Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: Anti-Phishing with digital watermarking
From: "Razi Shaban" <razishaban () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:31:24 +0400
I'd say it's closer to 100% unreliable than to 100% reliable.
Prove it.
But even if it isn't, how do you calculate the chances? You just have too many variables.
You don't need chances, you just need to know that the majority of people on the internet have no clue what they're doing. This is true. Thus, it is likely that the script will be run.
You noticed the word "security" in this mailinglist's name? What makes you think a measure of questionable reliability could possibly count as a security measure?
If you read the original post, you would notice that the goal here is to "be alerted" when a phishing attack occurs. I will not follow you on your tangent. -- Razi
Current thread:
- Re: Anti-Phishing with digital watermarking Razi Shaban (Oct 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Anti-Phishing with digital watermarking Ansgar Wiechers (Oct 01)
- Re: Anti-Phishing with digital watermarking Thrynn (Oct 22)