4 ms·

how they suppose to learn about it or at least be curious about it if they do not even see it? >I buy it honestly. phishing should look nice to the victim?

snowl 5y ago
In the case of OP, what the user would see in the bar would be 'delivery-85367.icu' which looks very suspicious.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  They would see nothing becaue they do not look there anymore at all. Average person would think:"it's some bug with showing the name of the site" and would ignore it because users get used to the 'barely working everything' with computers these days.
jrochkind1 5y ago
The idea is not to make phishing look nice to the victim, it's to make it more obvious that it's phishing to the attempted victim. The path component is irrelevant to detecting phishing, but the host component is very relevant. I don't know if there's any research on users to confirm that this works. It would be good to do such research before making such a change, if that's the motivation for the change. But it seems plausible to me.
- lovelyviking 5y ago
  >... The path component is irrelevant to detecting phishing ... What become irrelevant is the AddressBar itself for the user. User simply doesn't look at it at all because usually it is not changing with each click. So it appears irrelevant and disconnected from the actions user takes. It looks for non-technical person as "some name of the web site which doesn't always shows the right name, but it's ok because hey nothing works perfectly on computer anyway ... so it doesn't matter". This is how it looks to the average person. They do not even understand why it's there. "Just takes the space ... Why it's there? Site shows name anyway on the page ... " They just have no idea what is going on thanks to this wonderful idea of removing the real address bar ... Not that they were too much aware before but at least you could explain them ... not anymore. According to my experience non-technical people just lost the concept of url completely and do not even know where it is. Even when one asks them about it specifically. These are the 'real' results of this idiotic idea which I observe in practice and I unfortunately I observe it too frequently to ignore it. But hey .. downvoters of my previous sarcastic post seems to be very happy to ignore the reality. They would rather stick to their wise decision and downvote reality if they do not like it. Good luck with that.

snowl 5y ago

In the case of OP, what the user would see in the bar would be 'delivery-85367.icu' which looks very suspicious.

lovelyviking 5y ago
They would see nothing becaue they do not look there anymore at all. Average person would think:"it's some bug with showing the name of the site" and would ignore it because users get used to the 'barely working everything' with computers these days.

jrochkind1 5y ago

The idea is not to make phishing look nice to the victim, it's to make it more obvious that it's phishing to the attempted victim. The path component is irrelevant to detecting phishing, but the host component is very relevant. I don't know if there's any research on users to confirm that this works. It would be good to do such research before making such a change, if that's the motivation for the change. But it seems plausible to me.

lovelyviking 5y ago
>... The path component is irrelevant to detecting phishing ... What become irrelevant is the AddressBar itself for the user. User simply doesn't look at it at all because usually it is not changing with each click. So it appears irrelevant and disconnected from the actions user takes. It looks for non-technical person as "some name of the web site which doesn't always shows the right name, but it's ok because hey nothing works perfectly on computer anyway ... so it doesn't matter". This is how it looks to the average person. They do not even understand why it's there. "Just takes the space ... Why it's there? Site shows name anyway on the page ... " They just have no idea what is going on thanks to this wonderful idea of removing the real address bar ... Not that they were too much aware before but at least you could explain them ... not anymore. According to my experience non-technical people just lost the concept of url completely and do not even know where it is. Even when one asks them about it specifically. These are the 'real' results of this idiotic idea which I observe in practice and I unfortunately I observe it too frequently to ignore it. But hey .. downvoters of my previous sarcastic post seems to be very happy to ignore the reality. They would rather stick to their wise decision and downvote reality if they do not like it. Good luck with that.