In other toolbar news, I installed version 2.4.0 of FraudEliminator today. Despite the success enjoyed by others I was never able to get my previous version to work with Firefox and eventually had to uninstall it due to problems with that browser.

**Note: I am not suggesting that the toolbar was the cause of the problems only that they were alleviated by removing it. I really suspect an extension conflict between it and an existing extension.**

The new version installed easily and so far seems to be working as advertised. I was disappointed, however, to learn that the free version only receives fraud updates monthly.

_________________
MS MVP Security 2006-2008

My disappointment stems from the fact that I think there are better SEs out there that would have made better choices. DFs comment probably stems from the fact that AskJeeves was involved in the MyWay search bar fiasco at Dell as well as several other questionable tactics.

_________________
MS MVP Security 2006-2008

Microsoft® Phishing Filter Add-in for MSN® Search Toolbar 3.0.4702.0
http://addins.msn.com/phishingfilter/
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/online/phishing_filter.mspx

_________________
"THE BAD GUYS DON'T NEED A SEARCH WARRANT. ARE YOU PROTECTED?"

Microsoft MVP - Windows Security 2007-2008

Hi everyone.

I work at CallingID and I noticed that you've mentioned CallingID toolbar previously in this thread so I wanted to offer to answer any questions you might have.

Thanx.

Hi, MatanArie, and welcome to Castlecops!

CallingID is one of several antiphishing toolbars that I use while investigating phish attempts and I am curious as to exactly what criteria it uses in assigning a risk rating. So far I have found that it consistently identifies legitimate sites as 'High Risk' if the owner of the domain uses a Whois privacy shield and rates malicious sites as 'Low Risk' so long as the target URL is a domain name with a listed owner.

A second question would be the sequence of events after a user invokes the "Report Site" feature. I have reported a number but the life expectancy of a phishing site is so short that I have never been able to observe any results.

_________________
MS MVP Security 2006-2008

MatanArie,

I removed a couple of your posts from the hijackthis forum. We do not allow spamming on this site either.

So Oldfrog. Which phishing tool do you prefer? Better yet, which works with any browser? I use Maxthon Browser and just tried Trustwatch, Earthlinks Toolbar (featuring ScamBlocker) and PhishGuard and neither would work with Maxthon. I like Earthlinks toolbar.

I did find plugin for Maxthon called "Spoof Bar" that works like "SpoofStick Tolbar" by showing the Name and IP# of the visited site.

Greetings,

I did find another toolbar - CipherTrust's TrustedSource Toolbar - which is mentioned in a Computing article: New Way To Decipher Phishing Attacks.

Their Research Portal is a one-stop source for spam/phishing-related information.

CipherTrust also have something similar for websites.

Interestingly, the same company indicates that the US is the worst culprit with 32.1% whilst Korea is second with 15.4% (Microsoft Launches Anti-Phishing Legal Offensive).

Also, although this may not be the place for it, I found this interesting "book" - MailFrontier's "Field Guide To Phishing" - a funny, though informative, guide on how to recognise little phishes!

Given that surfers have difficulty spotting phish (Surfers Failing To Spot Phishing Sites) it could prove helpful!

There's even a link to a "Phishing IQ Test" at the end of the article.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

Hi Guys

I use Spybot and keep it running continuously
It currently has a d/b of 37180 bad progs and keeps this up-to-date as and when I choose (weekly)
BTW its free

Kind regards

Hi Oldfrog,
CallingID runs 54 tests on every site viewed and then makes an evaluation based on the overall scores of each test. The tests include finding the owner of the site in several external databases such as Dun and Bradstreet, certificates, the Better Business Bureau, checking whether the company or organization that owns the site is a real company located at the address it claims to be, the age of the site, is the site known as involved in problematic activity, is the site known by DNS servers, etc…

As the product is intended primarily for online consumers, the tests are generally designed to check a company or websites legitimacy. A side effect of this is that privately owned websites are often considered High Risk. What the toolbar is stating is in fact that the site may be unsafe to do business with; send confidential information to; or bank with. If the site does not ask you to do any of these things then the rating is irrelevant to the site.

We've received some questions about 'Hidden Identities' before and our opinion is this: If you are a commercial website; a website that asks for personal information; a website that asks for payment, donations or the like; hiding your identity from your viewers/shoppers/users/clients is dangerous to them. We therefore place considerable weight on the issue of 'Hidden Identities' in our assessments. Once again, if your site does not ask for confidential information, donations, payment, etc... the rating is irrelevant to you and your viewers.

As for your second question, CallingID puts a major emphasis on user ratings of sites. Once you've submitted a site you believe has been misclassified the information is sent directly to the top of a queue of sites that our panel of assessment techs views and rate 24/7.

It's true that phishing sites are so short lived that in most cases by the time you revisit the site it's been pulled down, but have you stopped to think why it's been pulled down? CallingID sends the info received from users and assessments calculated in real-time to Internet authorities with the capabilities to remove these sites. Your report on a site might lead directly to its removal.

Whenever a site is reported by a user, we evaluate the site, change the sites assessment (if appropriate) and email the user to notify him/her if the information submitted was correct and whether the assessment has been changed. As the 'Email' field is optional, many times we have no way of notifying "reporters" about the outcome of their reports.

I hope I've managed to shed some light on the issues you've brought up and I'd be happy to answer any more questions you might have.

Thank you.

Its a pity no one has posted more anti-phising toolbars. I found the SpoofStick Toolbar here. I used it and loved it. Its simplicity was great. The problem is that it no longer works with the current version of firefox 1.5.0.6. I dont like the Netcraft Toolbar. It is way to invasive. I think it logs the websites that Netcraft Toolbar users have visited and has a specific ID for each downloaded toolbar. Thats ridiculously invasive. If anyone finds a nice anti phishing toolbar (for the current firefox) out there please let me know.

Greetings,

Ocelotl1
There are a number of add-ons related to phishing, see:
https://addons.mozilla.org/search.php?q=phish&type=E&app=firefox
https://addons.mozilla.org/search.php?q=anti+phish&type=E&app=firefox

In future, you won't need an add-on...
Firefox 2.1 Beta incorporates anti-phishing

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas