<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: What companies can do to avoid phishing scams	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.brandonchecketts.com/archives/what-companies-can-do-to-avoid-phishing-scams/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.brandonchecketts.com/archives/what-companies-can-do-to-avoid-phishing-scams</link>
	<description>Web Programming, Linux System Administation, and Entrepreneurship in Athens Georgia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 15:40:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Brandon		</title>
		<link>https://www.brandonchecketts.com/archives/what-companies-can-do-to-avoid-phishing-scams/comment-page-1#comment-11</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 15:40:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brandonchecketts.com/archives/23#comment-11</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[After being torn apart on a comment I posted on Michael Sutton&#039;s blog that I referenced, I was torn apart there.

Nick pointed out this Washington Post article
https://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/using_images_to_fight_phishing.html
that explains that e-Gold actually did this for some time (not sure if they still do).  After reading the Washington Post article, I think that the targets may
have more to gain by letting the phishers continue to link to their images.   At least that way they can identify the &#039;unprofessional&#039; phishers and work to shut them down.

Since most phishing attacks end up sending the user back to the legitimate site, I think the idea of checking the referrer at that point against a list of known phishing sites still has some merit.  Even if the referrer is a known
redirector, it could still raise flags.  This could potentially alert the legitimate user that their personal information may have been stolen, or deny large withdrawls from the user&#039;s account until the customer&#039;s identity has been further verified.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After being torn apart on a comment I posted on Michael Sutton&#8217;s blog that I referenced, I was torn apart there.</p>
<p>Nick pointed out this Washington Post article<br />
<a href="https://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/using_images_to_fight_phishing.html" rel="nofollow ugc">https://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/using_images_to_fight_phishing.html</a><br />
that explains that e-Gold actually did this for some time (not sure if they still do).  After reading the Washington Post article, I think that the targets may<br />
have more to gain by letting the phishers continue to link to their images.   At least that way they can identify the &#8216;unprofessional&#8217; phishers and work to shut them down.</p>
<p>Since most phishing attacks end up sending the user back to the legitimate site, I think the idea of checking the referrer at that point against a list of known phishing sites still has some merit.  Even if the referrer is a known<br />
redirector, it could still raise flags.  This could potentially alert the legitimate user that their personal information may have been stolen, or deny large withdrawls from the user&#8217;s account until the customer&#8217;s identity has been further verified.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
