Scammers caught in the PhishTank

By: Joris Evers
Topics: Security

A week after PhishTank officially launched, about 2,300 suspected data-thieving Web sites have been reported to the online community watch effort, according to the program's site.

PhishTank was established to collect data on phishing Web sites and help rid the Web of the increasingly prevalent scams that try to trick unsuspecting Internet users into giving up sensitive information.

PhishTank calls on people to submit suspected phishing Web sites and to verify whether a site is really part of a scam. A voting system was designed so users can vote "phish" or "not phish," to reduce false positives.

Of the submissions to PhishTank, 877 were verified to be actual phishing sites, according to the site's statistics page Monday morning.

PhishTank isn't the only community-based approach to fight the online fraud schemes. In March, Sunbelt Software and CastleCops launched a volunteer group dedicated to combating scams, dubbed the Phishing Incident Reporting and Termination squad, or PIRT.

PIRT tries to take down phishing sites, while PhishTank accumulates data to create a blacklist of known phishing sites.

The PhishTank blacklist is available to anyone and can be used in antiphishing products such as Web browser toolbars. OpenDNS, the company behind PhishTank, uses it as well to block phishing sites for users of its free DNS service.

372 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 372 Comments


by lakota2012 January 24, 2010 9:35 AM EST: by WiseAsOwl:
"Limiting campaign spending should be a desirable thing.. but, it's not as simple as one might believe...
---------------------

Only the truly delusional would think otherwise, since adding even more cash than the obscene amounts we already have in politics, will only fund more misinformation through idiotic negative advertising.

Voters continue to be bombarded by the corporate media, and by turning up the volume past ten with more available cash, this will only serve to turn off more voters to the majority of candidates.

Personally, I've always thought that negative advertising of any sort should be illegal, especially if it is in the form of lies and deceptions which we see so often, and candidates should only be able to air their past accomplishments or future hopes if elected. This idiotic SCOTUS ruling is a total blow to WE THE PEOPLE, with the corporate media being the big winner through huge cash flows.

This is a sad day for America and America's people.; Reply to this comment

by slownewsday______ January 23, 2010 10:49 PM EST

Is it "We the people", or "We the corporations"? I am talking about the first three words of our Constitution...

I don't believe that corporations were intended to be included.

.

Reply to this comment


by democracy1 January 24, 2010 2:47 AM EST: I agree.

1st Amendment to the US Constitution (Ratified 12/15/1791)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice that only ONE non-citizen business type ("the press") is singled out as having specific rights. If the framers of the Constitution wanted ALL businesses (or specifically, chartered corporate entities) to have guaranteed freedom of expression, wouldn't they have specified that as well? Why specify one and not others? Or do you think that it was just a stupid oversight on their parts, lol?


by democracy1 January 24, 2010 2:48 AM EST: 1st Amendment to the US Constitution (Ratified 12/15/1791)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice that only ONE non-citizen business type ("the press") is singled out as having specific rights. If the framers of the Constitution wanted ALL businesses (or specifically, chartered corporate entities) to have guaranteed freedom of expression, wouldn't they have specified that as well? Why specify one and not others? Or do you think that it was just a stupid oversight on their parts, lol?


by ky7474 January 23, 2010 10:06 PM EST: Big corporations are positioning for US takeover. This means any big corporation with US ties from all over the world. This is all part of a cultural mainstreaming plan with little of any resistance from either party. Americans should be very concerned. Big money has already proved they will take the country down if the price is right. Hurting Americans are just collateral damage in this war of greed.; Reply to this comment


by velma179 January 23, 2010 7:04 PM EST: The Supreme Court interprets law, it doesn't make law. New law is necessary to protect our free speech as individuals. It could likely be drowned in a pile of corporate cash.

I'd say we should ask our Reps (while they still are... at least somewhat...) --
To re-define the status of a corporation. They should not be held equal to a person in a society that runs on one person/one vote.

If this is done, there would have to be some sort of procedure set up for lawsuits or any action that needs to apply the the corporation as a single entity. This would be very easy -- now a corporation has to have a designated Agent For Service in order to receive process, subpoenas, etc. This could be extended to the entire legal action.

NOW, we need vigilance. I guess a whole cottage industry of watch dog groups will spring up all over the internet et al. While the corporations are still "persons" and spending freely -- we need to pay attention to the bottom of ads where it STILL has to identify who is the source of the content.

Or ... let's just all get Tivo or DVR's and when election season comes along... just speed past all commercials and the crap. It is ALREADY annoying, it will only get worse, far worse after this ruling. (yeah, I know that costs money... making it not the most realistic solution, but if you can, you will want to ...)

And -- I like the idea I have heard ... we'll get the politicians to wear signage -- "PepsiCo's Senator" and "Exxon's House Rep" "The President and Vice President brought to you by a partnership of Banking and Bomb Makers" -- that's silly, but so true it is really tragic.

In the end it still is the individual voter that needs to be influenced -- but have you noticed lately that voters are not always, shall we say "clear on the facts". Making the political waters more difficult to see clearly will not help bring us together as a country, that is for sure. It's tough finding agreement now -- just on what is true and what is not. Can you imagine when Company A tells you THIS is the truth and then Company B tells you THAT is the truth, all the while the Candidates themselves are giving you THIS and THAT!!?? Sheesh..

Please join me and write your Reps to make new law and fix this ... while they are still YOUR Reps. Free speech should be the exclusive right of the entities that VOTE ... "we the PEOPLE" Thanks; Reply to this comment


by jamjholmes January 23, 2010 3:59 PM EST: Our sellout gov't does not represent us in any way. Time for a revolution.; Reply to this comment


by ll2owt January 23, 2010 1:28 PM EST: ..a new type of government...government of EXXON, by INSURANCE COMPANIES, and for WALL STREET. great job republicker supreme court.; Reply to this comment

by carloseton January 23, 2010 12:42 PM EST

It looks like they found another way to bring slavery back to America, and this time ... they have a larger group of subjects to exploit.

It makes sense, though. Since we will probably belong to the Chinese (once they collect on the loans that they have made to the U.S. government) and since the Chinese government doesn't care too much about individual rights, it is only fitting (in their eyes) that our rights be taken away.

------

A sad day indeed when the symbolism of that God-awful Joni Mitchell song "Big Yellow Taxi" is applicable America: "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

Reply to this comment


by democracy1 January 23, 2010 2:15 PM EST: by carloseton January 23, 2010 12:42 PM EST
A sad day indeed when the symbolism of that God-awful Joni Mitchell song "Big Yellow Taxi" is applicable America: "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

LOL--"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone".


by rockcutr January 23, 2010 11:25 AM EST: It isn't like these SC judges don't know the law. Free speech applys to the citizen not the corporation. This should be quite questionable. Like what the heck do they think they are doing by re writing the constitution. We could all be sure that they would argue that fact with legal jibberish. It is what they do. This action does not serve the people. It serves the legislative and executive branches and allows corporations ~non person entities~ to make huge influence in elections. The only thing it may do is give a few people a job. It does seperate further from voters the actual effectiveness of their vote by the outragous voice now given by the top court in the land. By this decision it should be clear whom the black robes serve. Hanging chad was a gimme. This one, not so much.; Reply to this comment

by WiseAsOwl January 23, 2010 11:06 AM EST

There is another side.. Part of the provisions in the law, while limiting amounts of spending,which might be a good thing, disallowed political spending on anything LESS than 30 days previous to an election.. One of the results of this is that the news media could print things in regards to certain issues and print it as "news"...(there are no restrictions on news, of course).. And that leaves corporations or interests unable to defend themselves from news media attacks right before an election... Also, ANYTHING that someone ( like the Liberal buddies of the news media) can convince the news media to print free of charge, would be classified as "news"... and nobody, except other news media, with a "news" story of their own, could respond to these attacks... Example: Just a few days before an election, the news media can run a story making a stand and quoting false statistics supporting the outlawing of firearms in our society..The NRA or Gun Owners of America could not respond to the story, unless, of course, the news media would choose to run any response as "news"... (Fat chance..) However, it's a lose-lose situation for the news media, anyway.. They need to bring in money and it would not be good for them to lose sales for 30 days. Limiting campaign spending should be a desirable thing.. but, it's not as simple as one might believe...

Reply to this comment


by democracy1 January 23, 2010 2:06 PM EST: More likely (since news media eventually have to keep SOME semblance of credibility in order to stay in business), we'll have more misleading attack ads against whichever candidate stands for something for the people against whatever the corporations want. Whether your views lean right, left, center or indie, I don't think any one of want more trash talk in campaigns.


by JstnolFrt January 23, 2010 10:13 AM EST: Just another step on the path to change this Democracy (or should I say "this Plutocracy") to Fascism. As Benito Mussolini said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."; Reply to this comment