It may be possible to make a more-limited system without redirects, by abusing stuff like user:pass@host URL schemes, or #anchor suffixes... although it would be less reliable, some hosts/URLs would have problems.
I know it's a joke and I had a sensible chuckle, but if you want to routinely use it at work, just keep in mind that it's probably gonna make things worse.
Since you can't exhaustively enumerate every good thing or every bad thing on the internet, a lot of security detection mechanisms are based on heuristics. These heuristics produce a fair number of false positives as it is. If you bring the rate up, it just increases the likelihood that your security folks will miss bad things down the line.
Or just report their mandatory compliance emails as phishing attempts.
I’ve worked for multiple large companies where the annual IT security signoffs look exactly like malicious emails: weird formatting; originates from weird external url that includes suspicious words; urgent call to action; and threats of discipline for non-compliance.
All this money being spent on training, only to immediately lull users into accept threats.
The company I work at hired a vendor for their call center software, and said vendor spammed out all kinds of emails to everyone in the org on a daily basis. It was annoying and entirely useless. I just kept reporting them as phishing attempts and encouraged my coworkers to do the same. It worked.
The phishing-emails-as-a-test emails were so frequent that I started flagging all emails from our company that had a link in them as phishing emails and let the IT staff tell me which ones were real. They didn't enjoy that so they stopped sending the phishing emails as often. They still send them though, from time to time.
I ended up creating my own browser extension for gmail that blocks clicking on any link unless the domain is whitelisted. Now if I click any link and it's not in the whitelist, it shows a popup that displays the domain name, and I can then choose to whitelist it and then it opens the link, or just keep blocking it. I haven't had to re-take any phishing compliance tests in a long time.
All of this reminds me of a hilarious situation at a previous employer. As is standard corporate practice, they used to tell people to inspect links by hovering over them to confirm that they lead to the official website of the sender.
People kept falling for phishing links though, so they got a Trend Micro device to scan emails, which also rewrote every link in it to point to their URL scanning service, which means every link now looks like https://ca-1234.check.trendmicro.com/?url=...; I guess no one would be allowed to click on any link in an email at that company.
Of course, their URL rewrites also broke a good number of links, so you'd wake up to a production incident, and then have to get your laptop, log in manually to Pagerduty/Sentry or what have you, and look up the incident details from the email...
I registered the "very-secure-no-viruses.email" domain to use for burner emails. I was trying to make one that sounded maximally sketchy. It has lead to some confusing interactions with support though...
74 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 80.9 ms ] threadhttps://carnalflicks.online/var/lib/systemd/coredump/logging...
Since you can't exhaustively enumerate every good thing or every bad thing on the internet, a lot of security detection mechanisms are based on heuristics. These heuristics produce a fair number of false positives as it is. If you bring the rate up, it just increases the likelihood that your security folks will miss bad things down the line.
https://cam-xxx.live/trojan-hunter/evil-snatcher/malware_cry...
I’ve worked for multiple large companies where the annual IT security signoffs look exactly like malicious emails: weird formatting; originates from weird external url that includes suspicious words; urgent call to action; and threats of discipline for non-compliance.
All this money being spent on training, only to immediately lull users into accept threats.
I ended up creating my own browser extension for gmail that blocks clicking on any link unless the domain is whitelisted. Now if I click any link and it's not in the whitelist, it shows a popup that displays the domain name, and I can then choose to whitelist it and then it opens the link, or just keep blocking it. I haven't had to re-take any phishing compliance tests in a long time.
Also, we were thought to inspect the URL before clicking on it.
Except that the spam system they use completely mangles the URL...
People kept falling for phishing links though, so they got a Trend Micro device to scan emails, which also rewrote every link in it to point to their URL scanning service, which means every link now looks like https://ca-1234.check.trendmicro.com/?url=...; I guess no one would be allowed to click on any link in an email at that company.
Of course, their URL rewrites also broke a good number of links, so you'd wake up to a production incident, and then have to get your laptop, log in manually to Pagerduty/Sentry or what have you, and look up the incident details from the email...
1. Make a site like this.
2. Wait for people to try it out with an URL that goes to a significant site (bank, social media, email, etc.)
3. Allow a bit of normal use, then secretly switch the link so that further visitors land on a corresponding phishing site.
4. Having just dismissed a bunch of "obviously fake" warning signs, people may be less alert when real ones arrive.