Talk:Phishing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Phishing is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
 |
This page has been cited as a source by several media organizations. The citations are in:
|
 To-do list for Phishing: |
edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
 Archives |
| 1 |
Contents |
[edit] "leetspeak"
Taking out the leetspeak comment at the beginning of the article because substituting "ph" for "f" is something that existed long before leetspeak.
[edit] AlMac Comments
- Security measures against one threat can make you more vulnerable to others, so perhaps there needs to be better linkage to other families of computer security threats.
- The Phishing article is part of the Spamming series and is in Categories including Internet Fraud. Perhaps there should be "See also" or some kind of linking to other related Personal Computer Security topics.
- As a newbie, the first thing I tried to work on was Security breaches.
- I had barely started keying in plans for a much larger contribution, when I was informed that I was in violation of POV.
- I stepped back and tried to repair that, only to realize that my writing was severely hurt by the process.
[edit] Change I'm requesting
On the page at the bottom there is a box with the 'articles on spamming links' all in it, separated into a few main categories, yet some of the links are split over two lines and it's hard to tell which heading they go with. Could someone please expand the width of the box so that each topic's links take up only one line, it would make navigation and understanding easier, for me, and I think for others as well. Thank-you
[edit] "Whaling" - neologism problem
"Whaling", a term apparently introduced a few weeks ago by one writer, probably should be considered a neologism per WP:NEO. --John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It was a neologism a few months ago, but has now made it into the mainstream press:
- http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111407-whaling.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/technology/16whale.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
- http://news.google.com/news?q=whaling%20phishing
--82.33.52.88 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Meaning of "phishing" drifting
The usage of phishing is drifting. At first it was used to describe attempts to socially engineer sensitive information. Now, it is used even if the social engineering is one part of the attack, with some kind of exploit used to actually get the information. Broad brush phishing is treated as different to broad brush email attacks like the "Storm worm", but once attacks are targeted then terms like spear phishing are applied even if the attack isn't "phishing" under the common definition.
It's an important distinction because the defences against the two are different, but most security companies and news sources don't try to point this out. You can fall victim to attacks that don't just use social engineering even if you don't give up information, just visiting a link could be bad for you.
Even more perversely, people keep trying to add things to the phishing article because the aim is banking fraud or stealing personal information, even if no social engineering is used at all.
Techtarget does define spear phishing in the standard way, but other places don't and I haven't come across a discussion of this drift anywhere - so it's not suitable for the article. Any cites for the meaning of phishing drifting like this?
---82.33.52.88 (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
