2

Has someone done an actual study on how effective typo domains are versus random websites in phishing links?

I am trying to justify the expense of going after typosquatters and the possibility of the domains being used as a phishing attack is my best argument at this point, but a lot of the phishing attacks against our users don't even bother to try having a related domain name (a bunch of them are just random WordPress sites that have been hacked). If someone has hard numbers like 25% of phishing attempts are successful with random domain names, but 75% are successful with a typo domain, then it makes a strong case for going after them preemptively; however, if the chances of the attacks are roughly the same, then the reactively going after a site after we see it attacking our users probably makes more sense.

3
  • 2
    It really depends on context: both for the domain and the person involved. I developed a sophisticated phishing research engine and had very clever domains, which included typosquatting, and some control domains (phishys.com), which users were specifically trained to spot. There was no significant difference between the "clever" domains and the control domains for those who were prone to click. I offer this in a comment because my data is not available to the public.
    – schroeder
    May 26, 2020 at 13:05
  • One of the big reasons you want to go after typo-squat domains is not about security, but about brand and reputation protection.
    – schroeder
    May 26, 2020 at 13:06
  • @schroeder Yeah, that is pretty much what we expected and what we are planning. May 26, 2020 at 14:26

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.