Text 2055, 248 rader
Skriven 2005-01-18 18:45:42 av Geo (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 2030 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Do we protect users from their own stupidity?
=========================================================
From: "Geo" <georger@nls.net>

The flip side is that in order to prevent phishing, companies are going to have
to stop spamming users. <g> (as in if you get an unrequested email from us,
rest assured it's not from us)

Geo.

"Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:41ec6d9f@w3.nls.net...
> Bummer. :(
>
> This is really bad, eventually a most everyone is going to get one of
these
> from a company they do deal and trust, and zap, infected.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
> "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:41ec4e7a$2@w3.nls.net...
> > there is a way to spoof the bottom display too, I think there is an
> > example
> > on www.malware.com site.
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> > "Robert Comer" <bobcomer_removeme@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:41ec35d6@w3.nls.net...
> >> I just got a very good imitation of an official Paypal email, this
one's
> >> going to fool a few... :(
> >>
> >> There's actually an easy way to tell it's a phishing attack, at least
in
> > OE,
> >> just move the mouse cursor over the link and look down at the bottom
> > status
> >> bar, you see what the link really points to.  If the domain doesn't
look
> >> right for whatever company, it's phishing.
> >>
> >> - Bob Comer
> >>
> >>
> >> "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ltcou0lhvanrbp6su81dokr26fcrpiftfa@4ax.com...
> >> > Periodically I get phishing emails pretending to be from ebay, and
they
> >> > even manage to get "ebay" into the headers, but if you look up the IP
> >> > address of course you find out it's not... but what percentage of
users
> >> > A) know how to find the header;
> >> > B) know how to read it; or
> >> > C) know how to look up an IP address?
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:14:01 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
> >> > <41eaf508@w3.nls.net>:
> >> >
> >> >>   I disagree.
> >> >>
> >> >>   People do very much know the difference between their own computer
> > and
> >> >> the other computers referenced in phishing attacks.  They know that
> > email
> >> >> comes from somewhere outside their computer.  They know the web site
> >> >> to
> >> >> which they are referred is not their computer.  They still are
fooled.
> >> >>
> >> >>   People know they are choosing to download and install software
from
> > the
> >> >> Internet.  What they may not know is that it is or contains spyware.
> >> >> There is no confusion over boundaries.
> >> >>
> >> >>   I believe your whole idea of trust is off base.  People aren't
> >> >> making
> >> >> decisions on whether or not to trust particular machines.  I douby
> >> >> very
> >> >> much most people even think that way.  People place trust in other
> > people
> >> >> or in some cases who they believe those people are.  Phishing
attacks
> > for
> >> >> bank sites succeed because the people the fall pray to them believe
> > that
> >> >> the people sending the email are valid representitives of the bank
and
> >> >> they trust those people.
> >> >>
> >> >>   As for your initial premise, I honestly don't know what it is you
> >> >> believe is consistent that should not be or is different that should
> > not
> >> >> be.  You can't be referring to the browser which is almost never
used
> > for
> >> >> the local computer and clearly identifies what is local and what is
> > not.
> >> >>
> >> >>   Your claim regarding phishing is also wrong.  The address bar is
one
> >> >> possible indicator to users.  Phishing attacks preceeded any of
these
> > and
> >> >> continue without them.  I've seen phishing emails that make no
attempt
> > to
> >> >> mask the domain to which they refer.  People still get fooled.  The
> >> >> address bar probably means little to many users.  I can tell when
> >> >> speaking with and helping non-technical users that even though they
> >> >> get
> >> >> that they type into the address bar to go to a site they do not
always
> >> >> get that it is overloaded to provide feedback to them where they
have
> >> >> gone.  The same with the status bar.  Their have been status bar
> > spoofs.
> >> >> They make little difference.  Do any of these make a difference to
you
> > so
> >> >> that you would be fooled?
> >> >>
> >> >>Rich
> >> >>
> >> >>  "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message
news:41ea4440@w3.nls.net...
> >> >>  part of the reason it's so easy to fool people is because of
> > Microsoft.
> >> >> Remember some years ago when I said to make a consistant interface
> >> >> that
> >> >> blurs the line between the local machine and remote
machines/internet
> >> >> machines was a mistake? Well that's one of the big reasons why
people
> >> >> today are so easy to fool. They don't understand the concept of
> >> >> trusted/untrusted machines because it all looks the same to them.
They
> >> >> honestly don't know where their machine ends and the rest of the
world
> >> >> begins.
> >> >>
> >> >>  I understood the logic behind making that a consistent interface
and
> >> >> blurring the line but I saw the problem with it as well. How is a
user
> > to
> >> >> know the difference between a remote website and a help page from
one
> > of
> >> >> their own programs if there is no difference?
> >> >>
> >> >>  As for not knowing anyone who was infected due to the exploit of a
> > bug,
> >> >> doesn't phishing work because of a bug that allows IE to show one
> > address
> >> >> in the address bar while in fact it's talking to another address?
> >> >> What,
> >> >> doesn't that count?
> >> >>
> >> >>  Geo.
> >> >>    "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net...
> >> >>       You can't protect them from their own stupidity.  I've seen
> > plenty
> >> >> of examples of people getting infected with spyware due to their own
> >> >> explicit actions, either approving when asked if something should be
> >> >> installed or explicitly downloading and installing something that is
> >> >> or
> >> >> includes spyware.  I do not know of anyone personally that was
> >> >> infected
> >> >> due to an exploit of a bug.  Phishing is another example that relies
> >> >> almost entirely on people being to trusting and doing something they
> >> >> shouldn't.  I haven't seen an email virus in a long time that did
not
> >> >> rely on the user following instructions in the email to act against
> >> >> his
> >> >> own interest and run or even save then open and run something they
> >> >> shouldn't.  We are well beyond what many folks would consider
> >> >> security.
> >> >> To protect against people making these kinds of mistakes you have to
> > take
> >> >> choices they can't be trusted making away from them.  That upsets
the
> >> >> folks that can be trusted to or want to make these choices unhappy.
> > This
> >> >>isn't far from the idea that putting you in a straightjacket makes
you
> >> >>more secure because you are less likely to hurt yourself.  As for how
> >> >>people react to this, do you remember the reaction to cars that
buzzed
> > or
> >> >>otherwise made noise when the driver or a passenger did not wear his
> > seat
> >> >>belt?  It wasn't positive.
> >> >>
> >> >>    Rich
> >> >>      "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in
> >> >> message news:48qju0547j4l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com...
> >> >>      And that is a very big problem when trying to figure out what
> >> >> security
> >> >>      features should be built in or what functionality should be
> > allowed.
> >> >> Do
> >> >>      we protect users from their own stupidity?   I guess there is a
> >> >>      rationale for doing so in that if the masses' machines are
laxly
> >> >> secured
> >> >>      (if at all), the danger to _everyone_ increases.
> >> >>
> >> >>      On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:12 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
> >> >>      <41e30a96@w3.nls.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >>      >   I agree there are a great many people that have no interest
> >> >> in
> >> >> or familiarity with exercising the control available to them.  That
> > will
> >> >> always be true.
> >> >>      >
> >> >>      >Rich
> >> >>      >
> >> >>      >  "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote
in
> >> >> message news:7og4u0pj8f0nq10sm8t2covkac7q75oj1s@4ax.com...
> >> >>      >  Well, I think this conversation is all over the place
> >> >> regarding
> >> >> who we
> >> >>      >  are talking about when we talk about users.  The folks here
> >> >> are
> >> >> an
> >> >>      >  entirely different animal from the famous great unwashed
> > masses.
> >> >>      >
> >> >>      >  On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:40:28 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in
message
> >> >>      >  <41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net>:
> >> >>      >
> >> >>      >  >   Because you are in control, my point to george.
> >> >>      >  >
> >> >>      >  >Rich
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)