4 ms·
Thanks FedEx, This Is Why We Keep Getting Phished (2024)
- darth_avocado 2mo agoDo they build their own software or contract it to the consultants?
- Doohickey-d 2mo agoDiscussed previously, 2024, 564 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39479001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39479001
- walrus01 2mo agoI swear, the proliferation of random ".xyz" type gTLD is not making things any easier in stopping non tech people from clicking on phishing links. There's so damn many of them. Sure, if they didn't exist people would use phishing domains like "fedex-secure-delivery-approval.com" or something, I suppose... List of top level domains: https://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt https://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt
- cosmic_cheese 2mo agoThe menagerie of TLDs is somewhat a necessary evil in my view. Prior to them it was becoming nearly impossible to get a decent domain, with most of them already having been laid claim to by squatters, big companies, and startups with VC money to burn.
- nubinetwork 2mo agoIt didn't change anything though, if you have the money you can just buy more.
- tialaramex 2mo agoAlso this was never a real problem. "All the good names are taken" is true if you insist that every name which isn't taken is a bad name but otherwise obviously false. The same exact "Somebody already had the good ideas, it's not my fault I'm just too late" whining can be seen centuries ago. People who live in a world with no electricity, absolutely convinced that every product which will ever be wanted already exists. Morons. Way back in time I wrote an HN post where I just spotaneously came up with plausible 2LD names off the dome and every single one was available. I won't bother repeating the exercise because it was evident that everybody who could understand this was unsurprised while the people who'd previously believed all the good names were gone just dismissed these as bad names because after all, if they were good names they'd be taken already, duh.
- linkregister 2mo agoThere are plenty of Chinese domains that are just numbers. If they can build entire businesses off of that, so can anybody. There's of course a ton of risk around scammers winning SEO and adwords competitions.
- walrus01 2mo agoIt works as long as the domain doesn't have a '4' in it or multiples of '4' https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=china+unlucky+number+4 https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=china+unl...
- inigyou 2mo agoThis was a calculated project by ICANN to 1. bring lots more money to ICANN and 2. prevent decentralisation of the DNS root away from the control of the USA.
- ddtaylor 2mo agoI'm not convinced that would help. The problem is that large companies and government agencies are both misusing and NOT using the appropriate trust anchor - their fucking domain. Its just attempting to work around incompetence, which always just shows up again somewhere else.
- walrus01 2mo ago> The problem is that large companies and government agencies are both misusing and NOT using the appropriate trust anchor - their fucking domain. I think this might have some parallels with the 'shadow IT' problem in large corporations and organizations. Some work group or department or project within a very large entity decides it needs to implement something (like shipment tax payment notifications, as in the linked example) and decides to DIY it rather than going through the full process to do it with their own domain. Reminds me a bit of large businesses where some sales or CRM-related department goes out and starts buying email-blasting/email-list features from some mailchimp-type company and only later on realizes they need to talk to whoever controls the domain to get approval for proper outbound DKIM in the DNS records, etc.
- SoftTalker 2mo agoOr more likely IMO, FedEx HQ said "you can't use our domain to collect foreign tax payments" and so it got outsourced to a service in Australia. And a lot of these "collect payments as a service" sites just look and feel like something that was developed in 1995 and never updated. I run into them everywhere, from local governments to medical and legal offices, small utility companies, etc. I have no idea how they pass PCI audits.
- reaperducer 2mo agoThe problem is that large companies and government agencies are both misusing and NOT using the appropriate trust anchor - their fucking domain. Just today I saw an e-mail from "onmicrosoft.com" that was completely legit. I wonder how many domains MS is running these days. It seems like each department and project gets its own.
- dqv 2mo agoFor the past 2 years I've gotten backscatter from a phishing campaign that uses a domain I own in the from address. Every single domain they try to get the victims to click on is a .com The most recent one is detention-unit.com, which probably does trick a lot of the people getting these phishing emails since the targets don't seem to speak English as a first language. As an aside, an alarming number of server admins don't check SPF so these emails are actually getting into people's inboxes.
- pibaker 2mo agoNot helped by legitimate websites often redirecting you through weird multi tiered domains especially during log in, or legitimate businesses using link shorteners instead of their full domains, or more and more businesses themselves hopping on new TLDs, like the recent cloudflare wallet release.
- userbinator 2mo agoI definitely don't trust those when they show up in search results, and even when they sometimes appear here in articles voted to the front page, I tend to ignore them. Sure, if they didn't exist people would use phishing domains like "fedex-secure-delivery-approval.com" or something, I suppose Many-legit-sounding-hyphenated-words-domain is actually another red flag for me, as that was indeed what they did before the proliferation of TLDs.
- emmelaich 2mo agoMy theory is that it devalues the domain name thus increasing the value of search sites. BTW, it'd be nice if browsers automatically show the CNs of the "Issued-To:" and the "Issued-By" in the security certificate.
- chuckadams 2mo agoI remember receiving a genuine "verify your account" email from PayPal way back. The phishers didn't make it up, they were just copying actual emails PayPal sent their own users.
- kencausey 2mo agoIn a recent example my step-mother, who is constantly getting cloud storage full scam emails, received an email from Google about 75% full storage that appears to be fully valid. However all the links use a domain c.gle and whois c.gle errors with "getaddrinfo(whois.nic.gle): Name or service not known". whois gle however does work. I was not sure of the validity of c.gle myself, my step-mother would have no idea.
- inigyou 2mo agoWhois has been replaced by RDAP.
- b112 2mo agoThere are whois servers, and the whois command, so no, it has not. I agree that this is the goal.
- kencausey 2mo agoAs far as I am able to find Google does not provide an RDAP server for gle either.
- keane 2mo agoICANN: “All gTLD registries and registrars are required to provide RDAP services.” They are listed at lookup.icann.org and the one in question is https://pubapi.registry.google/rdap/domain/c.gle https://pubapi.registry.google/rdap/domain/c.gle
- mixdup 2mo agoThere is a similar issue with the IRS. If you call the IRS they use a text-to-speech system to generate the voice for their call tree IVR. The problem is, it's a commercially available system that fake call center scammers also use, so they sound identical. It also doesn't help that it sounds fake and scammy, so you can't use that as a signal to avoid the number you're calling, either
- grishka 2mo agoWith calls, it's easier: if you get an incoming call with someone is asking you for money, you hang up and call back using the number for that organization that you've found yourself from official sources. Never trust incoming calls when it comes to money.
- lstodd 2mo agoWith calls, drop any non-prearranged calls, period. Over a few years I burned that approach into my parents. It was tough, but worth it.
- fortran77 2mo agoMy mom used to know what to do, but with dementia, she lost that ability. We now have a call block on her landline, so only a small whitelist can get through.
- grishka 2mo agoThat's a good approach, and I do this too actually, but some people's job or occupation requires them to take calls from unknown numbers. And some people still use landlines without caller ID.
- mixdup 2mo agoI know that, does my grandmother? In the heat of the moment, will she remember that I told her 2 years ago when they call her?
- 2mo ago
- siftagent 2mo ago[flagged]
- agency 2mo agoThis shit drives me insane. Last year I had my home insurer send me a link in an SMS pointing me to allstate.yem.bo to collect some information. Stop training your users to get phished!!
- jhbadger 2mo agoIt reminds me how at work we had to take a course hosted on our domain about how to recognize phishing and a few days later we got an e-mail from outside our domain saying we had to take a course about a different subject on their domain. We got an email from management a week or so later that complained that so few people had completed the new training -- because we all assumed it was a phishing attempt because it was exactly the sort of thing the phishing course talked about!
- starky 2mo agoWe have a training thing at work that sends out phishing emails and you are supposed to report them using a handy button in the email app. If they are training emails you get a good job website that pops up. I greatly enjoy reporting every single genuine email that reads anything like a potential phishing email as there is someone in IT that reviews them and probably gets annoyed at the various groups sending sketchy emails for official business.
- AlotOfReading 2mo agoI'm forced to have a relationship with a bank that sends out iPad giveaway emails, where your chance of winning is contingent on filling out a survey with personal information. These occasionally go out on the same day as their periodic "how to recognize scams" newsletter.
- ern 2mo agoA significant number of phishing attempts would be thwarted if email apps had the option to expand the links next to URLs on platforms without mouseover, like mobile.
- LgWoodenBadger 2mo agoOur idiots decided to conduct phishing tests by allowing KnowB4 to send "official" phishing emails. The kind that Outlook/Exchange don't flag as "outside your organization." So now there's no real way to tell what could be a legitimate email from illegitimate. Also, the Knowb4 phishing tests include some Knowb4 headers, so it's trivial to pass the test (though they're usually so stupidly obvious that you'd never need to check).
- lemursage 2mo agoThis is so weird, seeing this. Two years ago, I got a customs notice from FedEx asking to fill in my details. That was just a plain email from __some guy__ at FedEx with a PDF file attached. I wasn't expecting any package. I wrote to their chatbot (of course, no human assistance) and after some time of "prompt engineering," or what one might call coercing, it finally directed me to a human consultant who confirmed it was indeed not a scam, and that it was indeed their messaging. I opened the PDF, and it was pre-filled with someone else's data, with blank rectangles placed over fields in a bad attempt at redacting them (you could just move those rectangles around to reveal the underlying data). The package later turned out to be a surprise from collaborators abroad. Years later, I still feel that scam aftertaste whenever I see the FedEx logo.
- handedness 2mo agoI've gotten the same from FedEx several times over the years. It never gets less weird.
- eventualcomp 2mo agoIf I had a nickel for every post I saw on HN front page involving companies confusing people on phishing-like patterns today, I would have two nickels. Which is not a lot but still weird that it happened twice. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49172834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49172834
- tanseydavid 2mo agoConsider yourself lucky. This happens very frequently these days.
- antonvs 2mo ago> Why are the "D" and the "T" capitalised? Dodgy AF! You should be more respectful, you’ve clearly received a Message direct from President Trump!
- Terr_ 2mo agoThat would actually make it an order of magnitude dodgier-AF. Dodgiest-AF? I'd rather be scammed by people who can at least theoretically go to jail for their crimes.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Cider9986 2mo ago>Our Australian Communications and Media Authority body (ACMA) recently reported 336M blocked scam SMSs Australia has mandatory identity verification for getting a SIM card. The FCC is now proposing [1] to add a rule to require government ID, physical address, and alternative phone number for every phone line in the US. KYC for phone lines would cause more IDs to be leaked, and more American dollars lost to scammers and fraudsters. [1] https://www.404media.co/fcc-wants-to-kill-burner-phones-by-forcing-telecoms-to-get-all-customers-ids/ https://www.404media.co/fcc-wants-to-kill-burner-phones-by-f... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48462308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48462308
- ern 2mo agoThe phishing in Australia came from uncontrolled SMS gateways which allowed for sender impersonation, not physical phones with SIM cards. They've recently partly closed the loophole by requiring providers to register sender names.
- J-Kuhn 2mo agoAlternative Phone Line? You want the bootstrapping problem?
- antonvs 2mo agoI wouldn’t assume that email is genuine. “Hi,” and “…the B-point link that I’ve sent”? Dodgy AF. My first suspicion would be that they’re getting hold of the Fedex invoice data, via a software compromise or an insider. If it really is real, then wow, FedEx Australia sounds like it’s one guy operating out of a shipping container down at the docks.
- charlieyu1 2mo agoI spend a lot of time figuring out whether an email from facebookmail.com is legit
- monksy 2mo agoChase actively will tell you they'll call you back and then they'll try to verify who you are. That's their fraud department at play. Despite trying to tell people not to trust unknown callers.
- Terr_ 2mo agoI wonder how we could describe this so that aging non-technical executives understand. "It's like your real salesperson showed up in a wrinkled suit smelling of booze, telling me that your product could be seen in the back of an anonymous white van... But only if I first proved I was carrying the asking-price in the form of gift-cards."
- TZubiri 2mo agoI would simplify the message a bunch, things like capitalization and even the currency issue, detract from the core issue. "There are technologies and protocols from the early 2000s that need to be followed to ensure that a a message comes from your company, they are not being followed so messages requesting payment are indistinguishable from impersonators. The protocols are called DNS and HTTPS, the cost to implement for the country in question would be in the 5 digits range, the benefits would be massively detracting scammers from targetting your company to impersonate and thus harm your brand." I don't think metaphors help, non technical people, especially executives, can handle minimal technical details.
- fortran77 2mo agoWhen I lived in Sunnyvale, CA, I got text that said "Renew your alarm license online at my-alarm-license-renew.info" You do need a residential alarm license in Sunnyvale, but I was sure this was a scam. I called the city. It was the real address, and they were mystified as to why I'd call them. (I sent in a check to avoid the $1.50 processing fee, but that was before 50% of checks get stolen in the mail.)
- anon7000 2mo agoI keep getting this message and it might be legit, but I have no idea: > BlueShieldCA: ANON, you have an important benefits message in your health feed. blueshieldca.customerfeed.com/a/abcd12345 Txt help/stop Msg&DataRatesApply If I login to BSCA, their messaging section shows nothing. But some threads on the internet make “customerfeed” seem like a real service.
- Walf 2mo agoIt really doesn't help that after the acquisition of TNT couriers, some bright spark decided to call the Australian arm of FedEx "FedEx Express". That's right, "Federal Express Express". It's moronic that these big companies can't get their shit together and provide nice links like this: https://fedex.au/duty/abc123 https://fedex.au/duty/abc123 which could have an explainer landing page before prompting you to visit the grotesque original link.
- selimthegrim 2mo agoit's that way stateside too
- lotsofpulp 2mo agoWhat is even more moronic than Federal Express Express is Fedex Express (worked by well paid employees) is a completely different product than Fedex Ground (worked by the lowest paid independent contractors).
- getpokedagain 2mo agoTwenty or so years ago I ordered wheels and tires from tire rack dot com and as I was in college had them delivered to my parents house. The FedEx driver proceeded to roll them down the driveway and into my parents siding scraping up my new wheels and causing about 20k in damage to the siding. They seem to have improved so much in that time. (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
- BrandoElFollito 2mo agoThe French Post is also living in the 90s. They send SMSs that look like a scam ("your package something, click here"), the link is on a wild domain completely unrelated to anything close to a post office service, and then the content of the page screams Nigerian fraud. But it is real. I wondered one day how many people opening it fall into the category - this is normal and expected, it is France - this is a scam, let's see how it was done - this is obviously from the post office and I would do the same if I was scammed
- ghtbircshotbe 2mo agoThe whole problem could have been fixed by allowing the customer pay the fee through their account.
- cainxinth 2mo agoI virtually never click anything texted to me (other than personal stuff from friends and family). If a bank or a shipping company texts me, I go to their website and look up the information myself. Like the author of this post, I also have a better than average eye for spotting scams, but it’s foolish to assume you’ll be right 100% of the time.