Live data from Hacker News

Google Phishing Quiz

phishingquiz.withgoogle.com

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#71
post #20
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it might make sense if you were installing a 3rd party gmail application on your desktop. I'm no oauth expert, but I would imagine an app would go through a flow like this.

I believe you can connect gmail to your local email client using IMAP/POP3, but I don't think that uses the oauth flow to do that (you just type in the password). I've never used any other kind of 3rd party gmail apps though.

Newer email clients do indeed often use Google's OAuth flow for email logins.

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#72
post #9

I missed two: the "allow some random person to read your email" which I would never click on, and the one that had a PDF, even though they don't allow you to do anything with it. Just because someone sends you a PDF doesn't mean it's an attack vector. It would have been more helpful to say something like "this is someone you do business with as well, or someone you've never heard of." (which I find to be more useful…

On the PDF one, it tells you in the "intro" blurb that the sender's email address is wrong. Should be .edu and it's .org.

I took that to be a hint along the lines of "schools should have .edu domains", which is unrealistic; lots of academic institutions use non-.edu domains, for better or worse (in fact, the school district in which I attended uses (DISTRICT).net to this day, and (DISTRICT).edu isn't even registered!).

If that blurb was meant to be taken as "You happen to know that your school only has a .edu domain", then yeah, this would have been conclusively phishing. Otherwise, just because it might be malicious doesn't mean it's phishing.

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#73
post #9

I missed two: the "allow some random person to read your email" which I would never click on, and the one that had a PDF, even though they don't allow you to do anything with it. Just because someone sends you a PDF doesn't mean it's an attack vector. It would have been more helpful to say something like "this is someone you do business with as well, or someone you've never heard of." (which I find to be more useful…

The PDF one seemed like a pitch for using Chrome as your PDF viewer.

And yet if that's what you already normally do you would've "failed" that question for correctly identifying it as not actually phishing.

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#74
post #17

While the domain is a legit Google domain, I find it ironic that it’s hosted on “withgoogle.com”. If my parents followed my anti-phishing tips they would fail by clicking this link.

It's because google.com contains very valuable cookies which could be leaked if there was an XSS or something anywhere on the google.com domain. Thats why things like this (which are often developed by third party contractors, and might not go through the same level of review), are hosted on another domain. It's a flaw in the web though. A domain should have the ability to host content without that content gaining fu…

If they mark the cookies as http only then that wouldn't be a concern though, for xss attacks anyway. Subdomains would also solve that issue.

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/HttpOnly

Personally I think they separate them out for branding. Things that are on google.com are flagship products, and getting your thing under google.com means you and/or you're project has a lot of clot at Google.

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#75
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's the only reason I got a question 'wrong'. Sorry, but no third party app is getting access to my email for obvious security reasons. Doesn't matter how 'legit' the company is or what not.

This sounds conceptually right and I would definitely agree with it... if I haven't given multiple sites access to my email over the years. Anything that interacts with your email is going to need it, and if you're signing up for that service odds are you know (or at least assume) it'll need some kind of access to your email. For example, I used unroll.me for years, which gives you a singular interface to block spam…

> There've been many rumors over the years that Unroll.me sells information about the emails it scans.

It's not just rumors, it's stated clearly (if in softened terms) on the site now[1]. Although it wasn't for the first few years, as their original monetization model wasn't based on it.

The big stink about it was that they shifted to that model silently. The original founder only monetized it in a straightforward manner via ads in the app. Then it was sold to Slice/Rakuten, and they silently incorporated it as part of Slice's consumer intelligence data, along with data from other subsidiaries they bought such as Ebates.

Small aside: Rakuten also has a major stake in Acorn[2]. Acorn uses Plaid to verify bank account information for payouts. Plaid[3] is incredibly handy from a consumer experience, but the implications are scary from an "alternative use" perspective. Once connected, there are several handy Plaid products[4] which can make use of that authorization, above and beyond just confirming account ownership. Such as continuously siphoning off transaction level records or keeping tabs on income and employment fluctuations[5].

Not that Rakuten is leveraging their stake in Acorn to access Acorn's bank authorization for those ulterior uses. But it's food for thought on what possibilities exist.

> I think it's even more telling of the "trade data for service" paradigm that people continue to use the service even after finding out

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. Although I wonder how much their subscriber growth rate changed after their alternative data use came to light.

[1] https://unroll.me/your-data

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/21/paypal-invests-30-million-...

[3] https://plaid.com/

[4] https://plaid.com/products/

[5] https://plaid.com/products/income

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used TripIt. Reading your email is central to their "magic." The idea is that whenever you get any sort of travel confirmation, they automatically ingest it and compile all the info into trips, then handle stuff like reminding you to checkin, auto-filling up your checkin code, suggesting seats, etc. They also have an alternative for the privacy-minded where you just forward any confirmation emails you want them…

My workaround for this is to set up a dummy email address that I use for all travel. That email address then forwards the emails to both plans@tripit.com and my personal email address.

You could also use gmails + feature. My.name+travel@gmsil.com and have those forward to trip it.

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#77
post #10
post #3

Seems odd to me that they would encourage allowing 3rd party sites to read all your email, but I guess this is where we're at right now

Amusingly, Google doesn't let its own employees allow TripIt to access corporate email accounts. (But personal ones? Go for it...)

That's just about compliance. In order to stay hippa compliant they can't let 3rd party read emails. Period.

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#78
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's the rub: knowing what's phishing depends on who you are. Receiving a PDF with financial data has a completely different probability of being an attack if you know who the sender is and were expecting them to send such a file today. Also, assuming that a message is phishing is usually not harmful in any way. If I got an email from dropbox.com (and were a Dropbox customer), I'd ignore the email, and just typ…

PDF's especially are pretty low risk. They normally open with the in-chrome PDF viewer, which is sandboxed pretty much as well as web pages, so you would need two zero day exploits (since chrome generally auto-updates within a few days of an axploit being published) in addition to tricking them into opening the PDF to get into someones device.

Same with Firefox. In fact, I rarely open PDFs outside of Firefox, and when I do, it's either in Edge (if I'm on Windows) or Evince (on Linux). I never use Abobe Reader, so there's very little chance that I'll get attacked.

And yes, I failed that question because I assumed that it's information that I was expecting. I don't open PDFs unless I am expecting it, because who wants to spend the time waiting for it to download and render for something that's likely spam?

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#79
post #9

I missed two: the "allow some random person to read your email" which I would never click on, and the one that had a PDF, even though they don't allow you to do anything with it. Just because someone sends you a PDF doesn't mean it's an attack vector. It would have been more helpful to say something like "this is someone you do business with as well, or someone you've never heard of." (which I find to be more useful…

On the PDF one, it tells you in the "intro" blurb that the sender's email address is wrong. Should be .edu and it's .org.

On my phone, I didn't see the TLD, and depending on the type of school, a .org is completely reasonable (e.g. private school). In fact, the types of schools I would be interested in a financial report from would potentially not use a .edu TLD.

And PDFs are mostly harmless if you don't use Adobe Reader, since it's either a small attack vector or in a sandbox.

Re: Google Phishing Quiz

#80
post #9

I missed two: the "allow some random person to read your email" which I would never click on, and the one that had a PDF, even though they don't allow you to do anything with it. Just because someone sends you a PDF doesn't mean it's an attack vector. It would have been more helpful to say something like "this is someone you do business with as well, or someone you've never heard of." (which I find to be more useful…

The PDF one seemed like a pitch for using Chrome as your PDF viewer.

And they completely failed to mention that Firefox and Edge also have built-in PDF viewers (I don't know about Safari since I don't use it).
Post reply on HN