41–50 of 206 posts
I've noticed that the people running automated flagging systems seem to become inordinately smug to the point that they believe their false positive result over all forms of external evidence. So to them you are a criminal and that's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See: spam blacklists
My own experience was with Wells Fargo, where I conduct quite a bit of business, but they still treated me like a criminal because their dumb AI thought that "I don't often initiate wire transfers online" and "my voice didn't sound like my age".
Wow, hello marginalization! I wonder where their training data set came from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it hurt Microsoft in any way to answer those tickets with "no, your site is participating in a phishing campaign"? And maybe tell the OP how, so that he can clean the malicious material? And yes, that is a major defamation campaign led by Microsoft against the OP. And since MS even refuses to clarify their claim about the OP's wrongdoing, I imagine he would have an easy time in a court.
> Does it hurt Microsoft in any way to answer those tickets with "no, your site is participating in a phishing campaign"? And maybe tell the OP how, so that he can clean the malicious material? Ye, it tells bad actors how the detection system works.
I know that it is problem of email providers, but still I would like to leave OneDrive, but I cannot find alternative that is in similar price range as OneDrive (about 2 USD/month for 1TB).
Run your page against OWASP top 10. You might find something
Get a lawyer. Ask for an injunction by a court. Make smartscreen liable for the damage they do to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should they then not just reply with "You're on the list because of the malware payload at "?
How does MS know they aren't hosting it on purpose? That might cause them to just change the malicious URL.
Very important that you develop complete confidence that there isn't anything wrong with your product. It's not uncommon, in fact it's very common, for compromise kits for websites to take measures to avoid detection. A common one is only serving the malicious content when a specific referrer is present (I've seen this be Yahoo Search in the case of compromised Drupal installations multiple times, not really sure why…
I worked with a very well-known university that unknowingly had been compromised and was being flagged for malware by various protective services.
They, assuming it was just a false positive, put up a banner at the top of their webpages that said they were falsely being flagged and that visitors should ignore any warnings and essentially shut off any protections for their website.
Meanwhile their site was compromised and attempting to dump payloads onto visitors.
Have you ensured you are not compromised?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should they then not just reply with "You're on the list because of the malware payload at "?
How does MS know they aren't hosting it on purpose? That might cause them to just change the malicious URL.
With that said, there is an epidemic of muppet thinking right now. It's not just the intertubes. Suppose a credit card company pulls your credit report because they say you applied for credit with them. No funds are stolen. You demand they show proof. They say nope, because TTPs. So: how do I know it's a one-off, and not data theft by fraud at scale? Off goes a letter to the FTC...
Do you think like a muppet? Here is satirical example (http://athena.m3047.net/temporizing.html):
TEMPORIZING FOUND NOT TO BE A FORM OF LYING
"Temporizing", which is speculating from what we know now as to the
motives of actors in the past and presenting that as historical fact,
has been found not to be a form of lying. "Social proof demonstrates
that temporizing is not lying" said a social commentator.
The news was greeted optimistically as a good day for humanists and
levels the playing field because "now the standards of proof we need
to meet for the existence of society are the same as for religion".
"People must have known about this in the past because it seems
like they should have" said a man in the street. "Everybody who
believes in science trusts society" said another.