Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Phishing
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 11:35:44 -0700
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <lk3ko1F881iU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vbcvp4$eoqp$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net ByYs7h517s82U9AWlt6olAQEaWmN6XEVDfxiFFjS20VCOHCM4H
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3/AJ6nCfclv3qeLJC9jgrFks34o= sha256:lS9a4O76ylZWggwxr6UjoWfpHETomCxbXBV0N0TNLCc=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.8.1
In-Reply-To: <vbcvp4$eoqp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 1890

On 9/5/24 12:11 PM, Don Y wrote:
> I'm checking my "deflected" incoming mail to see if anything that
> *should* have been allowed through was mistakenly diverted
> (false positive).
> 
> I see a fair number of phishing attempts on my "public" accounts.
> But, all are trivially identified as such.
> 
> So, how is it that folks (organizations) are so often deceived
> by these things?  Are users just lazy?  Would it be more helpful
> to have mail clients make it HARDER to activate an embedded
> URL or "potentially compromised" attachment?
> 
> Or, will the stupidity of users adapt, accordingly?
> 

I am generally stunned how naive people can be. "But it came from a PG&E 
address and had a PG&E link in there!" ... "There is a customer service 
number on your paper statements. Did you call them about that past due 
accusation?" ... "Ahm, well, no".

When it comes to politics and elections it's even worse. "But he had 
such a nice smile!". Don't get me started ...

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/