Text 2065, 272 rader
Skriven 2005-01-18 21:19:46 av Robert Comer (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 2055 av Geo (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Do we protect users from their own stupidity?
=========================================================
From: "Robert Comer" <bobcomer@mindspring.com>

That works for me!

- Bob Comer


"Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message news:41eda01e@w3.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)