5 ms·

> Embarrassingly, I failed this once and then created an email rule which filters out the fake Phish. how did it get you, if you don't mind sharing? It seems

> Embarrassingly, I failed this once and then created an email rule which filters out the fake Phish. how did it get you, if you don't mind sharing? It seems if someone who works in IT (guessing you do) and is very careful fails it, this is an impossibly high standard to meet. curious how they got you.

Consultant32452 7y ago
That's just it, I simply wasn't being careful. Everyone gets distracted sometimes. I don't remember it in detail, but it was a fairly standard phishing email from a fake domain and I clicked a link. Not only am I in IT, my department is somewhat security related.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
samfriedman 7y ago
I recently failed a suspicious email / phishing test for the first time, and I am also one of those people who never thought it would happen to me... The email was a newsletter I didn't care about, and the unsubscribe link was (fake) malicious. That one impressed me because it preyed on what is now a pure reflex to click the unsubscribe link.
- mason55 7y ago
  Did the link take you to a site that auto-ran malware? Or did it take you to some kind of page that said "login to unsubscribe"? The latter is why password managers can be so valuable. I never type my passwords in so if my auto-fill doesn't activate I immediately become suspicious. If it's the former, it seems like your company must be using an insecure browser or the site was running some kind of 0-day? I never think twice about clicking links.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - inetknght 7y ago
    > I never think twice about clicking links. I hope you don't work for any sensitive position.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      That's not very fair. Browser exploits are a lot rarer than phishing.
      - acdha 7y ago
        I don't think background noise of broad, low-effort phishing emails can be directly compared to a more focused attack. If you work somewhere with interesting data the odds of a good phishing attack leading to an exploit could be much higher because you're being specifically targeted and they're not going to send the message until they have a current exploit ready (probably hoping to get it in before your IT department's change window, too).
        michaelt 7y ago
        If someone had a working browser exploit, wouldn't they just deliver it to their targets via an ad network? AFAIK most enterprises don't mandate ad blocking or noscript.
        acdha 7y ago
        > If someone had a working browser exploit, wouldn't they just deliver it to their targets via an ad network? I've heard more people at enterprises using ad blockers for security so I wouldn't rule that out but in general this is hitting that the broad vs. targeted distinction I mentioned: each time you use an exploit you're risking discovery, which will lead to it being patched & AV signatures going out. Using an ad network increases the number of people who are not your target getting the payload, not to mention any scanning the network does, and since ad networks require payment there's another trail pointing back to you which might not otherwise be the case if you are hosting things on compromised servers.
- kaffeemitsahne 7y ago
  From this and other comments in this thread it seems you have failed these phishing tests as soon as you click a link. Is the assumption here that you are completely pwned as soon as you visit an url controlled by an attacker? I can't imagine myself compromising company data/funds via a website where I ended up through a newsletter unsubscribe link so this seems quite unfair on the part of the phish-testers.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    This is exactly the case. If you click on a link in the fake phishing email you've failed the test. It does not require you to install anything, open an attachment, etc.
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      I was once at a place where the company homepage was owned. Fun times. Just starting your web-browser would exécuté some Java vuln and scareware you.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    If you think visiting a webpage in Chrome, or any other browser, even inside a VM, is totally safe, especially against a nation-state level actor, I have some bad news for you.
    - agurk 7y ago
      With that logic just having your mail client/web mail parse a malicious mail from a nation-state level actor is enough to compromise your machine.
      - whenchamenia 7y ago
        It happens all the time. https://thecoinshark.net/microsoft-email-clients-was-hacked-to-steal-cryptocurrency/ https://thecoinshark.net/microsoft-email-clients-was-hacked-...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- inetknght 7y ago
  > a pure reflex to click the unsubscribe link. That's a learned trait. I don't click unsubscribe links; I click "report spam" and "report phishing" button. If only Gmail would let me create filters to automatically mark entire domains as spam though. That would be nice...
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I'm sure this [reporting spam rather than unsubscribing] happens all the time but it's sort of obnoxious if the email is legit and, especially, if it's a list you requested to get put on at some point.
    - inetknght 7y ago
      If you got my email address from a third party, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because I applied for a job, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because I signed up for a service, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because I purchased something, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because someone else "legitimately" entered my email address into your field, then I do not want to be marketed to. In short: your definition of "legit" likely does not meet my definition of legit. The only email that I deem to be legit is an email that: 1) is @from a domain name that I recognize (walk like a junk, talk like a junk, it's junk) 2) is @from the same domain name as the correspondent (no third party bulk email or proxies; eg mailchimp et al) 3) does not have a no-reply@ as the reply-to address (I must be able to talk to a human) 4) does not hyperlink to third party domains (from@domain must match hyperlinked domain text) Any legitimate email outside of those parameters are specially treated with liberal amounts of filtering.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        Your attitude doesn't account for the possibility that since you do business with somebody, you need or want to receive some of their emails. This is the nature of any relationship. You can't be ruthless in eliminating aspects you don't like, if you don't want to end it entirely because it's net positive.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  If that’s the bar, the org should just strip out all external links. Voilà. That way they’ll also protect themselves against an external vendor that gets used to spearphish you.
agurk 7y ago
I nearly fell for a real fishing link once recently, due to changes that have been made by our IT department. Firstly all external senders have the mail reformatted with a red bar at the top and some text, and secondly all hyperlinks are forced through a proxy, which makes it effectively impossible to know what the URL is from the email. I'd received a (rare to my work account) fishing email and I was about to click on a link in there just before I started thinking. I'd been trained to trust emails with the red bar, as most external mail I get is trustworthy, and I reflexively check links before I click them but this was just another going through the proxy. I'm not sure how much these changes help less technical users, but it made me less secure.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I hate the mimecast URL-hiding. I think it makes me less secure (but may make the totally not paying attention more secure).
flukus 7y ago
I guy I worked with fell for one when he was selling his car online, he got an email from an interested buyer (car thief) the linked to a very good replication of the site he was selling it on. The car thief turns up and scouts the location but the give away was that he showed little interest in the car, at which point he went back and checked the email to discover the phishing. Even trained intelligent people have momentary lapses of concentration. Imagine opening a link from email on your phone then looking away for a second while it loads, but then the address bar has disappeared and you've missed the ssl indicator.
- namibj 7y ago
  My address bar only disappears when I scroll down. I prefer that.
jasonlotito 7y ago
> It seems if someone who works in IT and is very careful fails it, this is an impossibly high standard to meet. It's the same reason you automate things. People make mistakes. It's not about messing up once. It's about always being absolutely positively sure that you aren't making a mistake. If you've ever clicked on a link from an email, you are vulnerable.

Consultant32452 7y ago

That's just it, I simply wasn't being careful. Everyone gets distracted sometimes. I don't remember it in detail, but it was a fairly standard phishing email from a fake domain and I clicked a link. Not only am I in IT, my department is somewhat security related.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

samfriedman 7y ago

I recently failed a suspicious email / phishing test for the first time, and I am also one of those people who never thought it would happen to me... The email was a newsletter I didn't care about, and the unsubscribe link was (fake) malicious. That one impressed me because it preyed on what is now a pure reflex to click the unsubscribe link.

mason55 7y ago
Did the link take you to a site that auto-ran malware? Or did it take you to some kind of page that said "login to unsubscribe"? The latter is why password managers can be so valuable. I never type my passwords in so if my auto-fill doesn't activate I immediately become suspicious. If it's the former, it seems like your company must be using an insecure browser or the site was running some kind of 0-day? I never think twice about clicking links.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- inetknght 7y ago
  > I never think twice about clicking links. I hope you don't work for any sensitive position.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    That's not very fair. Browser exploits are a lot rarer than phishing.
    - acdha 7y ago
      I don't think background noise of broad, low-effort phishing emails can be directly compared to a more focused attack. If you work somewhere with interesting data the odds of a good phishing attack leading to an exploit could be much higher because you're being specifically targeted and they're not going to send the message until they have a current exploit ready (probably hoping to get it in before your IT department's change window, too).
      - michaelt 7y ago
        If someone had a working browser exploit, wouldn't they just deliver it to their targets via an ad network? AFAIK most enterprises don't mandate ad blocking or noscript.
        acdha 7y ago
        > If someone had a working browser exploit, wouldn't they just deliver it to their targets via an ad network? I've heard more people at enterprises using ad blockers for security so I wouldn't rule that out but in general this is hitting that the broad vs. targeted distinction I mentioned: each time you use an exploit you're risking discovery, which will lead to it being patched & AV signatures going out. Using an ad network increases the number of people who are not your target getting the payload, not to mention any scanning the network does, and since ad networks require payment there's another trail pointing back to you which might not otherwise be the case if you are hosting things on compromised servers.
kaffeemitsahne 7y ago
From this and other comments in this thread it seems you have failed these phishing tests as soon as you click a link. Is the assumption here that you are completely pwned as soon as you visit an url controlled by an attacker? I can't imagine myself compromising company data/funds via a website where I ended up through a newsletter unsubscribe link so this seems quite unfair on the part of the phish-testers.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  This is exactly the case. If you click on a link in the fake phishing email you've failed the test. It does not require you to install anything, open an attachment, etc.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    I was once at a place where the company homepage was owned. Fun times. Just starting your web-browser would exécuté some Java vuln and scareware you.
- fragmede 7y ago
  If you think visiting a webpage in Chrome, or any other browser, even inside a VM, is totally safe, especially against a nation-state level actor, I have some bad news for you.
  - agurk 7y ago
    With that logic just having your mail client/web mail parse a malicious mail from a nation-state level actor is enough to compromise your machine.
    - whenchamenia 7y ago
      It happens all the time. https://thecoinshark.net/microsoft-email-clients-was-hacked-to-steal-cryptocurrency/ https://thecoinshark.net/microsoft-email-clients-was-hacked-...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
inetknght 7y ago
> a pure reflex to click the unsubscribe link. That's a learned trait. I don't click unsubscribe links; I click "report spam" and "report phishing" button. If only Gmail would let me create filters to automatically mark entire domains as spam though. That would be nice...
- ghaff 7y ago
  I'm sure this [reporting spam rather than unsubscribing] happens all the time but it's sort of obnoxious if the email is legit and, especially, if it's a list you requested to get put on at some point.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    If you got my email address from a third party, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because I applied for a job, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because I signed up for a service, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because I purchased something, then I do not want to be marketed to. If you got my email address because someone else "legitimately" entered my email address into your field, then I do not want to be marketed to. In short: your definition of "legit" likely does not meet my definition of legit. The only email that I deem to be legit is an email that: 1) is @from a domain name that I recognize (walk like a junk, talk like a junk, it's junk) 2) is @from the same domain name as the correspondent (no third party bulk email or proxies; eg mailchimp et al) 3) does not have a no-reply@ as the reply-to address (I must be able to talk to a human) 4) does not hyperlink to third party domains (from@domain must match hyperlinked domain text) Any legitimate email outside of those parameters are specially treated with liberal amounts of filtering.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Your attitude doesn't account for the possibility that since you do business with somebody, you need or want to receive some of their emails. This is the nature of any relationship. You can't be ruthless in eliminating aspects you don't like, if you don't want to end it entirely because it's net positive.
Scoundreller 7y ago
If that’s the bar, the org should just strip out all external links. Voilà. That way they’ll also protect themselves against an external vendor that gets used to spearphish you.

agurk 7y ago

I nearly fell for a real fishing link once recently, due to changes that have been made by our IT department. Firstly all external senders have the mail reformatted with a red bar at the top and some text, and secondly all hyperlinks are forced through a proxy, which makes it effectively impossible to know what the URL is from the email. I'd received a (rare to my work account) fishing email and I was about to click on a link in there just before I started thinking. I'd been trained to trust emails with the red bar, as most external mail I get is trustworthy, and I reflexively check links before I click them but this was just another going through the proxy. I'm not sure how much these changes help less technical users, but it made me less secure.

sokoloff 7y ago
I hate the mimecast URL-hiding. I think it makes me less secure (but may make the totally not paying attention more secure).

flukus 7y ago

I guy I worked with fell for one when he was selling his car online, he got an email from an interested buyer (car thief) the linked to a very good replication of the site he was selling it on. The car thief turns up and scouts the location but the give away was that he showed little interest in the car, at which point he went back and checked the email to discover the phishing. Even trained intelligent people have momentary lapses of concentration. Imagine opening a link from email on your phone then looking away for a second while it loads, but then the address bar has disappeared and you've missed the ssl indicator.

namibj 7y ago
My address bar only disappears when I scroll down. I prefer that.

jasonlotito 7y ago

> It seems if someone who works in IT and is very careful fails it, this is an impossibly high standard to meet. It's the same reason you automate things. People make mistakes. It's not about messing up once. It's about always being absolutely positively sure that you aren't making a mistake. If you've ever clicked on a link from an email, you are vulnerable.