The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just thought I would test IE and FF using a dodgy phishing email I've come across.
The email was pretending to come from Natwest asking the recipient to login to read their latest online statement.
Looking at the source, the login link was actually:
WARNING: This is a fake site - take care if you visit it !!!
EDIT: I've had to insert a space before 'Login.php' in the address above for Freeola's forum s/w to allow me to post. Shame as I wanted to get the full correct URL in there for anyone that may search for it.
IE7 my normal everyday browser picked this up instantly as a phishing attempt:
"Internet Explorer has determined that this is a reported phishing website. Phishing websites impersonate other sites and attempt to trick you into revealing personal or financial information."
Going to the same address in FireFox (version 3.5.3 with all security options turned on) worryingly displayed the fake page without any warnings!
All the rest of the webpage looks pretty legit.
You don't have to go far to see people rubbishing Microsoft's IE often unfairly - this looks like another reason not to knock them to me!
Perhaps as the IE userbase is so big there is more chance that dodgy sites get reported.
NB. I noticed that removing the www allows IE to also display the page - so I using the phishing controls to report that version of the URL!
Also you would think Natwest in this case would stop third-party webistes 'hotlinking' to their official graphics to make things a little harder to do!
Keep 'em peeled...!
The email was pretending to come from Natwest asking the recipient to login to read their latest online statement.
Looking at the source, the login link was actually:
DODGY PHISHING SITE:
www.justbecomplex.com/catalog/images/GOODS/Login.php WARNING: This is a fake site - take care if you visit it !!!
EDIT: I've had to insert a space before 'Login.php' in the address above for Freeola's forum s/w to allow me to post. Shame as I wanted to get the full correct URL in there for anyone that may search for it.
IE7 my normal everyday browser picked this up instantly as a phishing attempt:
"Internet Explorer has determined that this is a reported phishing website. Phishing websites impersonate other sites and attempt to trick you into revealing personal or financial information."
Going to the same address in FireFox (version 3.5.3 with all security options turned on) worryingly displayed the fake page without any warnings!
All the rest of the webpage looks pretty legit.
You don't have to go far to see people rubbishing Microsoft's IE often unfairly - this looks like another reason not to knock them to me!
Perhaps as the IE userbase is so big there is more chance that dodgy sites get reported.
NB. I noticed that removing the www allows IE to also display the page - so I using the phishing controls to report that version of the URL!
Also you would think Natwest in this case would stop third-party webistes 'hotlinking' to their official graphics to make things a little harder to do!
Keep 'em peeled...!
[s]Hmmm...[/s] Page:
:D
That's it I'm leaving this thread!
[s]Hmmm...[/s] 
Was that needed? Stop being jealous you!
Definite sexual tension between you two.
It's ok I didn't misunderstand. Besides I'm sure we have bantered enough to know a wee bit by now ;)
EDIT: Well i did misunderstand but I mean I didn't think anything of it.
EDIT: Well i did misunderstand but I mean I didn't think anything of it.
Warhunt - we often seem to misread each others posts!
When I said "Don't bother Warhunt!" - I was replying to ButchML.
So that was a 'don't disturb him' type comment.
I'm not sure you read it like that - sorry for any confusion!
When I said "Don't bother Warhunt!" - I was replying to ButchML.
So that was a 'don't disturb him' type comment.
I'm not sure you read it like that - sorry for any confusion!
[s]Hmmm...[/s]
Wasn't going to.
I don't know why his one wasn't official anyway :D Maybe he has realised his place?
I don't know why his one wasn't official anyway :D Maybe he has realised his place?
Hmmm... wrote:
> NB. Thanks for fixing the 50 chars limit on the URL.
Not a problem.
> Any chance you could either increase this permanently or trust
> us old timers?
Unlikely, and no as I had to edit the post manually using our internal systems. Without you physically being here on our network with a login that has authorisation over the forums, it can't be done.
> Do you know why you have a limit? I can't see it's much of an
> abuse?
I assume that this limit is imposed by us to prevent people spamming random button combinations, filling the forums with horrible ugly links and not using the helpfully provided bbcode (listed below) and, probably most importantly and likely, each chat post has a width limit. Allowing character strings over 50 letters in size would result in the chat posts becoming long and stretched out ruining the page.
If you want an official answer I'll make Warhunt aware of this and try to get something out of him on it.
> NB. Thanks for fixing the 50 chars limit on the URL.
Not a problem.
> Any chance you could either increase this permanently or trust
> us old timers?
Unlikely, and no as I had to edit the post manually using our internal systems. Without you physically being here on our network with a login that has authorisation over the forums, it can't be done.
> Do you know why you have a limit? I can't see it's much of an
> abuse?
I assume that this limit is imposed by us to prevent people spamming random button combinations, filling the forums with horrible ugly links and not using the helpfully provided bbcode (listed below) and, probably most importantly and likely, each chat post has a width limit. Allowing character strings over 50 letters in size would result in the chat posts becoming long and stretched out ruining the page.
If you want an official answer I'll make Warhunt aware of this and try to get something out of him on it.
I suspect you're right in that IE's larger userbase simply means they get reports quicker. You could also speculate that Firefox's userbase is more web savy and thus less likely to be encountering phishing sites.
Page: