website your login will be stolen and your bank account emptied. Note that there are TWO ways to deal with this. One is anti-phishing features in browsers and the other is a stronger login mechanism like the one ING uses. ING just recently had the lowest reported incidence of ID theft of all the banks with an online presence with Bank of America being worst. The reason is that ING allows the users to KNOW that they are on the correct website through the use of a custom image of their choice. In addition the PIn keypad is randomized to prevent keyloggers from working. Paypal should implement THESE features.
    1. Re:Uhm, no by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Do you think that's really the reason? Correlation does not equal causation. It could be because they mostly try to push themselves as a savings bank, and therefore scare off the people who aren't smart enough to save any money. Maybe it's because they're online only, and therefore scare away a lot of users who aren't web-savvy enough to avoid phishing sites. I think this says a lot more about their clients then about their uber-fantastico online login procedures.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Uhm, no by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reason is that ING allows the users to KNOW that they are on the correct website through the use of a custom image of their choice.
      Bank of America has the same system, so that fails to explain the difference in ID theft. Probably one reason is that ING Direct gets more savvy users than BoA.
  34. All Apple users are fan boys by Bryansix · · Score: 0

    This is proved by the fact that the OP got his post modded flambait. This fact is in direct conflict with Windows users who also hate Microsoft just as much but realize that the software is always written for the OS with the market share and so use it in spite of their hatred.

  35. Camino? by dlockamy · · Score: 1

    What does the lack of anti-phishing features on Camino have to do with Apple or safari?
    Either that's a typo or someone needs to pay a little more attention to who makes what browser

  36. EASILY fixed - never click on email links by grrrl · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm with those who think this is simply avoided by NEVER clicking on a link in an email.

    Paypal will NEVER require you to click on a link in an email. All ebay functions can be accessed from my.ebay.com. My bank specifically states 'we will never send you links in an email, ALWAYS type in our website address yourself'.

    Follow that advice and you have no problems. PERIOD.

    If you think the email is legit, log into the site you type in yourself and see if there is an alert. Or ring them yourself. (On a side note I once had a credit card company ring ME and refuse to say who they were until I confirmed who I was by giving my DOB. I rang them back on the proper number and went off at them.)

    Case closed yadda yadda.

    1. Re:EASILY fixed - never click on email links by logicpaw · · Score: 1

      Why don't most common email programs allow one to turn off following any clicked links? Or maybe sending them through a Google search first instead of directly to the default web client?

    2. Re:EASILY fixed - never click on email links by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 1

      Agreed... Even visually perusing the URL is sometimes not going to be reasonable. For instance: www.paypaI.com... Capital "I" rather than small "l" looks fine in the address bar... At the moment, it's a redirect to this site. It's pretty hard to train Mom and Pop to deal with this stuff sensibly, but the example I've given shows that the general precautions of actually looking at the URL that many knowledgeable people take can have pretty big problems, too.

    3. Re:EASILY fixed - never click on email links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Perhaps banks should actively phish their customer base...register some copycat domain and send typical phishing emails with links to a page that looks very much like the real login page (which shouldn't be hard, considering they made the real login page). Then, when users fall for the phishing scam, instead of having their bank account looted, they get a message saying, "If this had been a real phishing attempt, your bank account would be empty now. Remember to never click on links in emails that claim to be from any financial institution."

    4. Re:EASILY fixed - never click on email links by josath · · Score: 2, Informative

      I once had a credit card company ring ME and refuse to say who they were until I confirmed who I was by giving my DOB. I rang them back on the proper number and went off at them.

      Happened to me once, with a Wells Fargo credit card. Except it wasn't a person, it was a computer! (ie, voice prompts). And it wanted me to enter not my DOB, but my SSN!! At first I was sure it was a scam, that there was no way my bank would do something so stupid. But after hanging up & calling them back directly, I found out it was something they do. It's so sad how poor the security is for credit card related stuff these days in the US.
      --
      sig? uhh, umm, ok
  37. So what does this have to do with Mac? by bXTr · · Score: 1

    Safari uses WebKit from KDE. Camino uses Gecko from Firefox. They're two entirely different browsers with two entirely different engines. Apples and oranges. And since Camino uses the same engine as FireFox, how is FireFox any better at protecting users from phishing scams. And since FireFox is available for Linux and Windows, as well as OS X, wouldn't there be problems on those OSs as well. I really don't see where this is a Mac problem, Safari problem, or anything other than a User problem.

    --
    It's a very dark ride.
  38. Anti-phishing is not in the rendering core. by argent · · Score: 1

    Anti-phishing is a front and feature, NOT part of the rendering code. Camino and Safari are the two leading browsers on the Mac.

    I woudl imagine Kmelion (the Wintel equivalent of Camino - a gecko-based lightweight browser) has no anti-phishing either.

    My opinion is that anti-phishing is like anti-virus... a bunch of hacks tracking often-phished sites. It's best to learn to be non-phishable.

    I do applaud Paypal for sticking to their guns about never sending deep links to accounts in emails. I wish other companies like Microsoft would do the same. I used to hammer in to my users that smart companies would never send deep links like that, so if they got mail from Microsoft or anyone else that asked them to download something or enter a password "on faith" it was a fraud (either a virus or phishing), but lo and behold Microsoft started doing it. *sigh*

  39. Who do you let in through your front door? by argent · · Score: 1

    I largely agree with you, but too many companies who SHOULD know better have started sending deep links to accounts.

    If a guy shows up at your front door and says he's a police officer, do you take his word for it and let him in or ask to see some ID? Do you know what a real police badge looks like?

    Me, I don't let anyone in to my house unless I called 'em, even if they're the police. People need to learn to do the same thing with email.

    And, unfortunately. companies from Microsoft on down are training them differently.

  40. Questionable Motives by sofla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have my doubts about this whole story. I question Barrett's motives. For the simple reason that the only way to find out that Paypal doesn't like Safari is to read the InfoWorld article and his quote. If you login to Paypal using Safari... nothing. Not a peep. No mail in your inbox, either. Seems to me that if Paypal really felt strongly about Safari they'd do a little more than that. But they don't. All we have is Barrett's quote. Which makes me wonder he's really after. And to me, the most plausible thing, is that as an EV early adopter, he's evangelizing how great EV is. Or maybe he has MSFT stock. Dunno. At any rate, if the user isn't looking at the URL bar in the first place, I don't know what difference it would make if it was green or not.

    And don't even get me started on how effective I think the whole "keep a list of the bad guys" approach is.

  41. ... or just RTFU by remitaylor · · Score: 1

    that's Read the F...ing URL

  42. Minor Correction by macdaddy · · Score: 1
    "Over concerns for lack of an anti-phishing mechanism for Paypal, clueful Internet users are telling other Mac users to use another unsecured micro-payment service."

    There. That's better.

  43. Re:How good Ars Technica writers at tech and revie by Blahbooboo3 · · Score: 1

    I'm very happy for you, that you've never made a single careless mistake in your life. However, please do try to have a little mercy on those of us who are merely human, especially when we're honest enough to admit it.


    Thanks! It took barely any amount of work and effort, but I have not made one stupid careless mistake in my life!

    Wait, shoot... there goes that streak...

    I actually responded to your post.Shlt!
  44. Re:Oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope. Didn't take long for several posts to start calling IE7 uses sheep. So ironic that it is funny as hell.

    Even better are all the posts blaming the users (an Apple fanboy tradition) if they get phished, yet it's Microsoft's fault in the next thread over when it comes to getting owned on Windows.

  45. Or vice-versa by wicka · · Score: 1

    I'd advise Safari users to stop using Paypal.

  46. Summary: Safari has no anti-Phishing by perlith · · Score: 1

    Safari has no anti-phising measures built into it. CSO of Paypal is cautioning users to be more careful as a result. For those of us that RTFA, there was no mention that users should "stop" using the browser. Thank you Slashdot editors.

  47. Solution is simple by naasking · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just provide a Petname toolbar. All the anti-phishing you'll ever need, and it doesn't submit your URLs or browsing info to third-party servers, like the Google toolbar and Microsoft's "anti-phishing" extensions do (a technique which will ultimately prove ineffectual IMO).

  48. Netcraft says that EV is (at times) harmful by babaloo · · Score: 1

    So I just gotta say - WTF - http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/02/27/extended_validation_certificates_and_xss_considered_harmful.html - EV and XSS considered harmful - so what does PayPal say to that? That even though they are using EV that we should ignore that?

    Face it. As many others have said, if you go to http://www.paypal.emptymyaccount.com/ you're a moron.

    Disclaimer - last used Apple product was a beige toaster.

    1. Re:Netcraft says that EV is (at times) harmful by Burz · · Score: 1

      Face it. As many others have said, if you go to http://www.paypal.emptymyaccount.com/ you're a moron. You're correct, IF I know what a domain is and how to check it. Yes its simple, but the information has to get passed on from somewhere.

      Clearly even Paypal are not willing to tell people to simply check domain spelling and presence of lock symbol in the address bar. This state of affairs is very sad indeed.
  49. Good by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Thank goodness I have a browser that doesn't have to phone home and track what I do in the name of "protecting" me.

    Don't click on stuff in emails...

  50. No ads required in Safari by Lord+Satri · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except for the missing ads - thanks to Ad Block+ I recently switched to Safari as main browser (at home, work = Firefox under Debian) for various reasons, and one of the software that made that switch enjoyable is http://safariadblock.sourceforge.net/ ... (much easier to use than PithHelmet in my opinion, and open source)
  51. So block JS modifications to the status bar by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    Unless, of course, you TURN OFF PERMISSION FOR JAVASCRIPT TO MODIFY THE STATUS BAR, like virtually every browser allows. It's not rocket science, you know - it's even prohibited by default in some browsers, including IE7.

    Hiding a useful feature because of a the risk of a potentially dangerous misconfiguration makes absolutely NO sense!

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    1. Re:So block JS modifications to the status bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in ubuntu firefox's default is to only allow javascript to move or resize windows. everything else is disabled. firefox also checks if sites are 'bad' based on some sort of comparison to other 'bad' sites feature. i also run a firewall that blocks 'bad guy' ips..

  52. A clash of the titans! by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whiney Mac Fanboy goes head to head with a Mac Fanboy who is currently whining!

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    1. Re:A clash of the titans! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Whiney Mac Fanboy goes head to head with a Mac Fanboy who is currently whining!

      The words in bold type are redundant - all Mac Fanboys posting on Slashdot are whining. :-)

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  53. Rogue DHCP server. by Krneki · · Score: 0

    We had a miss-configured router in our network who would broadcast only DNS DHCP settings. The funny thing is we found it only because people couldn't surf the web due to wrong DNS servers. Now imagine what could be done with malicious intents.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  54. Re:How good Ars Technica writers at tech and revie by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've been into computers for 25-odd years, I'm Linux and Windows certified, I program in shell, Perl & C & I work as a security consultant...

    ...and 3 months ago even I fell for a Paypal phishing scam where I handed over my username, password and account details.

    Fortunately, I realised what had happened within a few minutes, immediately changed my Paypal password and cancel my bank card. I also reported the site to Paypal where it was taken down within an hour. As a result, I've not had any problems between then and now.

    Yes, it's all about attention, I agree - but it just takes a lapse in concentration to fall for one of these scams.

    Oh, and before it happened to me, I, like you, was mouthing off on Slashdot about how it could never happen to me also...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  55. Paypal hasn't been Safari friendly for a while by Ingenium13 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Paypal hasn't been Safari friendly for a while. I once was using paypal "buy it now" links on a website. After a few months, I got emails from a user asking how to buy the product because there was no link. Apparently Safari doesn't show the "buy now" image because it's in a form. I guess Safari doesn't support that feature, but I would think Paypal would do something about it.

  56. Two things by littleghoti · · Score: 1

    cmd-w closes a window on a mac. Much better than alt-f4 on windows. Also, having the menubar permanently stuck to the top of the screen makes hitting menus much easier on the mac due to Fitts law. Overall macs FTW!

  57. Why should Safari have to implement pointless tech by (Score.5,+Interestin · · Score: 1

    Since neither blacklists nor EV certs have any real effect on security, there doesn't seem to be any great reason for Safari to rush towards implementing them. Blacklists don't work because the phishers move far faster than any blacklist can track them, and EV certs don't work because they're just a reheat of standard certs, which don't work either (EV certs exist so CAs can charge more for "premium" services). Both are fashion statements, not security measures. Looks like Paypal has fallen for the fashion.

  58. I'm sorry by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    but no amount of software is going to prevent someone from either just clicking yes no matter what, or not giving two left handed damns about learning to NOT get phished, or prevent natural stupidity from taking its course. internet based finance rule number 1: if you get an email from them, delete it, close the browser, then open it again and TYPE the address in. NEVER use a emailed link to login. one simple rule, will save you every time unless the actual site has been compromised.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  59. best defense by kb0hae · · Score: 1

    The best defense against phishing attacks is to be informed, and suspicious. Sites such as PayPal and eBay ( I have had numerous phishing emails that claimed to be from these two sites) clearly state that they will not ever ask for your information via an email. Do not click on a link in an email. Period. EVER! Report suspicious emails...ALWAYS! Also, never open email attachments...EVER! No matter who it is from, or what it claims to be, DON"T OPEN IT! Delete all email attachments ASAP!

  60. Not Fair?! by framauro13 · · Score: 1

    While it's not entirely fair singling out Safari (other Mac browsers like Camino also lack this support), it is perhaps at least a helpful reminder of the threat.' Ok, lets say this was IE. Would it be fair then? Heaven forbid we point out that a piece of Apple software isn't as advanced as its competition; it wouldn't be right to point out the short-comings of a widely used browser because it's not as protective of its users as other browsers. But hey, we don't want to hurt their feelings, do we?
    --
    In an effort to conform with internet communication standards, please note that the above comment is 100% biased opinion
  61. Easy Solution For Newbies by chemindefer · · Score: 1
    Use any browser you like. In the bookmarks toolbar, if it has one, put a folder with bookmarks to Paypal, eBay, Xbank, Ybank, etc.

    Simple instruction: They get an email about Paypal, don't click on the link in the email, go to the safe bookmark for Paypal and log in. Everything fine? Then it was a phish.

  62. Does Paypal even work on Safari? by ApproachingLinux · · Score: 1
    I'm not sure that this is about phishing.

    I've tried using eBay's new payment system (that talks to Paypal) as well as going into Paypal to pay for an eBay item (by talking to eBay) and neither of them works on a PowerPC 5 iMac. This only started failing within the last month -- presumably when they rolled out their new "payment system" -- it worked just fine before then. It just hangs at the final step where you confirm the payment. I doubt that it's traffic-related since I can pop over to an XP laptop and do it with no problems.

    I'm thinking that this is just eBay/Paypal's way of hiding the problem with their payment system by telling you not to use the browsers that their system now fails on. I've only tried this once on Firefox on the iMac and it also failed, but that was only once -- not working with Safari has failed many times. Does anybody have any insight into the internals of eBay/Paypal's new payment system that can shed some light on this? Maybe they're locked into I386 machines and only new Macs will work or they're locked into Windows?

  63. IE6 et al.? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    They don't recommend against Safari, they just recommend browsers that support anti-phishing features.

    Sounds basically like the current batch of browsers. I believe IE7 and FF3 supports this, but what other browsers do?

    At the same time which anti-phishing techniques work best for you?

    My bank recently added a new feature whereby you specify your bank code and then they show you an image you preselected in the past and ask you a question that you specified the answer to. If you are satisfied with the identity, then you specify your password.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:IE6 et al.? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1
      Sounds basically like the current batch of browsers. I believe IE7 and FF3 supports this, but what other browsers do?

      It would have taken you less time to click on the link I posted then to write that sentence. From the link:

      Which browsers have anti-phishing features?

              * Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 or later
              * Mozilla Firefox 2 or later
              * Opera 9.1 or later
      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:IE6 et al.? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      It would have taken you less time to click on the link I posted then to write that sentence. From the link:

      Yup, I did things back to front. Ironically many offices are still using IE6.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:IE6 et al.? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Ironically many offices are still using IE6.

      Why is that ironic?

      And what does the fact that many offices use an old browser have to do with the discussion?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  64. Phishing sites using IPs by Fencepost · · Score: 1

    A significant amount of the phishing email that I get seems to have IP addresses rather than domain names. I use OpenDNS, but it's not going to do squat about that.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
    1. Re:Phishing sites using IPs by bstadil · · Score: 1

      True but it is the fake names that are the greatest risk to the general public. If you see dotted Quad for a bank site it sticks out as fake.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
  65. Well... by quadelirus · · Score: 1

    I'm not about to say that Apple shouldn't add features to help block phishing scams, but it seems to me that many users who make an educated choice about what browser to use also are aware of phishing scams and don't click links in email (aside from surfing drunk). I mean, to understand why paypal is asking you to switch browsers and to feel that you actually ought to do it implies some understanding of why you are doing it, which in turn means that you probably don't need to switch browsers in the first place. Maybe not, maybe tons of firefox users are saved every day by this, but personally I've never come close to clicking a paypal (or any other important login) link in an email so for me I'll stick with Safari.

  66. Wait... Paypal still exists? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

    What happened with all of the predictions from Google fanboys that Google Checkout was going to destroy Paypal by now? :p

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  67. And now a word from the politically incorrect... by singingjim1 · · Score: 0

    If someone falls for an email phishing scam in this day and age then they deserve to lose their money. Maybe then they'll just get off the network completely so that the easy targets get fewer and fewer and the rest of us can go about our everyday internet business without needing to worry about this crap. Stop using Safari? That's like saying to stop using your nose because you might smell something bad. God damn over-reactionaries and tech retards - yeah Mary, I said retards - mucking everything up for the rest of us normal people who just want to surf for porn and buy cool toys online in peace.

  68. So? by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

    I don't click on url's in e-mail. When I want to go to the bank or Paypal, I either type in the URL or click a bookmark I know is good. Now, if some bad guy got in and screwed around with my DNS, would a phishing detector even detect it?

    Given that, they still should put a phishing detector in Safari, with a warning that only your common sense is the ultimate protection, and once phishers start figuring out what these things are detecting, they'll find a way to sneak under that too.

  69. Message to EV Certificate gang by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    If you claim EV is a platform neutral standard, not a MSFT/IE thing, get a expensive account from developer.apple.com , download latest webkit sources from webkit.org , download XCode and start coding "Webkit EV.xcodeproj". Next, start "Safari Antiphishing.xcodeproj"

    I don't want to pay for your MSFT gang expenses, fantasy $5000 certificates while buying next version of OS X.

    I will message to Skype/WinCE Gang about never shipping Symbian S60 Skype later. What kind of a mess, horrible gang scheme did eBay buy while buying those 2 companies?

    Also can Mozilla foundation tell how many actual users downloaded their non working EV Certificate extension compared to others?

  70. Opera too by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    So I just gotta say - WTF - http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/02/27/extended_validation_certificates_and_xss_considered_harmful.html - EV and XSS considered harmful - so what does PayPal say to that? That even though they are using EV that we should ignore that?

    Face it. As many others have said, if you go to http://www.paypal.emptymyaccount.com/ you're a moron.

    Disclaimer - last used Apple product was a beige toaster. A better one, Opera found horrible implementations of EV while trying to support it. Guess what? Paypal included too.

    http://my.opera.com/yngve/blog/2007/06/19/it-aint-ev-til-its-ev-all-ev

    It was wrongly implemented at Paypal. I wonder when will Paypal say "Stop using Opera" and get a $500M lawsuit, just like the one forced MS IE to get Acid 2 ;)

  71. It's snakeoil anyway by Burz · · Score: 1

    There was even a Slashdot story on a research paper showing image-factor security can be gamed by crooks.

    Why not just check the address bar for domain spelling + the presence of the lock symbol? Https is the verification method that works.

  72. I somewhat disagree by Burz · · Score: 1

    If a person knows they should check domain spelling and the lock symbol in the address bar, and they are too lazy to do that... then I'd say they deserve whatever befalls them as a result.

    The problem is that few techies are interested in teaching/reminding people about Https and how to use it: Most seem not to understand it, and so point people toward 'solutions' where someone else decides the 'good/bad' status of websites for them.