General discussion

Locked

With phishers this dumb, need we really worry?

By deepsand ·
Aside from the obvious spelling errors, the obvious fact that this was sent to multiple addresses, and the poorly hidden link re-direction, note that the alleged "problem" will not occur until next week!

This reminds me of a recent incident in which a would be thief locked himself into the trunk of the car that he was ransacking.

==================================================

Received: from cmsmail13.cms.usa.net [127.0.0.1] by cmsmail13.cms.usa.net via mtad (C8.MAIN.3.17K) with ESMTP id 240JFmkyS1051M13; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:24:45 GMT

Return-Path: <ztqfd@yahoo.com>

Received: from 66.219.97.25 [66.219.97.25] by cmsmail13.cms.usa.net via smtad (C8.MAIN.3.21U); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:24:45 GMT

X-USANET-Source: 66.219.97.25 IN ztqfd@yahoo.com 66.219.97.25

X-USANET-MsgId: XID247JFmkyt3756X13
Received: from 82.196.200.64 by ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:14:05 -0200

Message-I <XNUYCAAMOVHPSKQNOTAZMML@yahoo.com>

From: "PayPal" <customer_care@paypal.com>

Reply-To: "Florine Deal" <ztqfd@yahoo.com>

To: a2dox@usa.net

Cc: ldb0310@usa.net, sr.janice.m.bemowski@usa.net, cponnet.stcamillus@usa.net, greymind@usa.net, hutchib@usa.net, thomasluckmann@usa.net, huberney-r@usa.net, cacla@usa.net, jparr@usa.net

Subject: [Spam] Confirmation Required

Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 09:22:05 -0200

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--45242079321187510"

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-USANET-Spam: B

X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAwC29hsAxVumAM7UOA==

This message was identified as Spam by Brightmail.


--------------------------------------------------




PayPal is committed to maintaining a safe environment for its community of customers. To protect the security of your account, PayPal employs some of the most advanced security systems in the world and our anti-fraud teams regularly screen the PayPal system for unusual activity.

We are contacting you to remind you that on 20 June 2005 our Account Review Team identified some unusual activity in your account. In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and to ensure that your account has not been compromised, access to your account was limited. Your account access will remain limited until this issue has been resolved.

To secure your account and quickly restore full access, we may require some additional information from you for the following reason:

We have been notified that a card associated with your account has been reported as lost or stolen, or that there were additional problems with your card.


This process is mandatory, and if not completed within the nearest time your account or credit card may be subject for temporary suspension.

To securely confirm your PayPal information please click on the link bellow:


https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-run

( The real link is [v]http://www.welcomehereinnew.com/[/v] )

We encourage you to log in and perform the steps necessary to restore your account access as soon as possible. Allowing your account access to remain limited for an extended period of time may result in further limitations on the use of your account and possible account closure.

For more information about how to protect your account please visit PayPal Security Center. We apologize for any incovenience this may cause, and we apriciate your assistance in helping us to maintain the integrity of the entire PayPal system.


Thank you for using PayPal!
The PayPal Team

[v]http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/privacy-outside[/v]

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

57 total posts (Page 5 of 6)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Fraud laws need NOT address specific means to be applicable.

by deepsand In reply to Even then..

To be fraudulent, an act need have but 3 basic elements:

1) The act made a material mis-representation for the express purpose of causing loss;
2) A loss actually occurred; and,
3) Had the mis-representation not been made, the victim would not have suffered said loss.

How the mis-representation was delivered, what the loss was, and how such loss was effected are all irrelevant.

The only impact of laws addressing specific frauds is with regards to prescribing specific criminal penalties.

What needs to be done is to effectively enforce existing laws.

Collapse -

Agreed, but

by jmgarvin In reply to Laws only work if ...

we still don't have solid laws that make sense (or have teeth) in regards to spamming, phishing, pharming, etc...

I think the law makers need to call in the IT experts to write this law...

Collapse -

Fraud is fraud; new laws not necessary.

by deepsand In reply to Agreed, but
Collapse -

If nations are unwilling to help

by AcesKaraoke In reply to Laws only work if ...

Start excluding servers that, through inaction or involvement, perpetuate act of cyber-terrorism and organized computer fraud and theft. Soon enough they'll just be crappin' in their own little sandbox.

Collapse -

Who decides who should be blocked?

by deepsand In reply to If nations are unwilling ...

And, who has the balls to block, for example, ComCast?

Collapse -

Yes.

by deepsand In reply to If you DoS (DDoS) these I ...

For starters, if your actions violate your ISP's Terms of Use, you could loose your service.

Secondly, if your ISP is held liable for your acts, your ISP could hold you liable for any damages suffered by them

As for legal action, such would depend on the jurisdictions off all involved party, so that that question has no one answer.

But, a medal? Definitely!

Collapse -

That was a clue to me

by AcesKaraoke In reply to I get these all the time. ...

I'm always getting those too, I can't help but laugh when I don't do PayPal.

Collapse -

this just in

by Dr Dij In reply to With phishers this dumb, ...

This just in:

http://nwc.securitypipeline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164901038

appears a commercial vendor, cyota, inc will ddos phishing sites on request if you subscribe to one of their security response services. i.e. a bank could prevent any customers from responding to the phishing attack.

Collapse -

God bless em

by jmgarvin In reply to this just in
Back to Desktop Forum
57 total posts (Page 5 of 6)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums