Comments on: Another real bank site which confuses people: nwolb.com http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/ A blog about and from PhishTank, a collaborative clearinghouse for data about phishing. Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:44:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Gaz http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-1464 Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:17:57 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-1464 nwolb.com stands for Natwest Online Banking. Natwest (National Westminster) is a subsidiary group of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Hope that clears up something nwolb.com stands for Natwest Online Banking. Natwest (National Westminster) is a subsidiary group of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Hope that clears up something

]]> by: bestiality http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-638 Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:52:33 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-638 Good info! Thank. Good info!
Thank.

]]> by: Dan http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-550 Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:13:42 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-550 [quote]We’re considering making voting more easily available for those sites still being checked — it’s available now, but they don’t show up in “Next Unverified Phish.”[/quote] What exactly does "Submission [...] is being checked (online or offline)" mean ? [quote]We’re considering making voting more easily available for those sites still being checked — it’s available now, but they don’t show up in “Next Unverified Phish.”[/quote]
What exactly does “Submission […] is being checked (online or offline)” mean ?

]]> by: Bota http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-437 Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:04:18 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-437 I'm surprised how good registration data is. I would have thought that phishers would register their fake domains using the real name and address of their targets. What I do look at, though, is the "date of first registration", figuring that if this is a year old or more, then I can rely on it being legitimate. I’m surprised how good registration data is. I would have thought that phishers would register their fake domains using the real name and address of their targets. What I do look at, though, is the “date of first registration”, figuring that if this is a year old or more, then I can rely on it being legitimate.

]]> by: John Roberts http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-365 Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:41:38 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-365 Reading all the comments, I assure you. We remain unlikely to offer the ability to change a vote, even with the three-step process suggested by DougieLawson. The bias factor is too strong. As I've said before, one bad vote isn't enough to (a) end up mis-classifying a submission or (b) ruining your reputation on the site. I've done it myself, and I had the same reaction (oh, why can't I change that?), but I refrained. The idea to highlight HTTPS URLs is a good one, and simple (we all love simple). astrogeek, the point of a separate window was to allow comments. Some people take advantage of that, some do not. I'll discuss your point with others. phishthis, and others: the ONLINE/Offline challenge remains a difficult one. These sites go up and down, and different people get a different response, as does our software. We're considering making voting more easily available for those sites still being checked -- it's available now, but they don't show up in "Next Unverified Phish." On a larger point -- we will continue to open up PhishTank further over time. It's been a great two months, and we look forward to continuing to support the growth and action of the community. Sometime this coming week, I'll give more of a roadmap about where we hope PhishTank goes. Note: it goes nowhere unless the community remains involved, so all of us will be paying attention to the feedback there. Reading all the comments, I assure you.

We remain unlikely to offer the ability to change a vote, even with the three-step process suggested by DougieLawson. The bias factor is too strong.

As I’ve said before, one bad vote isn’t enough to (a) end up mis-classifying a submission or (b) ruining your reputation on the site. I’ve done it myself, and I had the same reaction (oh, why can’t I change that?), but I refrained.

The idea to highlight HTTPS URLs is a good one, and simple (we all love simple).

astrogeek, the point of a separate window was to allow comments. Some people take advantage of that, some do not. I’ll discuss your point with others.

phishthis, and others: the ONLINE/Offline challenge remains a difficult one. These sites go up and down, and different people get a different response, as does our software. We’re considering making voting more easily available for those sites still being checked — it’s available now, but they don’t show up in “Next Unverified Phish.”

On a larger point — we will continue to open up PhishTank further over time. It’s been a great two months, and we look forward to continuing to support the growth and action of the community.

Sometime this coming week, I’ll give more of a roadmap about where we hope PhishTank goes. Note: it goes nowhere unless the community remains involved, so all of us will be paying attention to the feedback there.

]]> by: milky http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-355 Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:49:34 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-355 just misclicked too - it was obviously a phishing site so hopefully it doesn't hold the verification up much :/ just misclicked too - it was obviously a phishing site so hopefully it doesn’t hold the verification up much :/

]]> by: phishthis http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-344 Sat, 02 Dec 2006 10:02:34 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-344 I happen to agree with funchords as I've been guilty of the same a few times, and may I suggest an additional selection that allows the community to note when a site cannot be fetched by them, IOW - is apparently offline. Secondly, from time to time, a phishing site will override the frame window and this forces me to log back in and time it correctly to place a vote. Any discussion or suggestions? Thanks, phishthis President, Founder, and primary Bottle Warsher of the London Antiphishing Society, near Arkansas Nuclear One I happen to agree with funchords as I’ve been guilty of the same a few times, and may I suggest an additional selection that allows the community to note when a site cannot be fetched by them, IOW - is apparently offline.
Secondly, from time to time, a phishing site will override the frame window and this forces me to log back in and time it correctly to place a vote. Any discussion or suggestions?
Thanks,

phishthis
President, Founder, and primary Bottle Warsher of the
London Antiphishing Society, near Arkansas Nuclear One

]]> by: DougieLawson http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-343 Sat, 02 Dec 2006 08:20:40 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-343 Can we also change the user interface for the phish tank to highlight any __HTTPS__ url with RED text? That _will_ reduce the number of false positives. Can we also change the user interface for the phish tank to highlight any __HTTPS__ url with RED text? That _will_ reduce the number of false positives.

]]> by: DougieLawson http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-338 Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:24:50 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-338 I've hit the wrong button on a few websites. With this one I had a tactical advantage with #36895 - I used to work in NatWest's IT Dept. There needs to be an option to change my vote - make it painful, with three confirmation screens (are you sure?, are you really sure? your gun, your bullet, your foot). If I have semi-consciously hit the wrong button, then I'll choose the report a problem and flag it as a false positive - so the moderators can work on it. I’ve hit the wrong button on a few websites. With this one I had a tactical advantage with #36895 - I used to work in NatWest’s IT Dept.

There needs to be an option to change my vote - make it painful, with three confirmation screens (are you sure?, are you really sure? your gun, your bullet, your foot).

If I have semi-consciously hit the wrong button, then I’ll choose the report a problem and flag it as a false positive - so the moderators can work on it.

]]> by: astrogeek http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-331 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 18:39:52 +0000 http://www.phishtank.com/blog/2006/11/30/another-real-bank-site-which-confuses-people-nwolbcom/#comment-331 I've wanted to edit my answers by accident as well, but I've also found that if people are allowed to edit a poll (and that's really what this is) after they've seen what everyone else does there's 'pressure' to reconsider. First impressions are usually better, IMHO, for aggregate endeavors like this. If we're making feature requests I'd really like to have the 'problems with this submission' pop-up window become a simple drop-down list on the submission page. It hasn't made sense to me why it's a separate window I've got to wait on to open (and I do that a lot because I really depend on those screenshots - which are often missing - so I wind up flagging submissions at lot). I’ve wanted to edit my answers by accident as well, but I’ve also found that if people are allowed to edit a poll (and that’s really what this is) after they’ve seen what everyone else does there’s ‘pressure’ to reconsider. First impressions are usually better, IMHO, for aggregate endeavors like this.

If we’re making feature requests I’d really like to have the ‘problems with this submission’ pop-up window become a simple drop-down list on the submission page. It hasn’t made sense to me why it’s a separate window I’ve got to wait on to open (and I do that a lot because I really depend on those screenshots - which are often missing - so I wind up flagging submissions at lot).

]]>