<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Phishing spam is getting better ... in Industry News</title>
    <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Phishing-spam-is-getting-better/m-p/27122#M3392</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Gloria asked me to have a look at an email message "from" our bank.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Other than addressing her as an "esteemed" customer, it looked pretty good.&amp;nbsp; No problems with spelling or grammar.&amp;nbsp; A security warning at the bottom.&amp;nbsp; The head office address for the bank.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I looked at the headers, there were only a few, very small, indications of possible problems.&amp;nbsp; It was sent from a domain that was not owned by the bank, but a lot of companies are outsourcing a lot of IT functions, so that wasn't exactly definitive.&amp;nbsp; It had a couple of headers indicative of spam filtering.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;About the only thing that solidly demonstrated a problem was that the link to "verify" your account was addressed to a domain that was not owned by the bank.&amp;nbsp; (Now if banks start outsourcing account verification ...)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:18:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rslade</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-10-09T09:18:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Phishing spam is getting better ...</title>
      <link>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Phishing-spam-is-getting-better/m-p/27122#M3392</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Gloria asked me to have a look at an email message "from" our bank.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Other than addressing her as an "esteemed" customer, it looked pretty good.&amp;nbsp; No problems with spelling or grammar.&amp;nbsp; A security warning at the bottom.&amp;nbsp; The head office address for the bank.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I looked at the headers, there were only a few, very small, indications of possible problems.&amp;nbsp; It was sent from a domain that was not owned by the bank, but a lot of companies are outsourcing a lot of IT functions, so that wasn't exactly definitive.&amp;nbsp; It had a couple of headers indicative of spam filtering.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;About the only thing that solidly demonstrated a problem was that the link to "verify" your account was addressed to a domain that was not owned by the bank.&amp;nbsp; (Now if banks start outsourcing account verification ...)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:18:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.isc2.org/t5/Industry-News/Phishing-spam-is-getting-better/m-p/27122#M3392</guid>
      <dc:creator>rslade</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-10-09T09:18:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

