I'm digging up my notes from old projects and see a long-abandoned project I had to add a sandbox to ClamAV to mitigate its nastier security vulnerabilities.
I think I dropped it because ClamAV is a crappy AV anyway.
Another point is that the best of technology may be not sufficient for malware that relies on social engineering, deceiving the user psychology to execute it...
Yep, that's another big one, especially when it comes to phishing (no need to execute malicious code outside the browser if all you need is creds and a dumb user).
I mean I'm not even an expert malware developer, but I could trivially write useful malware that cannot be detected by AV (at least until it is discovered).
on the point of phishing, have been getting some interesting answers on my recent question form yesterday. Most seem to object to spear fishing as been excessive
Primarily by ensuring that legitimate emails never ask for sensitive information.
There are other ways to obtain sensitive information legitimately but securely.
It's a big problem when real emails require you blindly trust them.
Compare that with companies which tell you repeatedly that they will never ask you for password information, etc. and that anyone asking you for it is lying to you.
There's a term, scamicry, which is when real message seem to imitate scams.
Can't remember where I first saw that term, but it's also in this pdf.
@forest some organisations I worked with did great work on phishing scenarios, reducing the click thru, improving education for those who clicked one 2 or more tests...and then they sent marketing emails from external bodies, with links, and got annoyed when people didn't respond...
1 hour later…
Anonymous
12:26 PM
@TomK. Yeah for the £10 a month Tom, HTB VIP is for sure worth it if you're going to be using the platform a lot.
Anonymous
12:49 PM
@forest Some interesting news for you; I did an article for SecJuice about the UK porn ban and AgeID (who are one of the many companies owned by MindGeek, who are also supplying an age verification tool to the porn industry for this ban) emailed the editor at SecJuice and asked us to remove a section from our article and replace it with a modified version which they've written themselves haaha.
Do you think you wrote anything that could be legally challenged? Or are they just being stroppy
Anonymous
9:34 PM
@RoryAlsop Two seconds, you tell me. This is the statement they're unhappy with.
Anonymous
I feel a lot happier about this method of verification as opposed to sending a photo of my ID and tying my porn verification account to my real identity. Despite MindGeek claiming that AgeID won't track you & what you watch, given the track record of companies saying such statements, it makes it hard/concerning for us to believe that they won't somehow use this data in ways which they should not.
Anonymous
Now, they're saying this section Despite MindGeek claiming that AgeID won't track you & what you watch, given the track record of companies saying such statements, it makes it hard/concerning for us to believe that they won't somehow use this data in ways which they should not. should be changed, apparently we're incorrect which we may be.
Anonymous
However, no where do we claim that is fact, you can clearly see that statement is an opinion we are fully entitled to doubt them and there is no crime against doubting something and writing about it. I'm no expert but slander needs damages, this doesn't cause any.
