.Safe Didn't Catch On, So Now Company Proposes .Bank To Stop Phishing
from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed-in-trying-to-get-a-new-TLD,-try-try-again dept
Last month, security firm F-Secure proposed the creation of a ".safe" TLD as a way to protect financial institutions and consumers from phishing attacks. The basic idea was that the TLD would connote safety, allowing consumers to use a website without worrying about being on a spoof site. Of course, this is an obviously flawed idea, since it would only work (in theory) if every financial institution shelled out for the domain, while even then, phishers would find ways to dupe people into going to phony sites. Apparently that idea didn't go over too well, so now the company is promoting the same thing, except this time it's ".bank" as opposed to ".safe". The key, according to the company's chief Mikko Hypponen, is to make the TLD cost $50,000, so that only legitimate institutions would bother to register one. Again, this runs into the exact same problems. Phishers would find still find ways of duping people into going to the wrong site, while the $50,000 price tag would deter many banks, particularly small banks and credit unions. Not surprisingly, many security experts are roundly trashing the idea for being ineffective. Obviously, phishing remains a problem, but the idea that it can be solved with a new TLD represents a failure to understand the problem, which is not exactly inspiring from the head of a security firm.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
de de dee by Prophet on May 9th, 2007 @ 7:31pm
I dont care how many different domain names you shell out people who are un-educated abot hwo to be safe on their computer are still going to have Phishing and viruses. I am a pretty savvy about security and haven't had my own Virus issue for over two years now. People just need to be educated about the internet before they step out onto the Information superhighway with a lerners permit and a Lamborghini of a vehicle to navgiate with .
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Opposed to Large Fee by Dave Barnes on May 9th, 2007 @ 7:48pm
$50K is real money to my credit union.
How about .bank is only available to real honest financial institutions?
Pay me $200K/year and I will vet the "banks" who apply.
Let's see, the one from BofA should take about 5 minutes. That will leave me plenty of time to check out "Very Honest Russian Mafia Bank, Not Really".
Or, maybe we could create a website: "Real Bank or Not?". We will model after "Hot or Not?".
Or, I will do the vetting for only $5K/bank and get rich. Rich I tell you. Rich.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
... just as effective by zcat on May 9th, 2007 @ 8:27pm
Perhaps they should just create a '.fraud' top level domain and demand that all fraudulent sites have to be in it.
Or just use the 'evil bit' defined as in RFC3514?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Prophet on May 9th, 2007 @ 9:33pm
I work for a Bank processor that is one of the top ten in the nation. And agree with dave. Some of these Credit unions dont even have 50k in their Liquid assets, they rely on payments from interest to stay afloat. Most of the credit unions go through a processor Like mine and rely on them to prevent fraud, and it still happens. We have to Block cards and account daily, and this tom and jerry game will never end. So to me this is just a way for them to get money, promise security and then when something happens just point to their lawyers and disclaimers and shrug it off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How about we lynch a few phishers by Doug on May 9th, 2007 @ 10:49pm
Sentence a few of these phishers to 100+ years in prison and the problem goes away. If they are overseas then just hire mercenaries to hunt them and kill them. I love that Saturday Night Live commercial where the Fraud protection service was going around and rounding up the suspects overseas and torturng them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"natural justice" by zcat on May 10th, 2007 @ 12:00am
A better idea; "Do Nothing"
The real problem is the idiots that can't take a few minutes to learn about basic security, a few minutes to install AVG, stop to think if their bank would really email them asking to confirm their details, etc, etc.
And the solution is a hefty self-administered fine for stupidity. Phishers just took your life savings? Too bad. Learn from it. Be smarter next time. Problem solved.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Two words by squik on May 10th, 2007 @ 2:58am
Actually, one acronym and one word: DNS Poisoning.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by darkbhudda on May 10th, 2007 @ 11:50pm
Banks need to stop sending out emails that look like spam. Some of their legitimate emails are so dodgy, it's no wonder some people can't tell the difference.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Education by John on May 11th, 2007 @ 1:51pm
Like many people are saying, the issue isn't a new top level domain, but educating users.
A ".safe" domain name will do absolutely no good if people still don't realize that a URL of "23.432.32.122/boa/cgi-bin/account.jsp" is not the real Bank of America site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment