|WikiProject Computer Security / Computing||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Software / Computing||(Rated Stub-class)|
I can't understand de-spamming this page. It was created to avoid spam hitting phishing. If not for the list of software the page is useless (it's a minor part of the phishing article, and maybe should be merged back into there). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
- If it's "useless", please take it to Wikipedia:AfD. We certainly don't create spam sandboxes here ("It was created to avoid spam hitting phishing"). I'd direct you to the relevant Wikipedia policy pages, but edits from your IP suggest that you know them at least as well as I do. dmoz is the place for lists of software. Or move the page to List of anti-phishing software - see if it lasts as long as List of wiki software. btw it's frustrating to see excellent contributors such as yourself hiding behind IP addresses. Why not get an account?
- chocolateboy 02:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're quite right. I'll put in an AfD request when I get round to it. Not getting an account is a way to deny my growing addiction to editing Wikipedia. -220.127.116.11 17:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I tried an AfD, but my lack of an account meant it was thrown out as "malicious" (or some such hysterical over-reaction that seems typical of many wiki-fiddlers who don't assume good faith... sigh.) So, the article remains, despite it being a minor part of the excellent phishing article. Too bad. -18.104.22.168 13:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why you wouldn't want external links to anti-phishing software on the "anti-phishing software" wiki page. I came to this page looking for anti-phishing software, not the definition of "software". I found no such software, so I did research outside of Wikipedia and added several external links to examples of free anti-phising software. I did this as a service to others, not in an effort to spam. In fact, this was the very first time I had contributed to Wikipedia - you can tell by looking at the history of my posts on April 10, 2006; I had to edit the page several times as I learned the proper format. If you read Wikipedia's definition of external links and spam (which I have, quite thoroughly), I didn't link to paid sites, I am not promoting one "anti-phishing software" over another and I believe linking to anti-phishing software on the "anti-phishing software" wiki is quite appropriate based on Wikipedia's definitions. One error that I made was inserting my links at the top of the external links, and for that, I apologize. But to have the links removed makes the article much less useful. Think about the intent of the article... 22.214.171.124 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the editors that reverted your additions, but in general I favor minimizing external links. As you read in your research, Wikipedia is not a web directory and link collections tend to get out of control. In this particular article, the link to dmoz.org should be sufficient. It is clear that your edits were done in good faith and you took time to learn the process. Use what you've learned to continue to contribute to articles. It's a bit more work to add to an article's text than to add external links, but it can be a worthwhile experience to share what you've learned with others! JonHarder 13:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- removed commerical link which didn't add to the article Polymorp 00:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"Google Safe Browsing scored as low as 0%, possibly due to technical problems with Google Safe Browsing". This seems common. It'S OR, but Safari was just warning me (on Preferences...Security) that the list was not working and hadn't been updated in 4 days, and I used Safari for several hours on each of those days. --Elvey (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
How the software works
I'm not sure why the reference to Two-factor authentication is relevant. It seems to me as though a successful phishing attack will work regardless of the method of authentication, since the authorized user will still be able to present each of the necessary factors. Perhaps the point being made is that phishing isn't an effective method of acquiring hard-to-replicate factors, such as a retina scan. If so, that needs to be explained more clearly. That principle is also true of a single factor scheme using a hard-to-replicate factor.
If the phrase "almost two-factor techniques" is to be used here, we need a reference to a clear definition; perhaps that needs to be added to Two-factor authentication.--Wcoole (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)