Slashdot Mirror


RSA: Phish Me If You Can (Video)

Spearphishing. The deluxe (but easy) way to get unwary employees to put malware on your network. It's basically the same as phishing, except more targeted. That is, a plain phishing scam might offer an unwary web-browsing employee a chance to see a famous starlet naked, while a spearphishing attack might purport to be an urgent request from your Bizzaro County office for 200 Kg of Unobtainium Oxide. Open that email, and... ZAP! So this is social hacking (cracking for the old-timers), and cannot necessarily be fought entirely by technical means. So how about setting up fake spearphishing attempts and immediately sending employees who fall for them to an IT security class with an emphasis on how to avoid phishing scams? You can do this yourself, possibly with help from a bright person or two from a nearby University. Or you can contact PhishMe or another anti-phish training company and have them help you teach spearphishing awareness to your people. Either way, every computer-using person in your company should know about phishing -- and should know how to avoid getting hooked by phishers.

171 comments

  1. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your daily Slashvertisement brought to you by Dice Holdings, Inc.

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Threatsim instead of the slashadvertisment.

    2. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your daily Slashvertisement brought to you by Dice Holdings, Inc.

      Oh, and btw, nobody ever called social engineering, 'cracking'.

      FML.

  2. Open an email by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Informative

    Open an email? You mean text? Not really a problem. if you're not blocking images and JavaScript, you're headed for trouble, targeted or not.

    1. Re:Open an email by cusco · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In network security, just the same as physical security, the main problem is not the hardware or the software, it's the wetware.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:Open an email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you click on a link or open an attachment. Text only email only gets you past drive by problems. You cannot block users that are not paying attention as close as they should.

    3. Re:Open an email by smoothnorman · · Score: 3

      my thoughts nearly exactly! "Open that email, and... ZAP!" what sort of lame mis-managed system is that true of?

    4. Re:Open an email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Open an email? You mean text? Not really a problem. if you're not blocking images and JavaScript, you're headed for trouble, targeted or not.

      Javascript?

      What kind of shitty email client executes javascript?

    5. Re:Open an email by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Several years ago, Outlook did something similar with Visual Basic scripts attached to a mail. Loading the email into the preview window was sufficient to trigger the script.
      IMHO the greatest security fuckup in the history of Microsoft (and Autorun on CDs was the second biggest).

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re:Open an email by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Text email is vulnerable too! I'm in the habit of: after reading every email, I save it to malware.sh, then I go to a shell, type "chmod +x malware.sh" and then either "./malware.sh" or "sudo ./malware.sh" depending on the flip of a coin. And in spite of my weird habit of doing this, I never check to see who sent me the email and whether or not it's PGP signed and if their signature checks out.

      See? Spearphishing is a really hard problem to solve! Reading email is dangerous! DAAANGEROUSSS!!!!11

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Open an email by EvanED · · Score: 1

      YOU HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE UNIX VIRUS -

      This virus works on the honor system:

      If you're running VMS or a variant of unix or linux, please forward this
      message to everyone you know. Afterwards, delete a bunch of your own files at random.

      ----

      Ha ha you are now infected!

    8. Re:Open an email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think autorun for USB-drives is even worse than for CD's. There is no way to really disable it in windows. (it will still load any font files referenced from the autorun icon, and execute any code contained in the font file...)
      Auto-boot from USB drives is a good 4th, but that's not Microsofts fault. (do you always remove all USB drives before switching
      on a computer?)

  3. This is stupid and useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The people who are dumb enough to fall for this, and the IT department which allows "open-email-and-zap" kind of emails to get through cannot be taught. It would be more cost effective just to fire ridiculously stupid people and hire ones who have a few brain cells.

    It doesn't matter how "official" a phishing email looks. An intelligent person will always be able to determine that they aren't real, and it really isn't hard.

    1. Re:This is stupid and useless. by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not about being dumb, it's about not being aware. If the first phishing email you come across is one that's technically advanced and well written enough to slip through the technological filter: then you as a corporate employee are probably going to fall for it. Especially if it's a true spear-phishing email that's targeting *you*. It'll look like an email from your boss with yet another emailed PDF or DOCX report to review. Bam.

      The solution that PhishMe proposes is to safely expose employees to phishing emails on a regular basis and teach everyone to recognize actual phishing emails from those demonstrations. The human reading the email and about to click the link or open the attachment is your last line of defense and shouldn't be neglected as such.

    2. Re:This is stupid and useless. by war4peace · · Score: 1, Funny

      While that's entirely true, lots of my co-workers have troubles even recognizing obviously fake stuff. if I need a coleague to speed up on a project, I send him a stern e-mail and CC "his b0ss" (and replace the "o" with "0" or "i" with "1" or something similar). They always fall for it, think I also told their boss, and double their efforts... from 30 minutes a day to 60, but still better than zero.
      And you want THEM to be TRAINED on PHISHING? Ha!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:This is stupid and useless. by plover · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. Your company might rely on "software as a service" companies (ironically companies just like phishme,) which means you will get a lot of false positives!

      Consider Joe Lowlypeon getting an email from Jane Q. Important, the Senior VP of HR, asking them to take an employee satisfaction survey, and it contains a link to surveymonkey.com. The survey has their company logo on the top, it's done up in the company colors, and it's filled with mundane questions such as if the coffee in the break room is good, if the rest rooms are clean, are there any problems with building security that concern you? Did that survey really originate from someone within their company? Is Joe willing to risk sending a "is this for real?" email back to the Senior VP of I-Can-Fire-You? How can anyone tell if that's a phish or not?

      --
      John
    4. Re:This is stupid and useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the problem you describe their is a poorly configured workstation with software that hasn't been updated or a configuration that is insecure. People make mistakes, if you honestly expect you can train thousands of people to not make them then you are setting yourself up for failure from the get go.

    5. Re:This is stupid and useless. by bentit · · Score: 1

      It makes someone feeling like they're doing something. Be it IT or management. But you will not be able to train everyone out of this behaviour with 100% success. The intersection of phishing emails that get past the filters and the employee who is distracted by his real job will always create an opportunity and these asses sending crap out know it. We had a sprint bill slip through. The employee was well enough trained not to click on any links but he still was upset with his wife for not paying the bill. He did look a little meek when I asked why he thought 5 other employees would be cc:d on his bill and why it was sent to his work address.

    6. Re:This is stupid and useless. by rioki · · Score: 1

      I especially like the bit where they guy doges the "Who are your customers?" bit.

    7. Re:This is stupid and useless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should be trivial at the technical level to check whether the mail came from inside or outside the company (if the computer contacting your SMTP server doesn't have a company IP address, it's an outside server). The system should not accept any outside mail claiming to be from an inside mail address.

    8. Re:This is stupid and useless. by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. Your company might rely on "software as a service" companies (ironically companies just like phishme,) which means you will get a lot of false positives!

      Consider Joe Lowlypeon getting an email from Jane Q. Important, the Senior VP of HR, asking them to take an employee satisfaction survey, and it contains a link to surveymonkey.com.

      This.

      At a previous employer, I got an email "from" the HR department that hit every "phish/scam" warning. There was nothing in the Received: header IP addresses or the actual domains in the links that had anything to do with the company. The HREFs in the email were of the classic "fraudulent link" form <a href="12horses.com/long-serial-number-path"> hr.companydomain.com </a>. I had never heard of, "12 Horses", which name (before I knew who they were) just screams "Fly-by-night randomly generated domain."

      At first glance, obvious phish. After careful examination of the email, I concluded it was obvious phish. Carefully crafted spear-phishing, but definitely phish. Everybody in the email security group said it looked like phish. So, I sounded the alarm, that we were under attack. Then HR admitted it really was theirs. (Actually, indignantly declared it was legit, and why would anyone ever question it?)

      In that kind of environment, how is the average user, who doesn't examine Received headers or HTML source code, going to cope?

    9. Re:This is stupid and useless. by plover · · Score: 1

      It should be trivial, but it's not. When you create one of those surveys, if you pay enough money they allow you to import a list of contacts, and the survey company will send out the official invitations to take the survey. So when you're looking at it the link is to takeoursurvey.com, the email is from takeoursurvey.com, and nothing in the process authenticates that it originated from mycompany.com other than the pasted-in name of a VIP (which is readily available from most companies public SEC filings.)

      Now, am I worried about getting a drive-by from surveymonkey.com? Not really. But what about answering that last question: "Are there any building security issues that concern you?" Do you suppose anyone might answer with a helpful "I wish you'd fix the broken lock on the door by the parking lot"?

      --
      John
    10. Re:This is stupid and useless. by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      It makes someone feeling like they're doing something... management.

      It makes management feel like they're doing something? Of course it will be implemented!

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

  4. More stupid victim-blaming by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is 100% technical. How could viewing an email ever result in malware being installed? Somebody failed -- they're called the IT department.

    1. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, they failed when they let you have admin on your pc. They failed when they did not enforce updates. They failed when they let you run a vulnerable email client.

      Yet, if they don't let anyone have admin, ban outlook from the network and force updates and reboot that come with them you would be bitching up a storm.

    2. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is 100% technical. How could viewing an email ever result in malware being installed? Somebody failed -- they're called the IT department.

      Looks like we have our first candidate for public humiliation and scapegoating. Oops, we mean, "IT security class with an emphasis on how to avoid phishing scams".

      Love,
      The IT Department

    3. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by DarkFencer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its rarely about just opening an email. Its about opening attachments in that email, or opening links that lead to sites with malware. There have been enough vulnerabilities (OS, Adobe, Java, etc.) that have been around which don't require any special privileges. Just a user to click through warning prompts.

      It cannot be solely IT's responsibility - especially in this day of BYOD (Bring your own device). IT isn't always able to remove admin privileges from corporate/organization owned computers - much less the Sales guy's personal laptop.

    4. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by djsmiley · · Score: 1

      Yup, it's never the management who insist on having outlook because "thunderbird doesn't work correctly".

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    5. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      No, the failure is in the design of an email client that favors whizzo shit that looks great in a 30-second demo from the stage of a developers conference over practical security.

    6. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by khasim · · Score: 1

      If they insist on it AND your manager cannot shield you THEN it might be time to look for a different job.

      In the meantime, make sure that those are fully patched AND monitor them (and firewall as much as possible) because they WILL be cracked, eventually. Although you should be doing this for all your systems any way.

      And keep looking for a better job.

    7. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what passes for +5 insightful these days?

      The issue isn't opening an email: but clicking a link in that email or, worse, clicking a link that takes you to a legitimate looking site and entering data, or opening an attachment in a legitimate looking email.

      There are all sorts of attack vectors present from an email message. To sweep it all up as "IT's Problem" is a very, very bad idea. It just takes one email fooling the right person to be a security problem.

      PhishMe's philosophy is that at some point the technical protection will fail ... so you'd better ensure that your employees know what to look for. The best way to teach them what to look for is to let them actually experience safe emails using the same techniques that would be maliciously used against them.

      Spear-phishing isn't an idle threat, it's a widely used attack method that has gotten data out of targets like the New York Times, Defense Department, Facebook, and Apple (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/02/spear-phishing-security-advice/62304/). I'm sure that each of those companies has a very robust and capable IT Department armed with email scanning and sanitizing software. You just can't catch everything with technology.

    8. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      How could viewing an email ever result in malware being installed?

      Tee hee.. You must not be old enough to remember Outlook or Excel Macros.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    9. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Its rarely about just opening an email. Its about opening attachments in that email, or opening links that lead to sites with malware.

      Why are you not stripping attachments from external email? Or are you arguing that stripping attachments isn't a technical measure?

      Think about how phishing works. They are trying to get you to open at attachment, or visit a resource which is fake (could be a URL, phone number, etc.) So strip attachments and resource identifiers (URLs, phone numbers) from external email. Problem solved.

      If part of your job function requires people outside the company to send you attachments or URLs, then you ought to have received training how to handle those things safely. But for Joe Cubefarmer who's day-to-day function is completely internal to the company, there's no excuse for IT to allow for this stuff to happen.

    10. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Tee hee.. You must not be old enough to remember Outlook or Excel Macros.

      I'm old enough to remember the Stoned virus. Anyway, how are incorrectly implemented security models in crappy products the user's problem? Why don't you give the user software that isn't full of holes?

    11. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by war4peace · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll bite. Have you ever tried to embed a table pulled from Excel into an email under Thunderbird? Nothing fancy, just a 3x4 grid with some numbers on it.
      Let me know when you succeed in sending it in a viewable format.
      (probably the best way to never hear from someone again)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    12. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the Sales people will be very happy when they receive an e-mail saying "amended contract" with zero attachments. Oh yes.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    13. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by admdrew · · Score: 1

      There don't have to be software "holes" or bad security models for malware to get through; users are always the lowest common denominator, and given they're cross-platform, it can be very advantageous for bad guys to target the user over specific technical systems.

      And generally, effective user education is a great additional layer of security. Not sure why you're 100% blaming IT.

    14. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by pclminion · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the Sales people will be very happy when they receive an e-mail saying "amended contract" with zero attachments. Oh yes.

      Right. Because there's no sort of technology that could apply different policies to different people... We all know computers can't do shit like that.

    15. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just tried it. Works perfectly. It creates an html table. I only have two issues with tbird at work, 1) can't access the company address book (this is because they are using some outlook specific tool, so, not tbirds fault). 2) Calendering is not as nice as Outlooks. Outlook can show you other peoples schedules, show conflicts, suggest meeting times etc. Lightning has come a long way, and is fine for accepting invites, but its not very good for planning meeting.

    16. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah. Do that here. Please come in and disable the sending/receiving of attachments. Predictive time to one of the owners of this company having something they consider "vital" blocked: .75 hours. Time it will take them to call you and light you up about it: .05 hours. Amount of time you will attempt to explain why that is necessary and why they can't have attachments anymore: .18 hours. Amount of time owner will take calling HR (or CEO) and declare you will be fired: .02 hours.

      I won't be seeing you here tomorrow.

    17. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      1. See the other reply, it works
      2. DO NOT FUCKING DO THAT. Email is a text transfer mechanism. Attach documents to that, not attempt to put formatting in the email.

    18. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3. ASCII-art. (select a mono-space font in your HTML e-mail client if you must)
      4. attach a print-screen. (why not? you already crossed the line by using HTML for e-mail.)

    19. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but it is certainly I.T's fault if they are so incompetant that they don't even know how to correctly secure outlook.

    20. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by war4peace · · Score: 1

      You haven't worked with Sales people before, I presume. It's okay, you're one of the happy ones, good for you.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    21. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Tell "DO NOT FUCKING DO THAT" to that VP who wants that useless data in THAT format, in HIS inbox, NOW.
      I love it when people just live in la-la-Land and tries to adapt people to software instead of the other way around.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    22. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Cerium · · Score: 1

      Those same VPs are the types that demand all sorts of stupid shit if they think it gets in the way of how they feel things should work.

      They're the problem. They're the exact reason training never works, because even if you explain the problem to them, they demand that you work around their shortcomings, because fuck you, why should they change to solve your petty problems, asshole.

      People who are receptive to any type of training like what's being blatantly advertised to us here or what the GP is talking about have probably already either learned about it through their local sysadmin/tech pal or by being burned by a scam or two.

    23. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Just opening an email is enough http://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/19858-New-Drive-By-Malware-Spam-Infects-Upon-Opening-Email.html it is ironic that your statement passes for +5 insightful.

    24. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Um, no, while those VPs certainly have their share in the general stupidity, it's the clueless Average Joe who usually does that. For each "retarded" VP (in a true IT sense) there's a thousand "retarded" Average Joes (And Janes).

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    25. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you not stripping attachments from external email?

      Translation:
      Why are not making it completely impossible for your company to function by removing an essential feature?

    26. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You show him a better way.

      All he is going to do is end up with an email that can't be sent since it is 100MB and even if you change your mail server setting to allow it no other mail server will ever accept it.

    27. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by war4peace · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    28. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      For each "retarded" VP (in a true IT sense) there's a thousand "retarded" Average Joes (And Janes).

      True enough, but most of the damage done by an "average Joe" can usually be mitigated. To REALLY screw things up, it usually takes management.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    29. Re:More stupid victim-blaming by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      You show him a better way.

      Riiiiiight. My previous post not withstanding, management is never wrong, and you will make yourself the problem if you try telling them otherwise.

      MY experience with upper management is that they don't even want to be in the room while you fix whatever perceived problem they have. Explaining anything they didn't specifically ask about to them is, at best, you wasting their valuable time. At worst, it's you being insubordinate.

      Management's job is not to listen to their subordinates tell them how they should do things, that undercuts their concept of what a manager does. Their job is to visualize ways that reality could be better, without any regard to it's practicality or possibility. Making that vision happen is YOUR job, NOT telling them it's not possible or bringing up 'irrelevant' facts.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

  5. Not new, still cool by pasv · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Not new, still cool by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      The main proof that this is a slashvertisement seems to be that Roblimo didn't mention wombatsecurity or other ways to teach fellow employees how to avoid spearphishing attacks. How dare he not!

      Except.... I did!

      What does that tell you about the conspiracy yowlers?

      They're kind of fun, aren't they? :)

      - Robin

  6. It's not the slashvertisement by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the fact that they treat us like eager morons, who won't recognize it. I mean the signs are dead simple.
    1. Mentions a particular company by name.
    2. Includes at least one buzz-word.
    3. Entirely positive language.
    Regular Slashdot stories pretty clearly have signs of concern or raise questions about their subject matter. These bare-naked slashvertisements are insulting. If you're going to be blatant, please fucking acknowledge that it's sponsored in the summary.

    1. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean the signs are dead simple.
      1. Mentions a particular company by name.
      2. Includes at least one buzz-word.
      3. Entirely positive language.

      4. Pushes a stupid and unnecessary product or service.

      Instead of training your staff not to open phishy emails, just ban any email client that allows execute-on-open.

    2. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually the giveaway was that it had Roblimo as the editor attached. 99% of the stuff he posts are fluff piece ads.

    3. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      And it's interesting how this whole thread got instantly modded Troll/Offtopic.

    4. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Peristaltic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same old shit. Disconnected suits, demanding more revenue, institute this kind of crap and gradually push away the users whose participation made /. a valuable site in the first place. If it gets worse, a site will eventually pop up that fills the niche left behind by /. Once the -new- one becomes valuable...... Around and around we go, ad nuaseum. In the meantime, before the new site has enough users / inertia, we're stuck with more and more "articles" like this one, which really should not have been put in front of this readership.

    5. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by admdrew · · Score: 1

      Great job, mods. This is definitely NOT a troll post.

    6. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness, it's a badly fitting suit, featuring a stripped shirt and a paisley shirt, only a true geek would think that'd be appropriate. Also, I should note that the low quality video makes the stripes look like they are 'marching', it's almost hypnotic.

    7. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      And I don't think it was the people with mod points changing it. I had +4 about a couple minutes ago. That screams editor control. They don't even want the idea of it being a advertisement discussed.

    8. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by SilentStaid · · Score: 1

      4. Pushes a stupid and unnecessary product or service.

      Instead of training your staff not to open phishy emails, just ban any email client that allows execute-on-open.

      Wow. You know how you can tell that the comments are being modded by people with a vested interest in the ad? Your comment was on-point and provided an alternative and is still getting modded down. Way to go, /. You bastards.

    9. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll acknowledge that I didn't even know slashdot had bans. I figured the built in moderation system was more than sufficient.

    10. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Replying to my own post a lot, but it's nice to see it back up to +4(and the parent back up too). I checked and the 5 troll mods are still there, so in spite of someone trying to bury it, slashdot moderators aren't that stupid. Thanks you guys.

    11. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Slashvertisement or not, I've noticed the past couple months a large decrease in the / stories i bother to read and post to, the ones that looked OK... weren't worth reading TFA for, and yet others had shitty discussions going on. It seems like i didn't post for a week and came back to a bunch of moronic posts & news stories that were biast, irrelivant, or just plain out boring. Oh well, I think this article is more or less about a technique you can implement yourselves presented as an advertisement more or less. I mean how hard is it to mimic a phishing attack FROM THE INSIDE? with admin access to the email server. On that note, the idea's not revolutionary by any means.

    12. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by PCM2 · · Score: 2

      Instead of training your staff not to open phishy emails, just ban any email client that allows execute-on-open.

      I'm not sure that's the main problem, actually. Where spear phishing is concerned, I mostly hear about emails that are crafted to look like legitimate messages from companies like banks, FedEx, etc. If you can convince someone to click through to a website, it's not hard to ship them malware -- particularly if they have the Java plugin enabled.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    13. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Not to mention their entire company is based on a STUPID IDEA that has NEVER worked. i've been building and selling PCs to SMB and home users for 25+ fricking years and I can tell you that EDUCATION WILL NEVER WORK when it comes to stopping threats, why? Because like real life viruses they mutate and common sense is not teachable, either you have it or you don't.

      Here is a perfect example...smartphones. think Android is well on its way to a million infections because Google didn't make a good OS? Nope its the simple fact that because its a different medium you have to start from square one just like in Black Sept when we were drowning in noobs because people simply can't or won't equate a link between one medium and another. I've seen emails that have not worked IN YEARS that work like crazy as a smartphone because to Joe and Jane average the smartphone is NOT a general purpose computer, its a toaster and they treat it as such. The thought that it can get viruses and spam never enters their minds, the phone is a magical device that hooks up to cell towers and that's totally different from the net, don't you see?

      Believe me, I know of which I speak. I've educated until I'm hoarse but the one thing you can't change is that for the education to actually work you have to have enough common sense to go "Well this is similar enough to what I was educated about so erring on the side of caution would probably be wise" and the simple fact is non geeks? They may as well be Martians, they just don't think like that for the most part. I'd love to see the unbiased results as five would get you ten that their "education" lasts only until new mutations arise and then the users go "Hey this isn't what we were told to watch out for, this prince is from Somalia so he must be legit!"

      You try to solve the problem of malware and spear fishing with education and you had better get used to looking like this because the users will make that your natural look.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Midnight_Falcon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Amen to this. IT professionals get enough cold calls, account managers doing "account reviews" (sales calls), and the like already. They often are people who like advertisement the least and believe they are smart enough to make their own decisions on vendors without being swayed.

      That's why ads written like a PR News story posted on Slashdot are insulting to us -- it's obviously an ad, but it's not labelled so. They no longer label the author as associated with Dice Holdings, so it can be passed off as legit news. It also can't be blocked by ad blocking software or the "disable ads" button that appears as a thank you for positive contributions.

      On top of that, they are using the moderation system to mod down complaints about this unscrupulous practice.

      This is part of the growing trend of stripping content that users want in favor of content that pays the most money to the site's publisher, the same thing folks like Facebook are doing in activity feeds. Monetizing the site at the expense of the experience of the user. How long can this trend continue before users have had enough?

    15. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In case you haven't figured it out these corps have figured out how to game the hell out of the system.

      I USED to LMAO at all the people flinging "shill" around to basically say "You don't agree with me therefor you HAVE to have an agenda because I'm so fucking perfect in every way" but then a few months before Windows "Supergigantic Smartphone" 8 came out suddenly I started noticing all these posts that were EXACTLY alike, using the same buzzwords that normal folks don't use like "user experience" and "vertical integration"...I mean how many times in normal conversations with people who aren't marketing drones has those phrases come up? But not only that but suddenly there was a dozen "new users" who registered JUST to support the buzzword bingo and hammer home the same talking points,its become pretty damned obvious this isn't merely fanboys coming to defend "their team", this is waaay too thought out and organized for that.

      So honestly it really wouldn't surprise me if the company who put out the ad pretending to be TFA aren't either sitting here themselves with a sock puppet brigade or even more likely hired one of the pro trolling groups to make sure their message was framed in a positive light.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I disagree, people learn it just takes time and it is a frusterating experience that leaves many burnt out hulks behind. My condolensces, but this is that same us against them mentality that we complain about with cops.

    17. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by rioki · · Score: 1

      Actually the stripes problem is a DSLR problem often seen in Cannon cameras and is a great example of a moire pattern at work. There are filters for that, but that would be to difficult for /. editors...

    18. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Inda · · Score: 1

      I've been banned because a user on this compnay network was trolling Slashdot all day, every day. It was solved with a couple of emails, within a couple of hours, so no big deal, I suppose.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    19. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      You're right. Education in a formal setting simply doesn't convert to practical knowledge. That's a method best left to theoretical subjects.

      But you're going to have a tough time arguing that *training* doesn't work: which is what PhishMe is selling. Teach employees to recognize phishing emails by actually sending them inoculated phishing emails. When employees fall for it you let them in on the game immediately and seize that invaluable teachable moment.

    20. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eeeeh - Slashdot conducted this interview at a trade show brah

    21. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, it's a badly fitting suit, featuring a stripped shirt and a paisley shirt [...]

      Did he strip off one shirt before donning the paisley one?

    22. Re:It's not the slashvertisement by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But unless they are gonna "train" them for life? the first new mutations they will be right back to square one. Believe me I know, you only get 2 outcomes when you try teaching someone who just wants to use the PC and go the hell home (as opposed to us geeks that actually care for the medium) and that is either only remembers long enough to follow basic instructions, which means like i said if the prince is from Somalia you warned them against Nigeria and that's TOTALLY different, or you get so paranoid they won't turn on the switch without written instructions to do so, which is just as bad IMHO as they'll drive the helpdesk up the fucking wall.

      I mean HOW long have we been warning people of the signs of email scams now? 15 fucking years? I've seen stories on shows as non tech as GMA about it yet people STILL fall for the most basic and obvious of scams. You can lead a person to information but you can't make them think.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  7. cracking? by JLennox · · Score: 1

    I guess the years have accumulated and I'm now and old timer but I don't see how that's cracking by anyone's definition.

    1. Re:cracking? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Seeing if anyone mentioned that little bit of stupidity is the only reason I bothered to open this "story."

    2. Re:cracking? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Back in the day we were trying to get any exploitative hacking to be called "cracking". Note Jurassic Park's "I prefer to be called a hacker." line.

      It didn't take completely. We got "hacking" to be relatively accepted into the mainstream vernacular but "hacker" remains in a kind of grey area and "hacked" is entirely negative.

    3. Re:cracking? by Desler · · Score: 1

      He knows what cracking is. Their point was that roblimo's usage of the term was stupid and made no sense.

    4. Re:cracking? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Only if you think that spearphishing is purely social engineering. Sure that's a critical aspect of it but phishing emails can also contain technical exploits...cracking.

  8. Free Pizza in the Breakroom!1! by undeadbill · · Score: 2

    Lol, that one always works, and even though it is clear it doesn't need to be clicked, they click it anyways... I got to use that one when the Melissa virus was blocked based on the subject line "I have an attachment for your review", rather than on matching the payload of the email attachment. I made $5 on a bet with the Exchange admin, and got to watch hilarity ensue at the Exchange admin's desk when 40 hungry developers showed up, wondering why there was no free lunch and their Outlook clients were taking up all of their system resources.

    1. Re:Free Pizza in the Breakroom!1! by PPH · · Score: 2

      That's just the boss, trying to round up some candidates for his Amway pitch.

      I always delete all e-mail that claims to be from the boss. Now, thanks to PhishMe, I can claim to have been ahead of the curve fighting spearfishing all these years.

      I deserve a raise.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Advertising and nothing more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Slashdot is my home page -- I read the content for information and ignore the advertising. This pure advertising play is nothing more than a bid for greater income for this unethical fraud of a business. PhishMe should discontinue attempting to publish advertising as information, and pay Slashdot for the space, and Slashdot should moderate the content to prevent this sort of corporate fraud.

  10. Open that email, and... ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This must be a Windows problem, because this type of open and automatically execute ( or whatever ) does not happen on Linux.

    1. Re:Open that email, and... ZAP! by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Unless the email have a pdf attachment with a good enough name and you open it with Acrobat. Or a link to a website related with your company or from the government (if anonymous could hack the doj website, other can do it too, maybe in a not so obvious way), and get injected with a malicious java program (and you know the record of recent java 0day exploits, no matter which is your OS). You are far safer in Linux, but is no guarantee. Also, if we are talking about social engineering an IT department mail ordering you to apply some updates from a repository for new security measures or functionality you asked for in some moment is a good way to get root or at least run programs with your user, the vulnerability there is not the mail client but the mail user.

    2. Re:Open that email, and... ZAP! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Or maybe something like:

      "Due to frequent trouble with bad passwords, we require every employee to test the security of theirs on our newly setup password testing site at <a href="http://passwordtest.yourconpany.com/">http://passwordtest.yourcompany.com/</a>"

      (Did you spot the difference?)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Open that email, and... ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, would've been harder to spot if you'd taken advantage of keming and used yourcornpany.

  11. So how about setting up fake spearphishing attempt by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    So how about not running software vulnerable to malware?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  12. Guide for Eliminating Background Noise by mrbene · · Score: 2

    Three videos posted over the last couple of days - all of which purport to provide insight, at least in summary. I've not made it through more than a few seconds of each since there is excessive background noise.

    Use a more targeted mic? Do some post-processing? Find a quieter room to interview your subject in? Provide a transcript?

    Otherwise, it's just a waste of effort.

    1. Re:Guide for Eliminating Background Noise by Walking+The+Walk · · Score: 1

      The transcript is immediately below the video. Click the "Hide/Show Transcript" link.

      --
      A recursive sig
      Can impart wisdom and truth
      Call proc signature()
    2. Re:Guide for Eliminating Background Noise by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      The transcript is immediately below the video. Click the "Hide/Show Transcript" link.

      Too much work

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

  13. Remember to check your legitimate e-mails by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When setting up a test like this, first look at the legitimate e-mails sent around your company. If your business routinely circulates e-mails containing attachments employees are expected to open or links they're expected to click on, then ask yourself why you've got an overlap between what you expect employees to do and what you want them to not do. If you expect employees to check addresses but your e-mail client hides addresses, ask yourself why you're hiding what you want recipients to check. If you're having to ask those kinds of questions then the first problem you need to address isn't employees being vulnerable to spearphishing attacks, it's your internal e-mail culture and standards that make those vulnerabilities normal and expected.

    Expect a lot of resistance to fixing these things. Not from your regular workers, from the upper layers of management who like these things because they make life easy and look "Oooh, shiny!".

    It's a lot like physical security. You can emphasize it all you want, but when managers get angry at employees who closed the door in the manager's face forcing them to use their own key you will not get employees to stop letting people tailgate through doors.

  14. HOLY FUCK by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3

    I THINK THE EDITORS ARE MODERATING CRITICAL COMMENTS DOWN!!!
    I got 5 troll mods in a matter of one minute, making a pretty reasonable post(I thought).

    I thought it was bizarre the GP got modded down once, but I really think Dice. is modding the fucking comments.

    1. Re:HOLY FUCK by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1
      Editors or someone else with high-level powers, (dice? rob-limo?), is screwing with the scores and the moderation system for sure.
      :>(
      Similar thing happened to me on the last so called RSA conference posting by RobLimo-sine-o: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3514379&cid=43077401

      That was an article called RSA: From Apple Keys to Biometric Security Devices (Video), which at last I checked 30 seconds ago had:
      score . . . . . number of comments
      -1 . . . . . . . . . 19 comments
      0 . . . . . . . . . . 6 comments
      1 . . . . . . . . . . 4 comments
      2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 comment (haha, no one likes this article)
      I strongly agree with you that either Dice or someone high up in the /. hierarchy is fucking with the scores received. My follow-up comment on that article is still scored as +1 so it's one of the few +1 comments on there. But seriously, look at the skewing of (-1) comments, 13 out of 19 comments on there are at (-1). That's a crazy useless article, isn't it? This kind of shitty behavior by the moderators and the editors and the runners of this site is making me reconsider even posting on the articles of interest to me.

  15. This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 5, Informative

    I got duped into clicking the story thinking it was a legitimate article. Instead I got a slashvertisement... ./suckered

    1. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm watching this thread to see if you get modded down. I think they've gone as far as telling editors to mod down those who point out it's a slashvertisement. Regular mods never mod down this far down in a discussion, so I'd like to see if my hypothesis is substantiated.

    2. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by admdrew · · Score: 1

      I wrote a fair/neutral email to Roblimo (roblimo@yahoo.com) asking why his posts are so outside the rest of the /. paradigm, then forwarded it to other mods, Soulskill, Timothy, and Unknown Lamer (I should've sent it to all of them initially, but just didn't think of it). Wonder if any of them will actually respond.

    3. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Since editors are payed employees, I can't imagine the others don't know what's going on. Whatever it is, they don't seem intent on telling anyone.

    4. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm totally loosing any trust in slashdot content. I've had slashdot as my homepage for 12 years, but this is about it for me. I've seen other articles which I doubted belonged as content, rather than as advertising, but this one is so obvious, I have to take notice.

      I've seen several comments about the possibility of slashdot censoring criticism of slashdot, and they are credible.

      I don't know what to do about this trend in slashdot and others, other than leave. I just unsubscribed from InfoQ for emailing me a full page advertisement, instead of a page of links to technical information, on their site, where I'd see their revenue producing advertising.

    5. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by fa2k · · Score: 1

      It's not unthinkable that real people would mod this down. It's fine to point out that it's an advertisement, but when the first thread just keeps going on and on about it, I could see how some people would consider that to be off topic.

    6. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      Here's the email exchange between admdrew and me:

      From: Andy George
      To: roblimo@yahoo.com
      Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:09 PM
      Subject: Your Slashdot submissions

      Hi,

      Why are you the only Slashdot editor that submits your own content, instead of submissions from readers? It's like you're treating Slashdot as your marketing blog, which only serve to degrade the quality of the site. I'm a long-time reader and commenter who has never seen this level of consistent slashvertising before.

      -----

      I'm paid by the hour to edit and post videos that are mostly shot by Tim Lord. He picks the subject matter.

      None of them are paid ads.

      BTW, my real, daily-read email address is robin@roblimo.com.

      I only saw this email because you mentioned it in a comment on /.

      Now and then I do a remote video interview on my own steam. They are almost always with topic experts. Tomorrow's, for example, is with someone who built a billion-dollar company with mostly remote employees. He's a smart guy, and if you either work as a programmer or in IT or would like to one day, the information he's sharing with us is totally worth knowing.

      Of course, if this sort of thing doesn't interest you, please don't watch the video or read the transcript.

      Thanks for your input,

      - Robin

    7. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by admdrew · · Score: 2
      ...and my response below, since we're being so transparent today (although it feels in bad taste for you to have published my full From common name from my original email to you):

      Robin,

      Thanks for your response (I found your yahoo email just off of a whois of your main domain).

      Your posts aren't marked as paid ads, but they're consistently construed as such by /. commentators, which is certainly of note.

      The thing that many Slashdotters may be missing (I certainly did) is that you're not an official /. editor, per the FAQ, which could help explain how your posts differ so much from the actual editors. I certainly find the commentator confusion and frustration understandable.

      My apologizes for any vitriol you felt from my original email to you, I really didn't intend on any! Penny Arcade sums it up best - http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

      Thanks

    8. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by admdrew · · Score: 1
      Wow, I totally didn't read the whole of your comment, I assumed you actually copied our email exchange verbatim. Here's your ACTUAL response to me:

      I'm paid by the hour to edit and post videos that are mostly shot by Tim Lord.

      None of them are paid ads.

      I don't get paid nearly enough to do the evil you seem to think I do.

      BTW, my real, daily-read email address is robin@roblimo.com.

      I only read this because you mentioned it in a comment on /.

      Thanks for your input,

      - Robin

      Why did you put that alternate version up?

    9. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      Whoops!- Guess when I hit Ctrl-C I hadn't highlighted the entire email - was in a huge rush. Sorry.

      I know it's always fun to imagine a conspiracy, but I was rushing to meet a friend and carpool to a LUG meeting. Back now. :)

    10. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      But what's with all of the down-voting on comments on the "key caps" article that dared to ask if the article itself was a slashvertisement? There's something bizarre about 13 out of 19 comments being down-modded to (-1) scores so rapidly, particularly when some of the were obviously not troll postings but merely questioning the usefulness of the article itself.
      .
      http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/1721233/rsa-from-apple-keys-to-biometric-security-devices-video Especially the comments by RocketRabbit.

    11. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by Inda · · Score: 1

      That's not strictly true. Some of us like the newest posts at the top. It's where the gems end up. These are the ones I'll mod first. No, I don't check for redundant posts.

      The obvious "first post" shit is always at the bottom. It's boring stuff posted by bored people refreshed the front page too often. The same copy 'n paste answers to the same dupe story themes.

      A few hours after the story is posted, the insightful comments start. Happy days.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    12. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by Roblimo · · Score: 1

      I have no idea. I did my editing & upload task and moved on to write a Cheap Computing column or something else not related to Slashdot.

      I rarely if ever moderate, and it's obvious that I did not moderate any comments on this story because I'm posting comments on it.

      It's entirely possible that other readers didn't like the false "it's an ad" accusations and moderated them down. Or it could have been one of the full-time editors. Got me. If I knew, I'd tell you.

      The thing that always puzzles me on Slashdot is that there seem to be a few readers who believe every single piece must be interesting to them, as if there aren't hundreds of thousands of other Slashdot readers, each of whom has his or her own interests. I get bored with people whining about how this or that story doesn't interest them, as if we are using the Secrett Slashdott Mind Controll Thingie to force them to read every story and watch every video.

      If something doesn't interest you, ignore it and move on. That's what I do. Unless, of course, you really believe Marco Rubio was born in Kenya and that the U.S. will be taken over by communist tea bagging libertarian aliens from Venezuela if you don't alert the world to this dread plot. Or something.

      FYI - there are no such thing as video "slashvertisements." Tim or I (I do most of the remote interviews; he travels to events) pick video subjects with no input whatsoever from ad salespeople, Dice, the Koch brothers, my dog Terri, the NRA or Nancy Pelosi.

      Believe this or not, as you wish, but it's true.

    13. Re:This post = spearphished-slashvertisement? by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the sane reply. Note that I simply had asked "what's the deal with all of the [rapid] downvoting" and that I had no paranoid ideations. I just wondered what was going on. Also, I had no idea that there were no such things as "video `slashvertisements' " because no-where on /. in the FAQ or anywhere else is it stated that there is no such a thing as a video slashvertisement. But since I'm getting it from the editors mouth, I am more than willing to concede that it was "groupthink" downvoting, and not some editor level moderation by you. Mind you, I did have one piece of constructive criticism which you did not address.
      :>)
      I suggested/recommended that you consider interviewing an engineer/techie or the founder of the company, rather than interviewing the "Director of Marketing". Either a founder or a techie employee would have more interesting and tech-oriented things and details to provide in a conversation or interview. Thanks for taking the time to read and reply, though it may have taken the emails from admandrew to push some things to the head of the queue. :>)

  16. It's not that simple. by nuckfuts · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many corporate users use Outlook. When viewing (or previewing) HTML-formatted messages, it uses the same rendering as Internet Explorer, and is thus susceptible to the same vulnerabilities.

    I can remember a happy time when I could tell people with confidence "you'll never infect your computer by merely viewing an e-mail". Or a JPG. Or a PDF. Or ...

    1. Re:It's not that simple. by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Yes exactly! The sheer number of exploit hooks into even modern/patched operating systems is simply depressing.

    2. Re:It's not that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only true if you have completely incompetent corporate IT. Outlook when properly configured does not open or preview formatted HTML messages from the internet using explorer at all.

  17. Roblimo as an "editor" by admdrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can someone tell me why all of Roblimo's posts 1) are his own content, versus edited reader submissions, and 2) read exactly like advertisements?

    1. Re:Roblimo as an "editor" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are ads.

    2. Re:Roblimo as an "editor" by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      Also see the prior article, where my comment/question about "is this a slashvertisement?" got rapidly modded down to a (-1) score.
      .
      What's with all of the down-voting on comments on the "key caps" article that dared to ask if the article itself was a slashvertisement? There's something bizarre about 13 out of 19 comments being down-modded to (-1) scores so rapidly, particularly when some of the were obviously not troll postings but merely questioning the usefulness of the article itself.
      .
      http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/03/04/1721233/rsa-from-apple-keys-to-biometric-security-devices-video
      Especially the comments by RocketRabbit.

  18. Re:So how about setting up fake spearphishing atte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's as easy as disconnecting electricity from your building.

  19. Lost fight by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Is hard to teach common sense. Is easy with enough internal information (usually kindly provided by you in social networks) to trick someone onto opening an email, an attachment, a java applet, or visit a "safe" website (that could be a hacked real one, even a government one, with "extra" content targetted at you).

    1. Re:Lost fight by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      It IS hard to teach common sense, but it's not hard to demonstrate it. That's what PhishMe does. Shows employees how to recognize phishing emails by exposing them to safe phishing emails. Think of it as a vaccine.

    2. Re:Lost fight by gmuslera · · Score: 1
      Our "software" have a lot of vulnerabilities that are hard to be aware of at all times. If i tell you that a coin have 50% odds of heads or tails, and tell you that the last 10 tries were heads, wouldnt you think that it will be almost sure than next try will have far more than 50% of odds in one direction or another? Even being aware of the fallacy that is behind?

      If you aren't sending generic mails, but something tailored for the recipient (and in particular, the weakest link between the possible ones) this gets worse. Phishing has gotten very good

  20. Microsoft only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't using Thunderbird on Linux eliminate this and pretty much all other similar schemes?

    Why opening e-mail causes something to run or be saved? Is this required by any web standard? This is entirely the Microsoft invention.

    1. Re:Microsoft only by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately even Thunderbird on Linux cannot prevent bad processes to be started in the user's brain, which case that user to actively initiate the insecure operation. You need to install a special package called "user education" to protect against this. Unfortunately installing that is often tricky, and some brains don't run it particularly well.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  21. PWNED! by Kookus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone who clicked on this link needs to now attend a phishing training class, you have all been suckered into clicking on this blatant advertisement!

  22. Re:So how about setting up fake spearphishing atte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's as easy as disconnecting electricity from your building.

    And as likely

  23. Scientific Studies on Protecting People from Phish by JAS0NH0NG · · Score: 1

    I wrote up an article in Communications of the ACM about a year ago summarizing the state of phishing attacks.

    My colleagues and I have also studied phishing extensively and have the most comprehensive peer-reviewed body of work in this area. Our studies include understanding why people fall for phishing attacks (PDF), evaluating how well simulated phishing attacks work (PDF) (the short answer is quite well, based on a study of 500 people), designing and evaluating a micro game teaching people about URLs works (PDF) (empirically tested with several thousand people), and more.

    We've also commercialized our work, in terms of a service for simulated phishing attacks, the micro game for anti-phishing, and more.

    Also, to anyone saying "people are stupid" or "they deserve to get malware", you really are part of the problem. It's our job to protect people, to reduce complexity, and to ensure the safety of our systems and networks. Arrogantly dismissing others as being inferior or stupid is one reason why computer security, user interfaces, and software in general is in the state it is.

  24. Only if you fail as an admin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This only applies if you fail as an admin. Mine sure as fuck doesn't show HTML messages unless I click the "show as html" bar.

    1. Re:Only if you fail as an admin by rioki · · Score: 1

      Sandboxing? Works in the browser*, should work in the email client.

      *proper browsers, not IE...

  25. Open that email by Skapare · · Score: 1

    If merely opening an email can do anything more that let you see and hear its content (and stop the instant you close it) then there is something wrong with your computer. And even that much is risky.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  26. How about FALSE POSITIVE NON-PHISHING? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next logical step is to test your employees with requests that could be legitimate, but are not (e.g. calling customer service to inquire about a product), and then firing anyone that does not field the request, even if that employee knew the request to be only a test.

  27. can't be fought by technical means?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Open that email, and... ZAP! So this is social hacking (cracking for the old-timers), and cannot necessarily be fought entirely by technical means

    Wrong. For opening an email to be dangerous, requires that your email client be horribly broken. There is a technical means: don't treat email as executable code. Fix mail client bugs.

    Maybe that's harder than everyone says it is, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

    Furthermore, for "spearphishing" in particular, there are other technical means to get depth. If it involves "masquerading as a trustworthy entity" then email signatures, if only people would use them, would stop it dead in its tracks.

    This is an unusually bad example of a problem which can only be fixed socially.

  28. Re:Scientific Studies on Protecting People from Ph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your study is about students.. not enterprise workers.

  29. Antiphishing by Murdoch5 · · Score: 2

    Does every one remember a few weeks ago when a company sent out a real email asking for users to change passwords and some people thought incorrectly it was a phishing email..... Basically that single event proved that people don't understand how to read / detect phishing scams. if you can't even recognize or take steps to recognize whats real from whats fake then I don't know what to tell you, the issue isn't always the scammer or lack there of, sometimes just blame the users.

    1. Re:Antiphishing by Desler · · Score: 1

      They thought it was phishing because it seny people to a URL just like one you'd get from a scam email. I don't blame them for being skeptical. Why would they send you to an unknow 3rd-party site to reset your email? That's a classic phising tactic.

    2. Re:Antiphishing by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

      if you can't even recognize or take steps to recognize whats real

      Simply call the company to ask, so I can blame the users in that case.

    3. Re:Antiphishing by pclminion · · Score: 2

      Why are you blaming the users at all? They erred on the side of caution.

    4. Re:Antiphishing by Desler · · Score: 1

      They did contact the company via their security discussion mailing list.

    5. Re:Antiphishing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply call the company to ask, so I can blame the users in that case.

      If I called someone every time I got a phishing mail (even a decent one) I'd go bankrupt from the phone bill.

      (Disclaimer: I would not actually go bankrupt from the phone bill. The above statement is hyperbole.)

  30. Re: So how about not running vulnerable software? by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

    If only that were feasible. Unfortunately, we have created a septic environment and the only way to be sure of staying clean is to live in a bubble.

    Not that I'm excusing the irresponsible decisions that are routinely made over security issues. That's how we got into this mess in the first place - one small, dumb step after another.

  31. cracking/hacking by markhahn · · Score: 1

    eh? cracking, to old timers, is the act of bypassing software locks. hacking is trick/cool repurposing/extension. spearphishing is plain old social engineering.

  32. Your are ill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are ill and need professional help

  33. Well that's easy by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    Spearphishing. The deluxe (but easy) way to get unwary employees to put malware on your network.

    Hey, if i want to put malware on my network it's even easier to just do it myself.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  34. Re: So how about not running vulnerable software? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    I won't say that Linux (which is what I run) is completely safe, but it's far, far safer than Windows is. That's not to say that everybody should be running Linux, but that everybody who runs Windows should be asking Microsoft why Windows is so vulnerable.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  35. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apk upset your sensibilities by rousing such geek angst in you losing to him in tech debates here on slashdot that you resort to such stupidity here. It's the third time I've seen you do it today and each time you've been down moderated for it here in this discussion thread, and here too http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43096733 and here also http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521669&cid=43094855 so like others have told you in response to this stupidity from you, do yourself a favor and seek professional psychiatric help. You obviously require it.

  36. Here' The SD Replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Distributed Discussion And Publishing System"

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/didipus/files/DiDiPuS.pdf/download

  37. Not True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A proper Sandboxing System would contain all those buffer overflows and bad pointers in the PDF, Excel, Flash and Word crapware. And yeah, you better sandbox the FOSS crapware, too. Just have a look at libpoppler and you know what I mean. A can of void* worms.

    So if your sandbox is made after the KISS principle and has lots of capable eyeballs applied to it, there would be a serious chance that we could actually safely view ANY email. In paradise, governments would fund mathematical verification of sandbox correctness. In reality they fund nasty malware for their own purposes, of course. After all, Israel and the MIC are in great need of new war, new blood and new money from arms revenue.

    1. Re:Not True by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Then the phishing will just use another vector. Say, trick the user into installing some extension (yes, the browser will warn about a potential insecurity, but it also does so when you install known good extensions right from Mozilla's extensions page, so the user will just ignore the warning and install anyway). Or send a file format which the browser cannot handle, so the user saves it and opens it directly, without the sandbox.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Not True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you effectively sandbox the carbon based processor?

  38. CS Band AIDS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, as in "AIDS". Why don't you research and fix the problem at the core as Google does with their sandboxing approach ? Why don't you spend time and effort in proving sandboxes or memory safe language compilers right ? Why don't you spend time and effort in clearly marking an email as "external" or "dangerous and unverified source" or something like that ?

    I'll tell you. The Band Aid Industry is big business, but only as long as the security issues are not fixed at the core, where they should be. It's a Protection Racket.

  39. Re:bare-naked slashvertisements by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    Yeah, and while we knew there were a bunch before, I think we're def. seeing Dice's hand in all this.

    The other posters are right about the shift to video, and Roblimo, who really was off the radar until last month. Here is a Reuters article describing specifically how this company is a spinoff of some other one a couple years ago. So yes, it's absolutely a Slash-vertisement. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/idUS120683+20-Mar-2012+BW20120320

    Besides your heuristics, let's go even farther. It's these companies that seem to specialize in "protecting/training", with unclear extra motives buried in there. To paraphrase xkcd: "My hobby: watching Anonymous bust open these companies purporting to specialize in providing privacy/security services." Because they're in a position where they can't have ANY incident on their record with the services they sell. Yeah, I sorta don't care if Walmart hoses their data records in some random location branch because that store manager was an idiot. It's Walmart. These security companies are in a different league. Remember HBGary?

    And these Slashverts are coming *fast*. No subtle sneak-in. Fast. The question is whether the rest of what used to be slashdot is worth reading anymore if these aggressive slashverts keep barreling at us. It's like a game of Ad-DonkeyKong. Jump over the barrels!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  40. Slashdot's "Sponsored Posts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This year I learned that if you want a new revenue stream, all you have to do is exercise your right to "update" your Terms and Conditions.

    Seriously, this type of irresponsible behavior predicates a backlash.

  41. Microsoft Spearphishing © by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    Spearphishing. The deluxe (but easy) way to get unwary employees to put malware on your [ Microsoft Windows ] network. It's basically the same as phishing, except more targeted. That is, a plain phishing scam might offer an unwary [ Microsoft Windows ] web-browsing employee a chance to see a famous starlet naked, while a spearphishing attack might purport to be an urgent request from your Bizzaro County office for 200 Kg of Unobtainium Oxide. Open that email [under Microsoft Windows ], and... ZAP! So this is social hacking [ on Microsoft Windows ] .. Either way, every [ Microsoft Windows ] computer-using person in your company should know about phishing -- and should know how to avoid getting hooked by phishers.

    --
    AccountKiller
  42. Oh god by jameshofo · · Score: 1

    Remedial training will continue until morale improves! is there a reason you need a company to tell your employees to stop clicking on the dancing kitty link?

    Hmmm I'll get modded down for bashing the advert story so... oh I know, Dice is awesome, I for one embrace or benevolent overlords.

    --
    Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
  43. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't pretend not to be apk. It's transparent and unseemly.

  44. Or you could just not hire retards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the start.

  45. We tried this in 2001 by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

    We tried this in 2001, after a tonne of people opened some Love virus email variant. Me and one other IT guy at our University just did it off our own bat - I wrote a small and simple vb6 exe and he emailed it out from a hotmail account as "funny.doc.exe". All it did was log who clicked the file back to a txt file on the network.

    We didn't get any kind of authorisation or even discuss it with anyone first and yes, we got in trouble with management for embarrassing staff (we did not name and shame, so we didn't get in too much trouble).

  46. I read hookers instead of getting hooked. by ruir · · Score: 1

    First, every time I hear computers get infected, or whatever, I wanna cry. There have been people using Mac and Linux for decades now. Then obviously this is advertisement... mod this article down, please.

  47. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please take the advice others gave you. Get help and get on topic.

  48. Re: So how about not running vulnerable software? by Capt.Albatross · · Score: 1

    This may off-topic, but by 'septic environment', I was also thinking of the fact that we have to live with the bad decisions of businesses and government agencies that we have to deal with.

  49. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off, Paul.

  50. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once more, do take your own advice.

  51. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get lost, troll.

  52. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself after this from you http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521797&cid=43096277

  53. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get lost, troll!

  54. Re:My HOSTS file blocks all phishing sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself after this from you http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521797&cid=43096277