While yes, that’s an accurate quip, it actually does highlight a deeper issue in the industry. If everyone passes your scam test, they don’t need to buy your scam test.
Additionally, scam emails aren’t 50/50 yes/no pass/fail. It’s more a combination of red flags to gauge how risky the email is to click on links, reply to, download attachments from, etcetera.
Currently the scam testing industry has no way to rate an individuals ability other than how many scam emails they did or didn’t click on. That is a false metric. It incites scam testers to trick people to justify their value to the customer.
You (and half the people in this thread) are totally missing the point here.
No where does the article say that you’re supposed to be able to tell if it’s a scam or not just by looking at it. In fact, in multiple places it says that you’ve got to Google use a credible source to externally verify some information to determine that some of the examples are scams.
The point of the article is to teach people how to recognize scams, it would be totally useless if it imposed the constraint that you can’t look for context. If you’re actually trying to recognize scams IRL, you should be doing exactly what the article says and looking for authoritative corroboration of any information in the potential scam.
In the phishing Awareness course I wrote and sell, I do advocate to confirm that domains, phone numbers and other contact details, logos, are correct with the official website.
I don’t advocate that when they receive a bill for something they know they didn’t buy, they should go to Google.
And with googles current state, I could easily buy a domain and buy ads to put it at the top of search results. Googling the answer isn’t actually the answer. Verifying against known legit sources is.
It’s a shit test, which more than half of the people in this thread got right, yourself excepted.
I’m the CEO of an anti-phishing training corporation that services multiple Fortune 500 companies and has a yearly revenue of over 10m USD (I can also share unverified credentials to make myself seem more credible).
Someone could potentially build a website that makes their phishing attempt seem more credible, and maybe they could get that website ranked highly on Google (even though that is far from straightforward for a website presenting fraudulent information to do), but that’s a total red herring. The article didn’t recommend that people Google for a single random website that confirms the questionable information, the recommendation was that you should check multiple authoritative sources.
You are absolutely wrong. Not surprising that you’re (ostensibly) able to scam the technologically illiterate with such bad information, a little ironic that your scam involves getting them to think that you’re teaching them how to avoid scams.
You’re just pointing out that you are overqualified for this test.
At its root, it is a TEST. Not many TESTs allow you to Google for answers and supporting information. Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer. By not providing all the information and not informing you to utilise any source available to obtain extra ESSENTIAL infirmation, it’s a bad test. Intended to trick you.
You and I both know if we create a test phishing email with no mistakes, it’s not a failure if people click on it. It’s a failure on our part for creating a BAD TEST. Same concept.
No, at its root, this is an educational article meant to teach about recognizing internet scams. It includes a quiz designed to help you determine your natural reaction to many popular scams, along with information about best practices for how to identify them.
This differs from a test, which is designed to quantify your current knowledge on a topic. Sure, the article used a quiz as a teaching aid, but the results of the quiz aren’t the point and don’t matter. Which makes it super weird how you and others are getting so butthurt about thinking you deserved a perfect score, but we’re robbed by an unfair test.
Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer
This is a foolish assumption outside of the context of academic examinations. There’s no reason to assume that’s a requirement on an online quiz, where many of the explanations of the answers specifically tell you that the best way to identify some scams is to verify information with authoritative sources.
You and I both know if we create a test phishing email with no mistakes, it’s not a failure if people click on it. It’s a failure on our part for creating a BAD TEST.
The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks. Regardless, I’m not sure what your point is, since every one of the scam examples here does contain either verifiably false information, or obvious scam indicators.
“Learn more about how to keep yourself safe by testing your instincts below and guessing whether each instance is a scam, using real-life examples.”
Distinctly not saying to research online and verify information.
As for tests outside academia, such as this one, even a bone headed dunce understands tests test the knowledge and ability you have, and not what you google online. To the point that if a test allows you to use other sources, that is always specifically stated. So that normal, reasonable people do not treat it as a normal, reasonable test, and complete it with their inherent knowledge and ability. I’m sorry you missed this valuable and important life lesson in learning. Explaining in the answers that you should have known to use outside sources is exactly as I have stated; a bad test.
“The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks.”
I’m glad as a CEO you don’t actually produce any content for your company. Emulating phishing emails means including the errors that are in phishing emails. Those are the ways you train people to recognise a phishing email. If you don’t include the errors then the only true verification of a genuine/phishing email is verifying with the purported sender by another communication channel. Not at all an effective policy, I’m sure you would agree.
No one’s butt hurt here. Treating a genuine email with caution and wariness is inherent good phishing awareness behaviour. If you can pull your vacuous head out of your voluminous arse for a moment, you will realise that once again, this is a bad test, a bad quiz, not an effective teaching tool, and just plain old click bait. Disparaging it is an appropriate response, and a fucktard such as yourself, with your vaunted claims of related professional acumen, trying to defend it is reprehensible.
Yep. It relies on information not present in the example. It’s intended for most people to get wrong.
Similarly the Facebook one genuinely looks like a scam unless you know of the Facebook case.
So what you’re saying is… …this article is a scam?
While yes, that’s an accurate quip, it actually does highlight a deeper issue in the industry. If everyone passes your scam test, they don’t need to buy your scam test.
Additionally, scam emails aren’t 50/50 yes/no pass/fail. It’s more a combination of red flags to gauge how risky the email is to click on links, reply to, download attachments from, etcetera.
Currently the scam testing industry has no way to rate an individuals ability other than how many scam emails they did or didn’t click on. That is a false metric. It incites scam testers to trick people to justify their value to the customer.
Maybe a better way would be to stick with pentesters. The real trick is if they can actually scam someone.
I mean, they are two different aspects of security. Pen testers are important, but they can’t help you if an employee clicks on the wrong link.
Isn’t social engineering a part of what they do? The goal would be to train employees to look out for both pentesters and real scammers.
You (and half the people in this thread) are totally missing the point here.
No where does the article say that you’re supposed to be able to tell if it’s a scam or not just by looking at it. In fact, in multiple places it says that you’ve got to
Googleuse a credible source to externally verify some information to determine that some of the examples are scams.The point of the article is to teach people how to recognize scams, it would be totally useless if it imposed the constraint that you can’t look for context. If you’re actually trying to recognize scams IRL, you should be doing exactly what the article says and looking for authoritative corroboration of any information in the potential scam.
In the phishing Awareness course I wrote and sell, I do advocate to confirm that domains, phone numbers and other contact details, logos, are correct with the official website.
I don’t advocate that when they receive a bill for something they know they didn’t buy, they should go to Google.
And with googles current state, I could easily buy a domain and buy ads to put it at the top of search results. Googling the answer isn’t actually the answer. Verifying against known legit sources is.
It’s a shit test, which more than half of the people in this thread got right, yourself excepted.
I’m the CEO of an anti-phishing training corporation that services multiple Fortune 500 companies and has a yearly revenue of over 10m USD (I can also share unverified credentials to make myself seem more credible).
Someone could potentially build a website that makes their phishing attempt seem more credible, and maybe they could get that website ranked highly on Google (even though that is far from straightforward for a website presenting fraudulent information to do), but that’s a total red herring. The article didn’t recommend that people Google for a single random website that confirms the questionable information, the recommendation was that you should check multiple authoritative sources.
You are absolutely wrong. Not surprising that you’re (ostensibly) able to scam the technologically illiterate with such bad information, a little ironic that your scam involves getting them to think that you’re teaching them how to avoid scams.
You’re just pointing out that you are overqualified for this test.
At its root, it is a TEST. Not many TESTs allow you to Google for answers and supporting information. Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer. By not providing all the information and not informing you to utilise any source available to obtain extra ESSENTIAL infirmation, it’s a bad test. Intended to trick you.
You and I both know if we create a test phishing email with no mistakes, it’s not a failure if people click on it. It’s a failure on our part for creating a BAD TEST. Same concept.
No, at its root, this is an educational article meant to teach about recognizing internet scams. It includes a quiz designed to help you determine your natural reaction to many popular scams, along with information about best practices for how to identify them.
This differs from a test, which is designed to quantify your current knowledge on a topic. Sure, the article used a quiz as a teaching aid, but the results of the quiz aren’t the point and don’t matter. Which makes it super weird how you and others are getting so butthurt about thinking you deserved a perfect score, but we’re robbed by an unfair test.
This is a foolish assumption outside of the context of academic examinations. There’s no reason to assume that’s a requirement on an online quiz, where many of the explanations of the answers specifically tell you that the best way to identify some scams is to verify information with authoritative sources.
The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks. Regardless, I’m not sure what your point is, since every one of the scam examples here does contain either verifiably false information, or obvious scam indicators.
“Learn more about how to keep yourself safe by testing your instincts below and guessing whether each instance is a scam, using real-life examples.”
Distinctly not saying to research online and verify information.
As for tests outside academia, such as this one, even a bone headed dunce understands tests test the knowledge and ability you have, and not what you google online. To the point that if a test allows you to use other sources, that is always specifically stated. So that normal, reasonable people do not treat it as a normal, reasonable test, and complete it with their inherent knowledge and ability. I’m sorry you missed this valuable and important life lesson in learning. Explaining in the answers that you should have known to use outside sources is exactly as I have stated; a bad test.
“The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks.”
I’m glad as a CEO you don’t actually produce any content for your company. Emulating phishing emails means including the errors that are in phishing emails. Those are the ways you train people to recognise a phishing email. If you don’t include the errors then the only true verification of a genuine/phishing email is verifying with the purported sender by another communication channel. Not at all an effective policy, I’m sure you would agree.
No one’s butt hurt here. Treating a genuine email with caution and wariness is inherent good phishing awareness behaviour. If you can pull your vacuous head out of your voluminous arse for a moment, you will realise that once again, this is a bad test, a bad quiz, not an effective teaching tool, and just plain old click bait. Disparaging it is an appropriate response, and a fucktard such as yourself, with your vaunted claims of related professional acumen, trying to defend it is reprehensible.
Not gonna read all that lol you are a goofy little guy aren’t ya.
Yeah, choose ignorance. We’ll both be happier.
I actually got that one, because I know settlements are a thing and I knew to search it.