Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

lupinia.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 562 posts

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#341

Post by vmception »

caf wrote: post #211
tempestn wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is good advice, despite it being a pain sometimes! I once got a voicemail from the fraud department at my bank, with a number to call back. I googled the number and all that came up were stories about being scammed. So I was 95% sure it was a scam, but called my bank directly just in case. The person who answered assured me they hadn't contacted me, and it was indeed a scam. I later got a follow-up voicemail fro…

This has a similarity to the original story here, in that the original sounded like: "They behaved a lot like a scammer would, but I also totally expect my real bank to behave like a scammer would" .

If you’ve ever tried to get a crypto token listed on an exchange, its just as bad in that arena even though it seems so far behind the scenes.

The process to get listed is the same as a scammer’s process to ensure you get listed.

Some exchanges will say “no we would never handle this with DMs over telegram”

/gets listed by being introduced to someone with a DM over telegram/

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#342

Post by jon_richards »

klik99 wrote: post #21

There's one easy rule that could have avoided all of this - never give out any info on incoming calls. If I get a call or text about fraudulent transactions, I'll keep them on hold while I log into the bank website. If I get a call about a late payment, I'll thank them for the info and ask them to stay on while I pay online. If I get an inbound call with a more complex request, I'll ask them for their employee info a…

You literally can’t set up Xfinity internet service without accepting an inbound call and then clicking on a shortened link they text you.

I asked for a callback number instead. They hung up and made me go through the entire process again, culminating in a new inbound call a day later and a new sms.

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#343

Post by red369 »

josephg wrote: post #320
jameshart wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the day, folks would have more than one phone in their house. Someone would call and all the phones would ring (or you might turn off the ringers on some of them so only one main phone actually rings). So someone might pick up the phone in the entrance hall and the caller would ask to speak to Becky, and Becky’s mom would yell up the stairs ‘BECKY PHONE’ and then put the receiver back down while Becky runs in…

I saw this sort of thing in american sitcoms as a child, and I was always mildly triggered by it. Here in Australia the landline phone system disconnects as soon as either person hangs up. On the shows they would sometimes hang up the phone, then somebody else picked up a receiver and the call continued?? Phones don't work like that! Go try it on your real phone, and you'll see! It never occurred to me that US phones…

Just going from memory - but I’m fairly sure that around 25 to 30 years ago, in Australia, it did work the way that is being described. That is, the person receiving the call could not disconnect the call by hanging up. The person making the call needed to hang up, otherwise the line stayed open. I messed around with this a few times because I was amazed it existed.

Editing to add that more detail, since I’m basically contradicting your memory of how it worked:

I’m fairly certain it didn’t work if you dialled out, so you may not have come across the circumstances to test it. Also, the other person would probably also need to be participating in testing it, because otherwise they will hang up as soon as you do.

I’ve just remembered another detail - I think there was something different about the tone you heard. If you received a call, and the other person hung up, you would hear the disconnected beeps. If you made a call, and the recipient hung up, I think you would hear the disconnection, but then just silenced.

By the way - I was also confused by seeing how phones seemed to work in the US - like pushing the hang up sensors (is there a name for these?) once to switch lines for call waiting. I never really connected their strange behaviour with how the phones in Aussie worked.

Actually, is this all related to party lines? I’m fairly sure Aussie had these. NZ did.

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#344

Post by throwaway48375 »

brk wrote: post #219
taylorfinley wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty shocking but most IP cameras can be accessed with nothing more than their serial number. Here’s a somewhat recent DefCon talk about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gKEF76oMM I use Reolink cameras, in the admin interface there’s an option called UID. Turning that off (theoretically) disables the backdoor. I have my cameras and NVR (which is actually just a python script on an old laptop that uses ffmpe…

Well, most IP cameras cannot be accessed this way when you look at the global pool of IP cameras. However many on them on Amazon, particularly from OEM companies like Reolink that are more of a custom relabeller vs. a real camera manufacturer have all kinds of backdoor access methods. Best practice is to put your IP cameras on a separate isolated network, connected to a dual-NIC recorder/PC running trusted software (…

Can't you just use VLAN tagging and firewall rules?

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#345

Post by throwaway48375 »

amelius wrote: post #267
m463 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ordering on amazon has become a little like getting your car towed. Towing companies appear to be a large shell game where your $200 tow is handled my one or more middlemen who eventually get some poor independent towtruck driver to tow you for $75 Amazon should do something that would allow partnering with decent brands. Customers would be happy, brands could keep their reputation, amazon could get a reasona…

I'd like to see an economist's view on how the free market is failing here, and what we can do about it.

Most people are still happy to shop with Amazon despite it's failings. I'm sure Amazon has analyzed the data and are coming out ahead.

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#346

Post by mdavis6890 »

The author is simply not very good at defending against these scams.

A. Fraudulent charges are YOUR BANK's problem, not yours. There is no reason to take any risk or share any information. You can agree that charges are fraudulent, but that's the endpoint of your responsibility.

B. Don't give out any information to an inbound caller. None. (except to acknowledge fraudulent charges)

C. Don't try to figure things out. You don't need to reason through it. This author spends SO MUCH time trying to reason out whether this is or is not a scam call. WHY??? Just hang up and move on. If it makes you feel better, you can always call you bank back.

"Putting all of this together, the scales started to tip toward this potentially being a scam call, but I still wasn't certain. It was all circumstantial and conjecture, and a lot of it seemed very legit, plus the difficulty of accurately putting together the information needed to make an attack like this against me without also including strategic disinformation that would tip me off about where they got their data. I needed more information. It was time to push back on this." >>WHAT??? Why do you need to push back? What's the point? Hang up!

"So, I was immediately suspicious, and started asking technical questions; " >> NOW you're suspicious? Again, why ask technical questions here. Who cares? Move on!

This author spends FAR FAR too much time trying to outsmart the scammer - and in the process gets outsmarted himself.

Edit: Nevertheless, I give the author a WHOLE LOT OF CREDIT for being willing to post this. I'm sure he was a bit embarrassed, but sucked it up for the greater good and education of all of us. Thanks!

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#347

Post by red369 »

Phiwise_ wrote: post #135
camtarn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the people who are confused: this is a fairly common thing on landlines in some countries, where the telephone exchange doesn't drop the connection until both ends have hung up, or in some cases when the caller hangs up but not the callee. So it's possible to put your own phone down, but when you pick it up again your phone is still connected to the scammer's telephone. If they play a convincing dial tone, then c…

Even already knowing about this I'm still mystified that landlines work this way on every occasion that I'm reminded of it. Does anyone know if there is, or at least was, a justification for this mode of operation? Was it at least of any use to anyone back around the 1900s or whenever or is it just another "we do it because that's how we've been doing it" residue that hasn't been cleaned yet?

Could this be related to party lines? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

This is similar to the other answer regarding answering a different phone in the same house, but perhaps more necessary if sharing a line with neighbours. Distinctive ringtones may have made this phone line non-disconnection behaviour unnecessary though.

I’ve never experienced a party line - but they sound ridiculous (and fun).

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#348

Post by mdavis6890 »

mort96 wrote: post #265
feoren wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I nodded along to the part about not assuming it's the victim's fault, and then this "expert" falls for an extremely basic, obvious attack. "Wells Fargo will not contact you by phone or text to request this code." -- maybe that should have been bigger and bolder, but it was there. This guy should not be allowed to call himself a "scam prevention expert" anymore.

There's a lot of text in that e-mail. The text you're referring to is perfectly positioned to be almost invisible -- it's in the last paragraph intermingled with the standard "if you have any questions, call us on blah blah blah" text. My brain skipped the rest of that paragraph the first 5 times I skimmed the e-mail.

Does a "scam prevention expert" really need to read that fine print to know not to provide a one-time code to an inbound caller?

Re: I'm a scam prevention expert and I got scammed

#350

Post by samfather »

TrianguloY wrote: post #279

"I was tired" This says it all. You may be the best expert and everything you want, but when you are tired you are no longer an expert, and it's something that practically can't be learnt to self-identify. If you think that X will never happen to you, wait until you are tired and we'll see about that.

Part of being an expert is recognizing your limitations, flaws and vulnerabilities. This was not an expert.
Post reply on HN