From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Tue Dec 12 11:57:51 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7777E95A5C for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:57:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from smtp.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E1978955 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:57:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from desk.des.no (smtp.des.no [194.63.250.102]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B90210135; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:57:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by desk.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5811186274; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:56:43 +0000 (UTC) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Michelle Sullivan Cc: Yuri , Igor Mozolevsky , freebsd security Subject: Re: http subversion URLs should be discontinued in favor of https URLs References: <97f76231-dace-10c4-cab2-08e5e0d792b5@rawbw.com> <5A2709F6.8030106@grosbein.net> <11532fe7-024d-ba14-0daf-b97282265ec6@rawbw.com> <8788fb0d-4ee9-968a-1e33-e3bd84ffb892@heuristicsystems.com.au> <20171205220849.GH9701@gmail.com> <20171205231845.5028d01d@gumby.homeunix.com> <20171210173222.GF5901@funkthat.com> <5c810101-9092-7665-d623-275c15d4612b@rawbw.com> <19bd6d57-4fa6-24d4-6262-37e1487d7ed6@rawbw.com> <913910fb-723b-e450-8f02-4c26b3c15287@rawbw.com> <898df78d-c0b1-9e9f-0630-2665c3939960@rawbw.com> <5A2DB9F8.1040301@sorbs.net> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:56:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5A2DB9F8.1040301@sorbs.net> (Michelle Sullivan's message of "Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:49:28 +1100") Message-ID: <86h8swgnwk.fsf@desk.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 11:57:52 -0000 Michelle Sullivan writes: > User gets an email saying his banking details are compromised, and to > update them now. User clicks the link and gives banking details to > phishing site as well as having a keylogger and rootkit installed > during the process. User has bank account hacked. Where did the bank > go wrong? Banks and financial institutions have whole teams working 24/7, usually in cooperation with national authorities, to detect, investigate and shut down phishing campaigns, and to warn customers (either directly or through mass media) of particularly large or well-executed campaigns. In the EU and EEA, banks are liable for losses in excess of =E2=82=AC150 un= less the customer acted =E2=80=9Cwith intent or gross negligence=E2=80=9D, but t= he definition of =E2=80=9Cgross negligence=E2=80=9D is fluid. Legal precedent in Norway = is to hold the customer liable only if the email was =E2=80=9Can obvious forgery=E2=80= =9D, for some definition of =E2=80=9Cobvious=E2=80=9D. TL;DR: yes, banks are held liable for losses attributable to phishing. Source: I do this for a living (although not at a bank). DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no