Comments on: 14 percent of phishing scams may be successful, says IU http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/ A blog about and from PhishTank, a collaborative clearinghouse for data about phishing. Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:47:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Bota http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-139 Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:04:34 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-139 Heck, I click on ALL of them! It doesn't mean I've been fooled. Heck, I click on ALL of them! It doesn’t mean I’ve been fooled.

]]> by: micha http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-114 Sat, 21 Oct 2006 06:32:37 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-114 @ Moike Exactly. Besides the fact that it takes too much time for some (very) obvious positive URLs to finally get tagged valid, the same counts for trolls (KackMoKid, jkrieger3, bluedevil ...) which results in waste of _very_ valuable resources. @Terry If you by any chance have spotted the log files of login attempts, which are saved at some phish locations ... They show, that some people even try to login twice (with same username and password) because they must think, they mistyped the first time:-/ Much to do. Regards, Micha [KL Japan] @ Moike
Exactly. Besides the fact that it takes too much time for some (very) obvious positive URLs to finally get tagged valid, the same counts for trolls (KackMoKid, jkrieger3, bluedevil …) which results in waste of _very_ valuable resources.

@Terry
If you by any chance have spotted the log files of login attempts, which are saved at some phish locations …
They show, that some people even try to login twice (with same username and password) because they must think, they mistyped the first time:-/
Much to do.

Regards,
Micha
[KL Japan]

]]> by: Terry (clubjuggle) http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-113 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:52:23 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-113 priruss, I encourage you to read the study. It looked not only at whether the individuals clicked the links, but whether they provided sensitive information after doing so. priruss, I encourage you to read the study. It looked not only at whether the individuals clicked the links, but whether they provided sensitive information after doing so.

]]> by: Bill Gram-Reefer http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-112 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:26:59 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-112 InternetPerils exposes phishing cluster at German ISP http://www.internetperils.com/perilwatch/20060928.php InternetPerils exposes phishing cluster at German ISP

http://www.internetperils.com/perilwatch/20060928.php

]]> by: priruss http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-111 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:48:49 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-111 The threadline/premise of this entry is flawed from the get-go. Simply clicking on a phishing link to test it for viability (as I routinely do before reporting the link to the authorities) does not mean that the phish was "successful". The threadline/premise of this entry is flawed from
the get-go. Simply clicking on a phishing link to
test it for viability (as I routinely do before
reporting the link to the authorities) does not
mean that the phish was “successful”.

]]> by: Moike http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-110 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:00:19 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-110 Along the lines of Terry's concern - Some entries have had voting disabled as being offline, despite coming up in a browser and still being spammed out. For Example - http://www.phishtank.com/phish_detail.php?phish_id=19663 Obviously 'meanoldmen.dk' is too lazy to be bothered with a takedown despite also having a report via Spamcop. That URL will never be included in SURBL. Along the lines of Terry’s concern - Some entries have had voting disabled as being offline, despite coming up in a browser and still being spammed out. For Example -

http://www.phishtank.com/phish_detail.php?phish_id=19663

Obviously ‘meanoldmen.dk’ is too lazy to be bothered with a takedown despite also having a report via Spamcop. That URL will never be included in SURBL.

]]> by: Terry (clubjuggle) http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-108 Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:02:35 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/10/19/14-percent-of-phishing-scams-may-be-successful-says-iu/#comment-108 Thanks for posting this. What's most troubling to me is that this is the percentage of users who respond <b>within the first 24 hours</b>. I'm finding that in many cases an entry seems to take longer than that to get validated. This suggests that by the time an entry gets validated, most of the damage might already be done. If that's truly the case, then we need to find ways to speed up the process, and part of that might be reducing the lag time between when an entry is submitted and when it hits the queue. Thanks for posting this. What’s most troubling to me is that this is the percentage of users who respond within the first 24 hours. I’m finding that in many cases an entry seems to take longer than that to get validated. This suggests that by the time an entry gets validated, most of the damage might already be done. If that’s truly the case, then we need to find ways to speed up the process, and part of that might be reducing the lag time between when an entry is submitted and when it hits the queue.

]]>