View source for Phishing

{{Short description|Form of social engineering}}
{{Hatnote group|
{{distinguish|Fishing|Pish{{!}}Pishing}}
{{For|the rock band|Phish}}
}}
{{pp-move}}
{{overlay
| image        = Example bank phishing email.svg
| width        = 400
| height       = 330
| float        = right
| columns      = 2
| legend1title = Typical components of phishing emails
| legend1start = 
| legend1end   = 
| grid         = no
| overlay1     = Fraudulent but similar domain name for sender
| overlay1left = 230
| overlay1top  = 19
| overlay2     = Incorrect branding
| overlay2left = 170
| overlay2top  = 105
| overlay3     = Generic information
| overlay3left = 122
| overlay3top  = 130
| overlay4     = Spelling errors
| overlay4left = 305
| overlay4top  = 135
| overlay5     = Sense of urgency
| overlay5left = 355
| overlay5top  = 197
| overlay6     = Fake link
| overlay6left = 213
| overlay6top  = 244
| overlay7     = Incorrect name
| overlay7left = 95
| overlay7top  = 293
}}
'''Phishing''' is a form of [[Social engineering (security)|social engineering]] and a [[scam]] where attackers deceive people into revealing [[Information sensitivity|sensitive information]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Jansson |first1=K. |last2=von Solms |first2=R. |date=2011-11-09 |title=Phishing for phishing awareness |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144929X.2011.632650 |journal=Behaviour & Information Technology |language=en |volume=32 |issue=6 |pages=584–593 |doi=10.1080/0144929X.2011.632650 |s2cid=5472217 |issn=0144-929X|url-access=subscription }}</ref> or installing [[malware]] such as [[Computer virus|viruses]], [[Computer worm|worms]], [[adware]], or [[ransomware]]. Phishing attacks have become increasingly sophisticated and often transparently mirror the site being targeted, allowing the attacker to observe everything while the victim navigates the site, and transverses any additional security boundaries with the victim.<ref>{{cite book |last=Ramzan|first=Zulfikar |chapter=Phishing attacks and countermeasures |editor-last1=Stamp|editor-first1=Mark |editor-last2=Stavroulakis|editor-first2=Peter |title=Handbook of Information and Communication Security |publisher=Springer |year=2010 |isbn=978-3-642-04117-4|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I-9P1EkTkigC&pg=PA433}}</ref> As of 2020, it is the most common type of [[cybercrime]], with the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]]'s [[Internet Crime Complaint Center]] reporting more incidents of phishing than any other type of cybercrime.<ref name="2020ic3">{{cite web |title=Internet Crime Report 2020 |url=https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2020_IC3Report.pdf |website=FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center |publisher=U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation |access-date=21 March 2021}}</ref>

The term "phishing" was first recorded in 1995 in the [[Security hacker#Cracker|cracking]] toolkit [[AOHell]], but may have been used earlier in the hacker magazine ''[[2600: The Hacker Quarterly|2600]]''.<ref name="ollmann">{{cite web | author=Ollmann, Gunter | title=The Phishing Guide: Understanding and Preventing Phishing Attacks | work=Technical Info | url=http://www.technicalinfo.net/papers/Phishing.html | access-date=2006-07-10 | archive-date=2012-06-29 | archive-url=https://archive.today/20120629023934/http://www.technicalinfo.net/papers/Phishing.html | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="thebigphish">{{cite journal |last1=Wright |first1=A |last2=Aaron |first2=S |last3=Bates |first3=DW |title=The Big Phish: Cyberattacks Against U.S. Healthcare Systems. |journal=Journal of General Internal Medicine |date=October 2016 |volume=31 |issue=10 |pages=1115–8 |doi=10.1007/s11606-016-3741-z |pmid=27177913|pmc=5023604 |doi-access=free |issn = 0884-8734 }}</ref><ref name="AOLUnderground">{{cite podcast | title=AOL Underground | url=https://anchor.fm/aolunderground/episodes/Da-Chronic--Creator-of-AOHell-and-Automated-Phishing-e1ic74b/a-a7tfsc3 | website=aolunderground.com | publisher=Anchor.fm | host=Stonebraker, Steve | date=January 2022
}}</ref> It is a variation of ''fishing'' and refers to the use of lures to "fish" for sensitive information.<ref name="thebigphish" /><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.technewsworld.com/story/47607.html | last=Mitchell | first=Anthony | title=A Leet Primer | date=July 12, 2005 | publisher=TechNewsWorld | access-date=2021-03-21 | archive-date=April 17, 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190417170801/https://www.technewsworld.com/story/47607.html | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="languagelog">{{cite web | title=Phishing | work=Language Log, September 22, 2004 | url=http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001477.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060830211530/http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001477.html |archive-date=2006-08-30 | access-date=2021-03-21}}</ref>

Measures to prevent or reduce the impact of phishing attacks include [[#Legal responses|legislation]], user education, public awareness, and technical security measures.<ref name="Jos2007">{{cite web |last=Jøsang |first=Audun |title=Security Usability Principles for Vulnerability Analysis and Risk Assessment. |work=Proceedings of the Annual Computer Security Applications Conference 2007 (ACSAC'07) |year=2007 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27477067 |display-authors=etal |access-date=2020-11-11 |archive-date=2021-03-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122454/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27477067_Security_Usability_Principles_for_Vulnerability_Analysis_and_Risk_Assessment_presented_at |url-status=live }}</ref> The importance of phishing awareness has increased in both personal and professional settings, with phishing attacks among businesses rising from 72% in 2017 to 86% in 2020,<ref name="Lin">{{Cite journal|last1=Lin|first1=Tian|last2=Capecci|first2=Daniel E.|last3=Ellis|first3=Donovan M.|last4=Rocha|first4=Harold A.|last5=Dommaraju|first5=Sandeep|last6=Oliveira|first6=Daniela S.|last7=Ebner|first7=Natalie C.|date=September 2019|title=Susceptibility to Spear-Phishing Emails: Effects of Internet User Demographics and Email Content|journal=ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction |volume=26|issue=5|pages=32|doi=10.1145/3336141|issn=1073-0516|pmc=7274040|pmid=32508486}}</ref> already rising to 94% in 2023.<ref>{{Cite web|lang=en|url=https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/94-firms-hit-phishing-attacks-2023/|title=Email Nightmare: 94% of Firms Hit by Phishing Attacks in 2023|website=Infosecurity Magazine|date=16 January 2024 |access-date=2024-12-08|archive-date=2024-11-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241123082602/https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/94-firms-hit-phishing-attacks-2023/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==Types==

===Email phishing===
Phishing attacks, often delivered via [[email spam]], attempt to trick individuals into giving away sensitive information or login credentials. Most attacks are "bulk attacks" that are not targeted and are instead sent in bulk to a wide audience.<ref name="verizon2019">{{cite web |title=2019 Data Breach Investigations Report |url=https://www.phishingbox.com/assets/files/images/Verizon-Data-Breach-Investigations-Report-DBIR-2019.pdf |website=PhishingBox |publisher=Verizon Communications |access-date=21 March 2021}}</ref> The goal of the attacker can vary, with common targets including financial institutions, email and cloud productivity providers, and streaming services.<ref name="2019cfs">{{cite journal |last1=Furnell |first1=Steven |last2=Millet |first2=Kieran |last3=Papadaki |first3=Maria |title=Fifteen years of phishing: can technology save us? |journal=Computer Fraud & Security |date=July 2019 |volume=2019 |issue=7 |pages=11–16 |doi=10.1016/S1361-3723(19)30074-0 |s2cid=199578115 |access-date=21 March 2021 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334551961}}</ref> The stolen information or access may be used to steal money, install [[malware]], or spear phish others within the target organization.<ref name="the big phish">[https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-frauds-and-scams/spoofing-and-phishing Spoofing and Phishing] Federal Bureau of Investigation</ref> Compromised streaming service accounts may also be sold on [[darknet market]]s.<ref name="atlanticnflx">{{cite web |last1=Waddell |first1=Kaveh |title=The Black Market for Netflix Accounts |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/the-black-market-for-netflix-accounts/462321/ |website=The Atlantic |access-date=21 March 2021 |language=en |date=11 February 2016}}</ref>

This type of [[Social engineering (security)|social engineering]] attack can involve sending fraudulent emails or messages that appear to be from a trusted source, such as a bank or government agency. These messages typically redirect to a fake login page where users are prompted to enter their credentials.

=== Spear phishing<span class="anchor" id="spearphishing"></span> ===
Spear phishing is a targeted phishing attack that uses personalized messaging, especially e‑mails,<ref>{{cite web |title=Spear phishing |website=Windows IT Pro Center |url=https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-protection/intelligence/phishing#spear-phishing |via=docs.microsoft.com |access-date=4 March 2019 }}</ref> to trick a specific individual or organization into believing they are legitimate. It often utilizes personal information about the target to increase the chances of success.<ref>{{cite web |last=Stephenson |first=Debbie |title=Spear phishing: Who's getting caught? |website=Firmex.com |url=http://www.firmex.com/blog/spear-phishing-whos-getting-caught/ |access-date=July 27, 2014 |date=2013-05-30 |archive-date=2014-08-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140811102334/http://www.firmex.com/blog/spear-phishing-whos-getting-caught/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=NSA/GCHQ hacking gets personal: Belgian cryptographer targeted |date=3 February 2018 |magazine=Info Security magazine  |url=https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/nsagchq-hacking-gets-personal-belgian/ |access-date=10 September 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Leyden |first=John |date=4 April 2011 |title=RSA explains how attackers breached its systems |newspaper=[[The Register]] |place=UK |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/04/rsa_hack_howdunnit/ |access-date=10 September 2018 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Winterford |first=Brett |date=7 April 2011 |title=Epsilon breach used four-month-old attack |url=https://www.itnews.com.au/news/epsilon-breach-used-four-month-old-attack-253712 |access-date=10 September 2018 |via=itnews.com.au }}</ref> These attacks often target executives or those in financial departments with access to sensitive financial data and services. Accountancy and audit firms are particularly vulnerable to spear phishing due to the value of the information their employees have access to.<ref>{{cite journal |last=O'Leary |first=Daniel E. |year=2019 |title=What phishing e‑mails reveal: An exploratory analysis of phishing attempts using text analyzes |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |doi=10.2139/ssrn.3427436|ssrn=3427436 |s2cid=239250225 |issn=1556-5068 |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3427436 |access-date=2020-11-02 |url-status=live |archive-date=2021-03-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122456/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3427436 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

The Russian government-run [[Fancy Bear|Threat Group-4127 (Fancy Bear)]] (GRU Unit 26165) targeted [[Hillary Clinton]]'s [[Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign|2016 presidential campaign]] with spear phishing attacks on over 1,800&nbsp;[[Google]] accounts, using the {{tt| accounts-google.com }} domain to threaten targeted users.<ref>{{cite web |title=Threat Group-4127 targets Google accounts |date=26 June 2016 |website=secureworks.com |language=en |url=https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-google-accounts |url-status=live |access-date=2017-10-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190811223356/https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-google-accounts |archive-date=2019-08-11 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Nakashima |first1=Ellen |last2=Harris |first2=Shane |date=13 July 2018 |title=How the Russians hacked the DNC and passed its e‑mails to WikiLeaks |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-the-russians-hacked-the-dnc-and-passed-its-emails-to-wikileaks/2018/07/13/af19a828-86c3-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?noredirect=on |url-status=live |access-date=22 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122509/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-the-russians-hacked-the-dnc-and-passed-its-emails-to-wikileaks/2018/07/13/af19a828-86c3-11e8-8553-a3ce89036c78_story.html?noredirect=on |archive-date=March 21, 2021 }}</ref>

A study on spear phishing susceptibility among different age groups found that 43% of youth aged 18–25&nbsp;years and 58% of older users clicked on simulated phishing links in daily e‑mails over 21&nbsp;days. Older women had the highest susceptibility, while susceptibility in young users declined during the study, but remained stable among older users.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Alkhalil |first=Z. |year=2021 |title=Phishing attacks: A recent comprehensive study and a new anatomy |journal=Frontiers in Computer Science |volume=3 |doi=10.3389/fcomp.2021.563060 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Voice phishing (Vishing) ===
{{anchor|Vishing}}
{{Main article|Voice phishing}}
[[Voice over IP]] (VoIP) is used in vishing or voice phishing attacks,<ref name="vishing">{{cite book |last1=Griffin |first1=Slade E. |last2=Rackley |first2=Casey C. |title=Proceedings of the 5th annual conference on Information security curriculum development |chapter=Vishing |date=2008 |pages=33–35 |doi=10.1145/1456625.1456635|isbn=9781605583334 }}</ref> where attackers make automated phone calls to large numbers of people, often using [[Speech synthesis|text-to-speech]] synthesizers, claiming fraudulent activity on their accounts. The attackers spoof the calling phone number to appear as if it is coming from a legitimate bank or institution. The victim is then prompted to enter sensitive information or connected to a live person who uses [[Social engineering (security)|social engineering]] tactics to obtain information.<ref name="vishing" /> Vishing takes advantage of the public's lower awareness and trust in voice telephony compared to email phishing.<ref name="vishingtrust">{{cite book |last1=Wang |first1=Xinyuan |last2=Zhang |first2=Ruishan |last3=Yang |first3=Xiaohui |last4=Jiang |first4=Xuxian |last5=Wijesekera |first5=Duminda |title=Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Security and privacy in communication netowrks |chapter=Voice pharming attack and the trust of VoIP |date=2008 |pages=1–11 |doi=10.1145/1460877.1460908|isbn=9781605582412 |s2cid=7874236 }}</ref>

=== SMS phishing (smishing) ===
{{anchor|SMS phishing}}
{{Redirect-distinguish|Smishing|Swishing}}
[[File:Example phishing SMS.svg|thumb|A typical style of SMS phishing message]]
SMS phishing<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.belvoircreditunion.org/system/files/336/original/PhishinMembers.pdf |title=Phishing, Smishing, and Vishing: What's the Difference? |date=August 1, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150401122514/https://www.belvoircreditunion.org/system/files/336/original/PhishinMembers.pdf |archive-date=2015-04-01 |url-status=dead |website=belvoircreditunion.org}}</ref> or smishing<ref>[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35201188 Vishing and smishing: The rise of social engineering fraud] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122539/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35201188 |date=2021-03-21 }}, BBC, Marie Keyworth, 2016-01-01</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Steinmetz |first1=Kevin F. |last2=Holt |first2=Thomas J. |date=2022-08-05 |title=Falling for Social Engineering: A Qualitative Analysis of Social Engineering Policy Recommendations |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08944393221117501 |journal=Social Science Computer Review |volume=41 |issue=2 |language=en |pages=592–607 |doi=10.1177/08944393221117501 |s2cid=251420893 |issn=0894-4393|url-access=subscription }}</ref> is a type of phishing attack that uses [[SMS|text messages]] from a cell phone or [[smartphone]] to deliver a bait message.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/11/smishing.html |title=SMS phishing article at ConsumerAffairs.com |date=8 November 2006 |access-date=2020-07-29 |archive-date=2021-03-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122519/https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/11/smishing.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The victim is usually asked to click a link, call a phone number, or contact an [[email]] address provided by the attacker. They may then be asked to provide [[personal data|private information]], such as login credentials for other websites.

The difficulty in identifying illegitimate links can be compounded on mobile devices due to the limited display of URLs in mobile browsers.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Mishra|first1=Sandhya|last2=Soni|first2=Devpriya|title=2019 Twelfth International Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3) |chapter=SMS Phishing and Mitigation Approaches |date=August 2019|pages=1–5|publisher=IEEE|doi=10.1109/ic3.2019.8844920|isbn=978-1-7281-3591-5|s2cid=202700726}}</ref>

Smishing can be just as effective as email phishing, as many smartphones have fast internet connectivity. Smishing messages may also come from unusual phone numbers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-emerging-threats-what-is-smishing.html |title=What is Smishing? |publisher=Symantec Corporation |access-date=18 October 2018}}</ref>

===Page hijacking===
{{anchor|Page hijacking}}
Page hijacking involves redirecting users to malicious websites or [[exploit kit]]s through the compromise of legitimate web pages, often using [[Cross-site scripting|cross site scripting]]. [[Security hacker|Hacker]]s may insert exploit kits such as [[MPack (software)|MPack]] into compromised websites to exploit legitimate users visiting the server. Page hijacking can also involve the insertion of malicious [[Framing (World Wide Web)|inline frame]]s, allowing exploit kits to load. This tactic is often used in conjunction with [[Watering hole attack|watering hole]] attacks on corporate targets.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is a Watering Hole Attack? |url=https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/watering-hole-attack |access-date=2024-07-18 |website=Fortinet |language=en}}</ref>

===QR code phishing (quishing)===
{{anchor|Quishing}}
In "quishing" ([[QR code]] phishing), scammers exploit the convenience of QR codes to trick users into giving up sensitive data, by scanning a code containing an embedded malicious web site link.  Unlike traditional phishing, which relies on deceptive emails or websites, quishing uses QR codes to bypass email filters<ref name="FTquish">{{Cite web |title=Banks and regulators warn of rise in 'quishing' QR code scams |url=https://www.ft.com/content/8aca741e-6448-4511-a54d-64f3a97747b1 |access-date=2024-11-05 |website=Financial Times |language=en|last=Stacey |first=Stephanie |date=2024-10-27 |publisher=The Financial Times Ltd. |quote=Banks and regulators are warning that QR code phishing scams — also known as “quishing” — are slipping through corporate cyber defences and increasingly tricking customers into giving up their financial details.}}</ref><ref name="Lipson">{{Cite web |title=5 Scams You Need to Know About in 2024 |url=https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/5-scams-you-need-to-know-about-in-2024-ahSpn1K1QAE9 |access-date=2024-11-05 |language=en |last=Lipson |first=Faye |date=2024-02-19 |website=Which?}}</ref> and increase the likelihood that victims will fall for the scam, as people tend to trust QR codes and may not scrutinize them as carefully as a URL or email link. The bogus codes may be sent by email, social media, or in some cases hard copy stickers are placed over legitimate QR codes on such things as advertising posters and car park notices.<ref name="BBCquish">{{Cite web |title=Thornaby: Woman targeted in £13k railway station QR code scam |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-67335952 |access-date=2024-11-05 |language=en |last=Morris |first=Joanna |date=2023-11-18 |website=BBC News |quote=Fraudsters are thought to have covered a genuine code with one of their own in Thornaby Station's car park.}}</ref><ref name="Lipson" /> When victims scan the QR code with their phone or device, they are redirected to a fake website designed to steal personal information, login credentials, or financial details.<ref name="FTquish" />

As QR codes become more widely used for things like payments, event check-ins, and product information, quishing is emerging as a significant concern for digital security.  Users are advised to exercise caution when scanning unfamiliar QR codes and ensure they are from trusted sources, although the UK's [[National Cyber Security Centre (United Kingdom)|National Cyber Security Centre]] rates the risk as  lower than other types of lure.<ref name="NCSCquish">{{Cite web |title=QR Codes - what's the real risk? |url=https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/qr-codes-whats-real-risk |access-date=2024-11-05 |language=en |last=C |first=David |date=2024-03-11 |website=The National Cyber Security Centre |quote=...but this type of scam is relatively small compared to other types of cyber fraud.}}</ref>

===Man-in-the-Middle phishing===
{{anchor|Man-in-the-Middle phishing}}
Traditional phishing attacks are typically limited to capturing user credentials directly inputted into fraudulent websites. However, the advent of [[Man-in-the-middle attack|Man-in-the-Middle]] (MitM) phishing techniques has significantly advanced the sophistication of these attacks, enabling cybercriminals to bypass [[two-factor authentication]] (2FA) mechanisms during a user's active session on a web service. MitM phishing attacks employ intermediary tools that intercept communication between the user and the legitimate service. 

Evilginx, originally created as an open-source tool for penetration testing and ethical hacking, has been repurposed by cybercriminals for MitM attacks. Evilginx works like a middleman, passing information between the victim and the real website without saving passwords or login codes. This makes it harder for security systems to detect, since they usually look for phishing sites that store stolen data. By grabbing login tokens and session cookies instantly, attackers can break into accounts and use them just like the real user, for as long as the session stays active.

Attackers employ various methods, including phishing emails, social engineering tactics, or distributing malicious links via social media platforms. Once the victim interacts with the counterfeit site, the MitM tool intercepts the authentication process, effectively bypassing 2FA protections.<ref>https://bolster.ai/blog/man-in-the-middle-phishing Understanding Man-in-the-Middle Phishing: A Deep Dive into Evilginx</ref>

== Techniques ==

===Link manipulation===
Phishing attacks often involve creating fake [[Uniform Resource Locator|link]]s that appear to be from a legitimate organization.<ref name="BustSpammers">{{cite web |url=http://www.bustspammers.com/phishing_links.html |title=Get smart on Phishing! Learn to read links! |access-date=December 11, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161217045719/http://www.bustspammers.com/phishing_links.html |archive-date=December 17, 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> These links may use [[Typosquatting|misspelled URLs]] or [[subdomain]]s to deceive the user. In the following example URL, {{code|http://www.yourbank.example.com/}}, it can appear to the untrained eye as though the URL will take the user to the ''example'' section of the ''yourbank'' website; this URL points to the "''yourbank''" (i.e. phishing subdomain) section of the ''example'' website (fraudster's domain name). Another tactic is to make the displayed text for a link appear trustworthy, while the actual link goes to the phisher's site. To check the destination of a link, many email clients and web browsers will show the URL in the status bar when the [[Pointer (user interface)|mouse]] is hovering over it. However, some phishers may be able to bypass this security measure.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://news.softpedia.com/news/hidden-javascript-redirect-makes-phishing-pages-harder-to-detect-505295.shtml |title=Hidden JavaScript Redirect Makes Phishing Pages Harder to Detect |last=Cimpanu |first=Catalin |date=June 15, 2016 |website=Softpedia News Center |publisher=Softpedia |access-date=May 21, 2017 |quote=Hovering links to see their true location may be a useless security tip in the near future if phishers get smart about their mode of operation and follow the example of a crook who recently managed to bypass this browser built-in security feature. |archive-date=March 21, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122516/https://news.softpedia.com/news/hidden-javascript-redirect-makes-phishing-pages-harder-to-detect-505295.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Internationalized domain name]]s (IDNs) can be exploited via [[Internationalized domain names#ASCII spoofing concerns|IDN spoofing]]<ref>{{cite web |author=Johanson, Eric |title=The State of Homograph Attacks Rev1.1 |work=The Shmoo Group |url=http://www.shmoo.com/idn/homograph.txt |access-date=August 11, 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050823111335/http://www.shmoo.com/idn/homograph.txt |archive-date=August 23, 2005 }}</ref> or [[IDN homograph attack|homograph attacks]]<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Evgeniy Gabrilovich |author1-link=Evgeniy Gabrilovich |author2=Alex Gontmakher |name-list-style=amp |title=The Homograph Attack |journal=Communications of the ACM |date=February 2002 |volume=45 |page=128 |url=https://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gabr/papers/homograph_full.pdf |issue=2 |doi=10.1145/503124.503156 |s2cid=73840 |access-date=2019-09-15 |archive-date=2019-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191104181513/http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~gabr/papers/homograph_full.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> to allow attackers to create fake websites with visually identical addresses to legitimate ones. These attacks have been used by phishers to disguise malicious URLs using open [[URL redirector]]s on trusted websites.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/15/barclays_phish_scam/ |last=Leyden |first=John |title=Barclays scripting SNAFU exploited by phishers |date=August 15, 2006 |work=The Register |access-date=August 10, 2017 |archive-date=June 13, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190613055130/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/15/barclays_phish_scam/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Levine, Jason |title=Goin' phishing with eBay |work=Q Daily News |url=http://q.queso.com/archives/001617 |access-date=December 14, 2006 |archive-date=March 26, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190326095522/http://q.queso.com/archives/001617 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/12/phishing_redirection/ |last=Leyden |first=John |title=Cybercrooks lurk in shadows of big-name websites |date=December 12, 2007 |work=The Register |access-date=August 10, 2017 |archive-date=June 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190623125007/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/12/phishing_redirection/ |url-status=live }}</ref> An example of this is in <code><nowiki>http://www.exаmple.com/</nowiki></code>, where the third character is not the [[Latin script|Latin]] letter '[[a]]', but instead the [[Cyrillic script|Cyrillic]] character '[[а]]'. When the victim clicks on the link, unaware that the third character is actually the Cyrillic letter 'а', they get redirected to the malicious site <code><nowiki>http://www.xn--exmple-4nf.com/</nowiki></code> Even digital certificates, such as [[Secure Sockets Layer|SSL]], may not protect against these attacks as phishers can purchase valid certificates and alter content to mimic genuine websites or host phishing sites without SSL.<ref name="Black Hat DC 2009">{{cite news |url=http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/. |title=Black Hat DC 2009 |date=May 15, 2011 |access-date=July 26, 2014 |archive-date=January 3, 2015 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20150103033611/http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Social engineering===
[[File:Computer virus scam.jpg|thumb|A fake virus notification]]
Phishing often uses [[Social engineering (security)|social engineering]] techniques to trick users into performing actions such as clicking a link or opening an attachment, or revealing sensitive information. It often involves pretending to be a trusted entity and creating a sense of urgency,<ref name="urgencycues2">{{cite book|last1=Cui|first1=Xinyue|last2=Ge|first2=Yan|last3=Qu|first3=Weina|last4=Zhang|first4=Kan|chapter=Effects of Recipient Information and Urgency Cues on Phishing Detection |date=2020|title=HCI International 2020 - Posters|series=Communications in Computer and Information Science|volume=1226|pages=520–525|doi=10.1007/978-3-030-50732-9_67|isbn=978-3-030-50731-2|s2cid=220523895}}</ref> like threatening to close or seize a victim's bank or insurance account.<ref name="Williams">{{Cite journal|last1=Williams|first1=Emma J|last2=Joinson|first2=Adam N|date=2020-01-01|title=Developing a measure of information seeking about phishing|journal=Journal of Cybersecurity|volume=6|issue=1|doi=10.1093/cybsec/tyaa001|issn=2057-2085|doi-access=free|hdl=1983/7ba801b9-f6b8-4fc1-8393-de5238e76b2f|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

An alternative technique to impersonation-based phishing is the use of [[fake news]] articles to trick victims into clicking on a malicious link. These links often lead to fake websites that appear legitimate,<ref name="Lin" /> but are actually run by attackers who may try to install malware or present [[Virus hoax|fake "virus" notifications]] to the victim.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Tomlinson|first1=Kerry|date=27 January 2017|title=Fake news can poison your computer as well as your mind|publisher=archersecuritygroup.com|url=http://www.archersecuritygroup.com/fake-news-can-poison-computer-well-mind/|url-status=live|access-date=28 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202075029/http://www.archersecuritygroup.com/fake-news-can-poison-computer-well-mind/|archive-date=2 February 2017}}</ref>

==History==
{{main|List of phishing incidents}}

===Early history===
Early phishing techniques can be traced back to the 1990s, when [[black hat (computer security)|black hat]] hackers and the [[warez]] community used [[AOL]] to steal credit card information and commit other online crimes. The term "phishing" is said to have been coined by Khan C. Smith, a well-known spammer and hacker,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/07/22/story4.html?page=all |title=EarthLink wins $25 million lawsuit against junk e-mailer |access-date=2014-04-11 |archive-date=2019-03-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322141415/https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/07/22/story4.html?page=all |url-status=live }}</ref> and its first recorded mention was found in the hacking tool [[AOHell]], which was released in 1994. AOHell allowed hackers to impersonate AOL staff and send [[instant message]]s to victims asking them to reveal their passwords.<ref>{{cite news |first=Mike |last=Langberg |title=AOL Acts to Thwart Hackers |date=September 8, 1995 |work=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |url=http://simson.net/clips/1995/95.SJMN.AOL_Hackers.html |access-date=March 14, 2012 |archive-date=April 29, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160429161112/http://simson.net/clips/1995/95.SJMN.AOL_Hackers.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite arXiv |last=Rekouche |first=Koceilah |eprint=1106.4692 |title=Early Phishing |year=2011 |class=cs.CR}}</ref> In response, AOL implemented measures to prevent phishing and eventually shut down the [[warez scene]] on their platform.<ref>{{cite web |title=Phishing |work=Word Spy |url=http://www.wordspy.com/words/phishing.asp |access-date=September 28, 2006 |archive-date=October 15, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141015030058/http://www.wordspy.com/words/phishing.asp |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=History of AOL Warez |url=http://www.rajuabju.com/warezirc/historyofaolwarez.htm |access-date=September 28, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110406121144/http://www.rajuabju.com/warezirc/historyofaolwarez.htm |archive-date=April 6, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref>

===2000s===
In the 2000s, phishing attacks became more organized and targeted. The first known direct attempt against a payment system, [[E-gold]], occurred in June 2001, and shortly after the [[September 11 attacks]], a "post-9/11 id check" phishing attack followed.<ref>{{cite web |title=GP4.3 – Growth and Fraud&nbsp;— Case #3 – Phishing |work=Financial Cryptography |url=https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000609.html |date=December 30, 2005 |access-date=February 23, 2007 |archive-date=January 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190122062718/http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000609.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The first known phishing attack against a retail bank was reported in September 2003.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sangani |first=Kris |title=The Battle Against Identity Theft |journal=The Banker |date=September 2003 |volume=70 |issue=9 |pages=53–54}}</ref> Between May 2004 and May 2005, approximately 1.2 million computer users in the United States suffered losses caused by phishing, totaling approximately {{US$|929 million}}.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.csoonline.com/talkback/071905.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080324080028/http://www.csoonline.com/talkback/071905.html |archive-date=March 24, 2008 |last=Kerstein |first=Paul |title=How Can We Stop Phishing and Pharming Scams? |date=July 19, 2005 |publisher=CSO}}</ref> Phishing was recognized as a fully organized part of the black market, and specializations emerged on a global scale that provided phishing software for payment, which were assembled and implemented into phishing campaigns by organized gangs.<ref>{{cite web |title=In 2005, Organized Crime Will Back Phishers |work=IT Management |url=http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/secu/article.php/3451501 |date=December 23, 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101231021522/http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/secu/article.php/3451501 |archive-date=December 31, 2010 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The economy of phishing: A survey of the operations of the phishing market |author=Abad, Christopher |author-link=Christopher Abad |work=First Monday |url=http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1272/1192 |date=September 2005 |access-date=2010-10-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111121113128/http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1272/1192 |archive-date=2011-11-21 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The [[United Kingdom]] banking sector suffered from phishing attacks, with losses from web banking fraud almost doubling in 2005 compared to 2004.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=15013 |title=UK phishing fraud losses double |date=March 7, 2006 |publisher=Finextra |access-date=May 20, 2006 |archive-date=January 19, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090119151413/http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=15013 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/aol_phishing/ |last=Richardson |first=Tim |title=Brits fall prey to phishing |date=May 3, 2005 |work=The Register |access-date=August 10, 2017 |archive-date=June 10, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190610080015/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/aol_phishing/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2006, almost half of phishing thefts were committed by groups operating through the Russian Business Network based in St. Petersburg.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/10/12/ST2007101202661.html?hpid=topnews|title=Shadowy Russian Firm Seen as Conduit for Cybercrime|first=Brian|last=Krebs|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=October 13, 2007|access-date=September 8, 2017|archive-date=June 11, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190611044618/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/10/12/ST2007101202661.html?hpid=topnews|url-status=live}}</ref> Email scams posing as the [[Internal Revenue Service]] were also used to steal sensitive data from U.S. taxpayers.<ref>{{cite web |title=Suspicious e-Mails and Identity Theft |work=Internal Revenue Service |url=https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=155682,00.html |access-date=July 5, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110221081931/http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=155682,00.html |archive-date=February 21, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref> [[Social network service|Social networking sites]] are a prime target of phishing, since the personal details in such sites can be used in [[identity theft]];<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,125956,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp |last=Kirk |first=Jeremy |title=Phishing Scam Takes Aim at MySpace.com |date=June 2, 2006 |publisher=IDG Network |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060616110238/http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0%2Caid%2C125956%2Cpg%2C1%2CRSS%2CRSS%2C00.asp |archive-date=June 16, 2006 }}</ref> In 2007, 3.6 million adults lost {{US$|3.2 billion}} due to phishing attacks.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=565125 |last=McCall |first=Tom |title=Gartner Survey Shows Phishing Attacks Escalated in 2007; More than $3 Billion Lost to These Attacks |date=December 17, 2007 |publisher=Gartner |access-date=December 20, 2007 |archive-date=November 18, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121118162442/http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=565125 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Anti-Phishing Working Group reported receiving 115,370 phishing email reports from consumers with US and China hosting more than 25% of the phishing pages each in the third quarter of 2009.<ref>{{cite web |author=APWG |title=Phishing Activity Trends Report |url=http://apwg.org/reports/apwg_report_Q3_2009.pdf |access-date=November 4, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121003202708/http://apwg.org/reports/apwg_report_Q3_2009.pdf |archive-date=October 3, 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===2010s===
Phishing in the 2010s saw a significant increase in the number of attacks. In 2011, the master keys for [[RSA (cryptosystem)|RSA]] SecurID security tokens were stolen through a phishing attack.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://blogs.rsa.com/anatomy-of-an-attack/ |title=Anatomy of an RSA attack |website=RSA.com |publisher=RSA FraudAction Research Labs |access-date=September 15, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006071018/https://blogs.rsa.com/anatomy-of-an-attack/ |archive-date=October 6, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Drew |first1=Christopher |last2=Markoff |first2=John |title=Data Breach at Security Firm Linked to Attack on Lockheed |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/28hack.html |access-date=September 15, 2014 |work=The New York Times |date=May 27, 2011 |archive-date=July 9, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190709053346/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/28hack.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Chinese phishing campaigns also targeted high-ranking officials in the US and South Korean governments and military, as well as Chinese political activists.<ref>{{cite web |author=Keizer, Greg |title=Suspected Chinese spear-phishing attacks continue to hit Gmail users |work=Computerworld |url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219155/Suspected_Chinese_spear_phishing_attacks_continue_to_hit_Gmail_users |access-date=December 4, 2011 |date=2011-08-13 |archive-date=2021-03-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122517/https://www.computerworld.com/article/2510237/suspected-chinese-spear-phishing-attacks-continue-to-hit-gmail-users.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Ewing, Philip |title=Report: Chinese TV doc reveals cyber-mischief |work=Dod Buzz |url=http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/22/report-chinese-tv-doc-reveals-cyber-mischief/ |access-date=December 4, 2011 |date=2011-08-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170126114336/http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/22/report-chinese-tv-doc-reveals-cyber-mischief/ |archive-date=January 26, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref> According to Ghosh, phishing attacks increased from 187,203 in 2010 to 445,004 in 2012. In August 2013, Outbrain suffered a spear-phishing attack,<ref>[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/08/syrian-hackers-use-outbrain-target-washington-post-time-and-cnn/68370/ "Syrian hackers Use Outbrain to Target The Washington Post, Time, and CNN"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019134758/http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/08/syrian-hackers-use-outbrain-target-washington-post-time-and-cnn/68370/ |date=2013-10-19 }}, Philip Bump, ''The Atlantic Wire'', 15 August 2013. Retrieved 15 August 2013.</ref> and in November 2013, 110 million customer and credit card records were stolen from [[Target Corporation|Target]] customers through a phished subcontractor account.<ref>{{cite news |last1=O'Connell |first1=Liz |title=Report: Email phishing scam led to Target breach |url=http://bringmethenews.com/2014/02/12/report-email-phishing-scam-led-to-target-breach/ |newspaper=Bring Me the News |access-date=September 15, 2014 |archive-date=September 15, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140915231011/http://bringmethenews.com/2014/02/12/report-email-phishing-scam-led-to-target-breach/ |url-status=live }}</ref> CEO and IT security staff subsequently fired.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://247wallst.com/retail/2014/05/05/target-ceo-sacked/ |title=Target CEO Sack |access-date=September 15, 2014 |last1=Ausick |first1=Paul |date=5 May 2014 |archive-date=September 15, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140915230857/http://247wallst.com/retail/2014/05/05/target-ceo-sacked/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In August 2014, iCloud leaks of celebrity photos were based on phishing e-mails sent to victims that looked like they came from Apple or Google.<ref>[https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/15/prosecutors-find-that-fappening-celebrity-nudes-leak-was-not-apples-fault/ Prosecutors find that ‘Fappening’ celebrity nudes leak was not Apple’s fault] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818045159/https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/15/prosecutors-find-that-fappening-celebrity-nudes-leak-was-not-apples-fault/ |date=2017-08-18 }} March 15, 2016, Techcrunch</ref> In November 2014, phishing attacks on [[ICANN]] gained administrative access to the Centralized Zone Data System; also gained was data about users in the system - and access to ICANN's public Governmental Advisory Committee wiki, blog, and whois information portal.<ref>{{cite web |title=ICANN Targeted in Spear Phishing Attack &#124; Enhanced Security Measures Implemented |url=https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-16-en |website=icann.org |access-date=December 18, 2014 |archive-date=2019-08-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190807072329/https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-16-en |url-status=live }}</ref> Fancy Bear was linked to spear-phishing attacks against the [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] email system in August 2015,<ref>{{cite news|last1=Kube|first1=Courtney|title=Russia hacks Pentagon computers: NBC, citing sources|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/06/russia-hacks-pentagon-computers-nbc-citing-sources.html|access-date=7 August 2015|date=7 August 2015|archive-date=8 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190808014900/https://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/06/russia-hacks-pentagon-computers-nbc-citing-sources.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Starr|first1=Barbara|title=Official: Russia suspected in Joint Chiefs email server intrusion|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politics/joint-staff-email-hack-vulnerability/|access-date=7 August 2015|date=7 August 2015|archive-date=8 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190808014850/https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/05/politics/joint-staff-email-hack-vulnerability/|url-status=live}}</ref> and the group used a zero-day exploit of Java in a spear-phishing attack on the White House and NATO.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Doctorow|first1=Cory|title=Spear phishers with suspected ties to Russian government spoof fake EFF domain, attack White House|url=http://boingboing.net/2015/08/28/spear-phishers-with-suspected.html|work=Boing Boing|date=August 28, 2015|access-date=November 29, 2016|archive-date=March 22, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322141457/https://boingboing.net/2015/08/28/spear-phishers-with-suspected.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Quintin|first1=Cooper|title=New Spear Phishing Campaign Pretends to be EFF|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/new-spear-phishing-campaign-pretends-be-eff|publisher=EFF|date=August 27, 2015|access-date=November 29, 2016|archive-date=August 7, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190807075024/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/new-spear-phishing-campaign-pretends-be-eff|url-status=live}}</ref> Fancy Bear carried out spear phishing attacks on email addresses associated with the Democratic National Committee in the first quarter of 2016.<ref name=NYT>{{cite news|last1=Sanger|first1=David E.|last2=Corasaniti|first2=Nick|title=D.N.C. Says Russian Hackers Penetrated Its Files, Including Dossier on Donald Trump|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html|access-date=26 October 2016|work=The New York Times|date=14 June 2016|archive-date=25 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190725090932/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/russian-hackers-dnc-trump.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=Economist>{{cite news|last1=Economist|first1=Staff of|title=Bear on bear|url=https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21707574-whats-worse-being-attacked-russian-hacker-being-attacked-two-bear-bear|access-date=25 October 2016|agency=Economist|date=24 September 2016|archive-date=20 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170520234836/http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21707574-whats-worse-being-attacked-russian-hacker-being-attacked-two-bear-bear|url-status=live}}</ref> In August 2016, members of the [[Bundestag]] and political parties such as [[The Left (Germany)|Linken]]-faction leader [[Sahra Wagenknecht]], [[Junge Union]], and the [[Christian Democratic Union of Germany|CDU]] of [[Saarland]] were targeted by spear-phishing attacks suspected to be carried out by Fancy Bear. In August 2016, the [[World Anti-Doping Agency]] reported the receipt of phishing emails sent to users of its database claiming to be official WADA, but consistent with the Russian hacking group Fancy Bear.<ref>{{cite web | url =http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-hackers-fancy-bear-likely-breached-olympic-drug-testing-agency-dnc-experts-say-1577508 |title=Russian hackers 'Fancy Bear' likely breached Olympic drug-testing agency and DNC, experts say|author=Hyacinth Mascarenhas|work=[[International Business Times]]| date=August 23, 2016| access-date =September 13, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37374053/what-we-know-about-fancy-bears-hack-team | title=What we know about Fancy Bears hack team | work=BBC News | access-date=17 September 2016 | date=2016-09-15 | archive-date=2019-03-22 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322141504/http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37374053/what-we-know-about-fancy-bears-hack-team | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Gallagher|first1=Sean|title=Researchers find fake data in Olympic anti-doping, Guccifer 2.0 Clinton dumps|url=https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/researchers-find-fake-data-in-olympic-anti-doping-guccifer-2-0-clinton-dumps/|access-date=26 October 2016|publisher=Ars Technica|date=6 October 2016|archive-date=14 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170714183747/https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/10/researchers-find-fake-data-in-olympic-anti-doping-guccifer-2-0-clinton-dumps/|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2017, 76% of organizations experienced phishing attacks, with nearly half of the [[information security]] professionals surveyed reporting an increase from 2016. In the first half of 2017, businesses and residents of Qatar were hit with over 93,570 phishing events in a three-month span.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.gulf-times.com/story/547784/Qatar-faced-93-570-phishing-attacks-in-first-quart|title=Qatar faced 93,570 phishing attacks in first quarter of 2017|date=2017-05-12|work=Gulf Times|access-date=2018-01-28|language=ar|archive-date=2018-08-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180804183817/http://www.gulf-times.com/story/547784/Qatar-faced-93-570-phishing-attacks-in-first-quart|url-status=live}}</ref> In August 2017, customers of [[Amazon (company)|Amazon]] faced the Amazon Prime Day phishing attack, when hackers sent out seemingly legitimate deals to customers of Amazon. When Amazon's customers attempted to make purchases using the "deals", the transaction would not be completed, prompting the retailer's customers to input data that could be compromised and stolen.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.komando.com/happening-now/415020/amazon-prime-day-phishing-scam-spreading-now|title=Amazon Prime Day phishing scam spreading now!|work=The Kim Komando Show|access-date=2018-01-28|language=en-us|archive-date=2019-05-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190527085340/https://www.komando.com/happening-now/415020/amazon-prime-day-phishing-scam-spreading-now|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2018, the company block.one, which developed the EOS.IO blockchain, was attacked by a phishing group who sent phishing emails to all customers aimed at intercepting the user's cryptocurrency wallet key, and a later attack targeted airdrop tokens.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fortune.com/2018/05/31/cryptocurrency-eos-ico-scam/|title=Cryptocurrency Hackers Are Stealing from EOS's $4 Billion ICO Using This Sneaky Scam|work=Jen Wieczner|access-date=2018-05-31|language=en-us|archive-date=2021-03-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122517/https://fortune.com/2018/05/31/cryptocurrency-eos-ico-scam/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===2020s===
Phishing attacks have evolved in the 2020s to include elements of social engineering, as demonstrated by the July 15, 2020, [[Twitter]] breach. In this case, a 17-year-old hacker and accomplices set up a fake website resembling Twitter's internal [[VPN]] provider used by remote working employees. Posing as helpdesk staff, they called multiple Twitter employees, directing them to submit their credentials to the fake VPN website.<ref>{{cite web | title=Twitter Investigation Report - Department of Financial Services | url=https://www.dfs.ny.gov/Twitter_Report | date=2020-10-14 | access-date=2020-10-11 | website=www.dfs.ny.gov | language=en}}</ref> Using the details supplied by the unsuspecting employees, they were able to seize control of several high-profile user accounts, including those of [[Barack Obama]], [[Elon Musk]], [[Joe Biden]], and [[Apple Inc.]]'s company account. The hackers then sent messages to Twitter followers soliciting [[Bitcoin]], promising to double the transaction value in return. The hackers collected 12.86 BTC (about $117,000 at the time).<ref>{{Cite web|title=Three Individuals Charged For Alleged Roles In Twitter Hack|url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1300246/download|access-date=2022-03-23|website=justice.gov|language=en-US}}</ref> In the 2020s, phishing [[as a service]] (PhaaS) platforms like [[Darcula]] allow attackers to easily fake trusted websites.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Winder |first1=Davey |title=New Darcula iMessage Attack Targets iPhone Users In 100 Countries |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2024/03/28/surprise-new-iphone-security-warning-for-imessage-users-in-100-countries/ |access-date=5 March 2025 |work=Forbes |language=en}}</ref>

==Anti-phishing==
There are anti-phishing websites which publish exact messages that have been recently circulating the internet, such as [[FraudWatch International]] and Millersmiles. Such sites often provide specific details about the particular messages.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.millersmiles.co.uk |title=Millersmiles Home Page |access-date=January 3, 2010 |publisher=Oxford Information Services |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711194757/http://www.millersmiles.co.uk/ |archive-date=July 11, 2007 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fraudwatchinternational.com |title=FraudWatch International Home Page |access-date=January 3, 2010 |publisher=FraudWatch International |archive-date=June 16, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190616015009/https://fraudwatchinternational.com/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

As recently as 2007, the adoption of anti-phishing strategies by businesses needing to protect personal and financial information was low.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Baker |first=Emiley |author2=Wade Baker |author3=John Tedesco |title=Organizations Respond to Phishing: Exploring the Public Relations Tackle Box |journal=Communication Research Reports |year=2007 |volume=24 |issue=4 |page=327 |doi=10.1080/08824090701624239|s2cid=144245673 }}</ref> There are several different techniques to combat phishing, including legislation and technology created specifically to protect against phishing. These techniques include steps that can be taken by individuals, as well as by organizations. Phone, web site, and email phishing can now be reported to authorities, as described [[#Monitoring and takedown|below]].

=== User training ===
[[File:Phish.jpg|thumb|Frame of an animation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission intended to educate citizens about phishing tactics]]
Effective phishing education, including conceptual knowledge<ref name="ALS142">{{cite journal|last1=Arachchilage|first1=Nalin|last2=Love|first2=Steve|last3=Scott|first3=Michael|date=June 1, 2012|title=Designing a Mobile Game to Teach Conceptual Knowledge of Avoiding 'Phishing Attacks'|journal=International Journal for E-Learning Security|volume=2|issue=1|pages=127–132|doi=10.20533/ijels.2046.4568.2012.0016|doi-access=free}}</ref> and feedback,<ref>{{cite web|author1=Ponnurangam Kumaraguru|author2=Yong Woo Rhee|author3=Alessandro Acquisti|author4=Lorrie Cranor|author5=Jason Hong|author6=Elizabeth Nunge|date=November 2006|title=Protecting People from Phishing: The Design and Evaluation of an Embedded Training Email System|url=http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/files/cmucylab06017.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070130211610/http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/files/cmucylab06017.pdf|archive-date=January 30, 2007|access-date=November 14, 2006|work=Technical Report CMU-CyLab-06-017, CyLab, Carnegie Mellon University.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Perrault|first=Evan K.|date=2017-03-23|title=Using an Interactive Online Quiz to Recalibrate College Students' Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions About Phishing|journal=Journal of Educational Computing Research|language=en|volume=55|issue=8|pages=1154–1167|doi=10.1177/0735633117699232|s2cid=64269078}}</ref> is an important part of any organization's anti-phishing strategy. While there is limited data on the effectiveness of education in reducing susceptibility to phishing,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Jampen|first1=Daniel|last2=Gür|first2=Gürkan|last3=Sutter|first3=Thomas|last4=Tellenbach|first4=Bernhard|date=December 2020|title=Don't click: towards an effective anti-phishing training. A comparative literature review|journal=Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences|language=en|volume=10|issue=1|pages=33|doi=10.1186/s13673-020-00237-7|s2cid=221084452|issn=2192-1962|doi-access=free|hdl=11475/20346|hdl-access=free}}</ref> much information on the threat is available online.<ref name="Williams"/>

[[Simulated phishing]] campaigns, in which organizations test their employees' training by sending fake phishing emails, are commonly used to assess their effectiveness. One example is a study by the [[United States National Library of Medicine|National Library of Medicine]], in which an organization received 858,200 emails during a 1-month testing period, with 139,400 (16%) being marketing and 18,871 (2%) being identified as potential threats. These campaigns are often used in the healthcare industry, as healthcare data is a valuable target for hackers. These campaigns are just one of the ways that organizations are working to combat phishing.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Priestman|first1=Ward|last2=Anstis|first2=Tony|last3=Sebire|first3=Isabel G|last4=Sridharan|first4=Shankar|last5=Sebire|first5=Neil J|date=2019-09-04|title=Phishing in healthcare organisations: threats, mitigation and approaches|journal=BMJ Health & Care Informatics|volume=26|issue=1|pages=e100031|doi=10.1136/bmjhci-2019-100031|issn=2632-1009|pmc=7062337|pmid=31488498}}</ref>

Nearly all legitimate e-mail messages from companies to their customers contain an item of information that is not readily available to phishers. Some companies, for example [[PayPal]], always address their customers by their username in emails, so if an email addresses the recipient in a generic fashion ("Dear PayPal customer") it is likely to be an attempt at phishing.<ref>{{cite web|title=Protect Yourself from Fraudulent Emails|url=https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_vdc-security-spoof-outside|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110406114742/https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_vdc-security-spoof-outside|archive-date=April 6, 2011|access-date=July 7, 2006|work=PayPal}}</ref> Furthermore, PayPal offers various methods to determine spoof emails and advises users to forward suspicious emails to their spoof@PayPal.com domain to investigate and warn other customers. However it is unsafe to assume that the presence of personal information alone guarantees that a message is legitimate,<ref>{{cite news|last=Zeltser|first=Lenny|date=March 17, 2006|title=Phishing Messages May Include Highly-Personalized Information|publisher=The SANS Institute|url=http://isc.incidents.org/diary.php?storyid=1194|url-status=live|access-date=May 20, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061202232110/http://isc.incidents.org/diary.php?storyid=1194|archive-date=December 2, 2006}}</ref> and some studies have shown that the presence of personal information does not significantly affect the success rate of phishing attacks;<ref>{{cite web|author1=Markus Jakobsson|author1-link=Markus Jakobsson|author2=Jacob Ratkiewicz|name-list-style=amp|title=Designing Ethical Phishing Experiments|url=http://www2006.org/programme/item.php?id=3533|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130113163808/http://www2006.org/programme/item.php?id=3533|archive-date=January 13, 2013|access-date=August 20, 2007|work=WWW '06|df=mdy}}</ref> which suggests that most people do not pay attention to such details.

Emails from banks and credit card companies often include partial account numbers, but research has shown that people tend to not differentiate between the first and last digits.<ref>{{cite web|author1=Markus Jakobsson|author1-link=Markus Jakobsson|author2=Alex Tsow|author3=Ankur Shah|author4=Eli Blevis|author5=Youn-kyung Lim|title=What Instills Trust? A Qualitative Study of Phishing|url=http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/markus/papers/trust_USEC.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070306171850/http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/markus/papers/trust_USEC.pdf|archive-date=March 6, 2007|website=informatics.indiana.edu}}</ref>

A study on phishing attacks in game environments found that [[educational game]]s can effectively educate players against information disclosures and can increase awareness on phishing risk thus mitigating risks.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Fatima |first1=Rubia |last2=Yasin |first2=Affan |last3=Liu |first3=Lin |last4=Wang |first4=Jianmin |date=2019-10-11 |title=How persuasive is a phishing email? A phishing game for phishing awareness |url=https://www.medra.org/servlet/aliasResolver?alias=iospress&doi=10.3233/JCS-181253 |journal=Journal of Computer Security |volume=27 |issue=6 |pages=581–612 |doi=10.3233/JCS-181253|s2cid=204538981 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

The [[Anti-Phishing Working Group]], one of the largest anti-phishing organizations in the world, produces regular report on trends in phishing attacks.<ref>{{cite web|title=APWG Phishing Attack Trends Reports|url=https://www.antiphishing.org/resources/apwg-reports/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122513/https://www.antiphishing.org/trendsreports/|archive-date=21 March 2021|access-date=12 September 2018|website=APWG}}</ref>

===Technical approaches===
A wide range of technical approaches are available to prevent phishing attacks reaching users or to prevent them from successfully capturing sensitive information.

====Filtering out phishing mail====
Specialized [[Email filtering|spam filters]] can reduce the number of phishing emails that reach their addressees' inboxes. These filters use a number of techniques including [[machine learning]]<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Applied Soft Computing |title=Obtaining the Threat Model for E-mail Phishing |first1=Cleber K.|last1=Olivo |first2=Altair O.|last2=Santin |first3=Luiz S.|last3=Oliveira |date=July 2011 |doi=10.1016/j.asoc.2011.06.016 |volume=13 |issue=12 |pages=4841–4848}}</ref> and [[natural language processing]] approaches to classify phishing emails,<ref>{{cite web |work=NYS Cyber Security Symposium |title=Phishing E-mail Detection Based on Structural Properties |author1=Madhusudhanan Chandrasekaran |author2=Krishnan Narayanan |author3=Shambhu Upadhyaya |date=March 2006 |url=http://www.albany.edu/iasymposium/2006/chandrasekaran.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216101637/http://www.albany.edu/iasymposium/2006/chandrasekaran.pdf |archive-date=February 16, 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |work=Carnegie Mellon University Technical Report CMU-ISRI-06-112 |title=Learning to Detect Phishing Emails |author1=Ian Fette |author2=Norman Sadeh |author3=Anthony Tomasic |date=June 2006 |url=http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isri2006/CMU-ISRI-06-112.pdf |access-date=2006-11-30 |archive-date=2018-06-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180619230609/http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/isri2006/CMU-ISRI-06-112.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> and reject email with forged addresses.<ref name=DMARC>{{cite web |title=Landing another blow against email phishing (Google Online Security Blog) |url=http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.jp/2012/01/landing-another-blow-against-email.html |access-date=June 21, 2012 |archive-date=June 6, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606063119/http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.jp/2012/01/landing-another-blow-against-email.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Browsers alerting users to fraudulent websites====
[[File:Firefox 2.0.0.1 Phising Alert.png|thumb|Screenshot of Firefox 2.0.0.1 Phishing suspicious site warning]]
Another popular approach to fighting phishing is to maintain a list of known phishing sites and to check websites against the list. One such service is the [[Google Safe Browsing|Safe Browsing]] service.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.google.com/safebrowsing/static/faq.html|title=Google Safe Browsing|access-date=2017-11-30|archive-date=2017-09-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170901031928/http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/static/faq.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Web browsers such as [[Google Chrome]], [[Internet Explorer]] 7, [[Mozilla Firefox]] 2.0, [[Safari (web browser)|Safari]] 3.2, and [[Opera (web browser)|Opera]] all contain this type of anti-phishing measure.<ref name="Google">{{cite web|url=http://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.jp/2012/06/safe-browsing-protecting-web-users-for.html|title=Safe Browsing (Google Online Security Blog)|access-date=June 21, 2012|archive-date=March 5, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305144600/https://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.jp/2012/06/safe-browsing-protecting-web-users-for.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Franco, Rob |title=Better Website Identification and Extended Validation Certificates in IE7 and Other Browsers |work=IEBlog |date=21 November 2005 |url=https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/ie/better-website-identification-and-extended-validation-certificates-in-ie7-and-other-browsers |access-date=Feb 10, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100125235945/http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/11/21/495507.aspx |archive-date=January 25, 2010 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Bon Echo Anti-Phishing |work=Mozilla |url=https://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/anti-phishing/ |access-date=June 2, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060924074349/http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho/anti-phishing/ |archive-date=September 24, 2006 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Safari 3.2 finally gains phishing protection |date=November 13, 2008 |access-date=November 15, 2008 |work=Ars Technica |url=https://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/11/13/safari-3-2-finally-gains-phishing-protection |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090209070213/http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/11/13/safari-3-2-finally-gains-phishing-protection |archive-date=February 9, 2009 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.3sharp.com/projects/antiphish/index.htm |archive-url=https://archive.today/20080114211315/http://www.3sharp.com/projects/antiphish/index.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 14, 2008 |title=Gone Phishing: Evaluating Anti-Phishing Tools for Windows |date=September 27, 2006 |access-date=October 20, 2006 |publisher=3Sharp}}</ref> [[Firefox 2]] used [[Google]] anti-phishing software. Opera 9.1 uses live [[Blacklist (computing)|blacklists]] from [[Phishtank]], [[cyscon]] and [[GeoTrust]], as well as live [[whitelist]]s from GeoTrust. Some implementations of this approach send the visited URLs to a central service to be checked, which has raised concerns about [[privacy]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Two Things That Bother Me About Google's New Firefox Extension |work=Nitesh Dhanjani on O'Reilly ONLamp |url=http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/12/two_things_that_bother_me_abou.html |access-date=July 1, 2007 |archive-date=July 22, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140722074439/http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2005/12/two_things_that_bother_me_abou.html |url-status=live }}</ref> According to a report by Mozilla in late 2006, Firefox 2 was found to be more effective than [[Internet Explorer 7]] at detecting fraudulent sites in a study by an independent software testing company.<ref>{{cite web|title=Firefox 2 Phishing Protection Effectiveness Testing |url=https://www.mozilla.org/security/phishing-test.html |access-date=January 23, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110123135138/http://www.mozilla.org/security/phishing-test.html |archive-date=January 23, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref>

An approach introduced in mid-2006 involves switching to a special DNS service that filters out known phishing domains.<ref>
{{cite web|author=Higgins, Kelly Jackson |title=DNS Gets Anti-Phishing Hook |work=Dark Reading |url=http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=99089&WT.svl=news1_1 |access-date=October 8, 2006 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20110818173019/http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=99089&WT.svl=news1_1 |archive-date=August 18, 2011 |url-status=live }}</ref>

To mitigate the problem of phishing sites impersonating a victim site by embedding its images (such as [[logo]]s), several site owners have altered the images to send a message to the visitor that a site may be fraudulent. The image may be moved to a new filename and the original permanently replaced, or a server can detect that the image was not requested as part of normal browsing, and instead send a warning image.<ref>{{cite news |last=Krebs |first=Brian |url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/using_images_to_fight_phishing.html |title=Using Images to Fight Phishing |date=August 31, 2006 |publisher=Security Fix |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061116184842/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/using_images_to_fight_phishing.html |archive-date=November 16, 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Seltzer |first=Larry |url=http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1630161,00.asp |title=Spotting Phish and Phighting Back |date=August 2, 2004 |publisher=eWeek |access-date=December 14, 2006 |archive-date=July 5, 2019 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20190705083348/https://www.eweek.com/mobile/hp%2Dtouchpad%2Dneeds%2D6%2Dto%2D8%2Dweeks%2Dfor%2Dadditional%2Dshipments |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Augmenting password logins====
The [[Bank of America]] website<ref>{{cite web|author=Bank of America |title=How Bank of America SiteKey Works For Online Banking Security |url=http://www.bankofamerica.com/ |access-date=January 23, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090620014808/http://www.bankofamerica.com/privacy/sitekey/ |archive-date=June 20, 2009 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302181.html |last=Brubaker |first=Bill |title=Bank of America Personalizes Cyber-Security |date=July 14, 2005 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=September 8, 2017 |archive-date=June 8, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190608223403/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302181.html |url-status=live }}</ref> was one of several that asked users to select a personal image (marketed as [[SiteKey]]) and displayed this user-selected image with any forms that request a password. Users of the bank's online services were instructed to enter a password only when they saw the image they selected. The bank has since discontinued the use of SiteKey. Several studies suggest that few users refrain from entering their passwords when images are absent.<ref>{{cite news |last=Stone |first=Brad |title=Study Finds Web Antifraud Measure Ineffective |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/technology/05secure.html?ex=1328331600&en=295ec5d0994b0755&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss |work=The New York Times |access-date=February 5, 2007 |date=February 5, 2007 |archive-date=June 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190611001932/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/technology/05secure.html?ex=1328331600&en=295ec5d0994b0755&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>
 {{cite web |author1=Stuart Schechter |author2=Rachna Dhamija |author3=Andy Ozment |author4=Ian Fischer |title=The Emperor's New Security Indicators: An evaluation of website authentication and the effect of role playing on usability studies |url=http://www.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/emperor-security-indicators-bank-sitekey-phishing-study.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080720092117/http://www.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/emperor-security-indicators-bank-sitekey-phishing-study.pdf |archive-date=July 20, 2008 |work=IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2007 |access-date=February 5, 2007 |date=May 2007 }}</ref> In addition, this feature (like other forms of [[two-factor authentication]]) is susceptible to other attacks, such as those suffered by Scandinavian bank [[Nordea]] in late 2005,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=14384 |title=Phishers target Nordea's one-time password system |date=October 12, 2005 |publisher=Finextra |access-date=December 20, 2005 |archive-date=December 18, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051218200921/http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=14384 |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Citibank]] in 2006.<ref>{{cite news |last=Krebs |first=Brian |url=http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/07/citibank_phish_spoofs_2factor_1.html |title=Citibank Phish Spoofs 2-Factor Authentication |date=July 10, 2006 |publisher=Security Fix |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061110132337/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/07/citibank_phish_spoofs_2factor_1.html |archive-date=November 10, 2006 }}</ref>

A similar system, in which an automatically generated "Identity Cue" consisting of a colored word within a colored box is displayed to each website user, is in use at other financial institutions.<ref>{{cite web |author=Graham Titterington |title=More doom on phishing |url=http://www.ovum.com/news/euronews.asp?id=4166 |work=Ovum Research, April 2006 |access-date=2009-04-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080410072744/http://www.ovum.com/news/euronews.asp?id=4166 |archive-date=2008-04-10 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Security skins<ref>
{{cite web |author=Schneier, Bruce |title=Security Skins |work=Schneier on Security |date=July 2005 |url=http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/security_skins.html |access-date=December 3, 2006}}</ref><ref>
 {{cite web |author1=Rachna Dhamija |author2=J.D. Tygar |title=The Battle Against Phishing: Dynamic Security Skins |url=http://people.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/securityskins.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070629113158/http://people.deas.harvard.edu/~rachna/papers/securityskins.pdf |archive-date=June 29, 2007 |work=Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS) 2005 |access-date=February 5, 2007 |date=July 2005 }}</ref> are a related technique that involves overlaying a user-selected image onto the login form as a visual cue that the form is legitimate. Unlike the website-based image schemes, however, the image itself is shared only between the user and the browser, and not between the user and the website. The scheme also relies on a [[mutual authentication]] protocol, which makes it less vulnerable to attacks that affect user-only authentication schemes.

Still another technique relies on a dynamic grid of images that is different for each login attempt. The user must identify the pictures that fit their pre-chosen categories (such as dogs, cars and flowers). Only after they have correctly identified the pictures that fit their categories are they allowed to enter their alphanumeric password to complete the login. Unlike the static images used on the Bank of America website, a dynamic image-based authentication method creates a one-time passcode for the login, requires active participation from the user, and is very difficult for a phishing website to correctly replicate because it would need to display a different grid of randomly generated images that includes the user's secret categories.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.confidenttechnologies.com/products/anti-phishing |title=Dynamic, Mutual Authentication Technology for Anti-Phishing |publisher=Confidenttechnologies.com |access-date=September 9, 2012 }}</ref>

====Monitoring and takedown====
Several companies offer banks and other organizations likely to suffer from phishing scams round-the-clock services to monitor, analyze and assist in shutting down phishing websites.<ref>{{cite web |title=Anti-Phishing Working Group: Vendor Solutions |work=Anti-Phishing Working Group |url=http://www.antiphishing.org/solutions.html#takedown |access-date=July 6, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110121091533/http://www.antiphishing.org/solutions.html#takedown |archive-date=January 21, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref> Automated detection of phishing content is still below accepted levels for direct action, with content-based analysis reaching between 80% and 90% of success<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Xiang|first1=Guang|last2=Hong|first2=Jason|last3=Rose|first3=Carolyn P.|last4=Cranor|first4=Lorrie|date=2011-09-01|title=CANTINA+: A Feature-Rich Machine Learning Framework for Detecting Phishing Web Sites|url=https://doi.org/10.1145/2019599.2019606|journal=ACM Transactions on Information and System Security|volume=14|issue=2|pages=21:1–21:28|doi=10.1145/2019599.2019606|s2cid=6246617|issn=1094-9224|access-date=2020-11-25|archive-date=2021-03-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122538/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2019599.2019606|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref> so most of the tools include manual steps to certify the detection and authorize the response.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Leite|first1=Cristoffer|last2=Gondim|first2=Joao J. C.|last3=Barreto|first3=Priscila Solis|last4=Alchieri|first4=Eduardo A.|title=2019 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA) |chapter=Waste Flooding: A Phishing Retaliation Tool |date=2019|chapter-url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8935018|location=Cambridge, MA, USA|publisher=IEEE|pages=1–8|doi=10.1109/NCA.2019.8935018|isbn=978-1-7281-2522-0|s2cid=209457656|access-date=2020-11-25|archive-date=2021-03-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321122535/https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8935018|url-status=live}}</ref> Individuals can contribute by reporting phishing to both volunteer and industry groups,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1075406575;fp;2;fpid;1. |last=McMillan |first=Robert |title=New sites let users find and report phishing |date=March 28, 2006 |publisher=LinuxWorld |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090119153501/http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1075406575;fp;2;fpid;1. |archive-date=January 19, 2009 }}</ref> such as [[cyscon]] or [[PhishTank]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/10/phishtank.html |title=PhishTank |access-date=December 7, 2007 |last=Schneier |first=Bruce |author-link=Bruce Schneier |date=October 5, 2006 |work=Schneier on Security |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110109095346/http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/10/phishtank.html |archive-date=January 9, 2011 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref> Phishing web pages and emails can be reported to Google.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/?hl=en|title=Report a Phishing Page|access-date=2019-09-13|archive-date=2016-10-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161019083146/https://www.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>[http://consumerscams.org/scam_safety_tips/how_to_report_phishing_scam How to report phishing scams to Google] {{webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20130414135047/http://consumerscams.org/scam_safety_tips/how_to_report_phishing_scam |date=2013-04-14 }} Consumer Scams.org</ref>

====Multi-factor authentication====
Organizations can implement two factor or [[multi-factor authentication]] (MFA), which requires a user to use at least 2 factors when logging in. (For example, a user must both present a [[smart card]] and a [[password]]). This mitigates some risk, in the event of a successful phishing attack, the stolen password on its own cannot be reused to further breach the protected system. However, there are several attack methods which can defeat many of the typical systems.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kan |first1=Michael |title=Google: Phishing Attacks That Can Beat Two-Factor Are on the Rise |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/367026/google-phishing-attacks-that-can-beat-two-factor-are-on-the |access-date=9 September 2019 |work=PC Magazine |date=7 March 2019 |archive-date=8 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308035745/https://www.pcmag.com/news/367026/google-phishing-attacks-that-can-beat-two-factor-are-on-the |url-status=live }}</ref> MFA schemes such as [[WebAuthn]] address this issue by design.

===Legal responses===
[[File:Scam Watch 1280x720.ogg|thumb|right|Video instruction by the US [[Federal Trade Commission]] on how to file a complaint with the [[Federal Trade Commission]]]]

On January 26, 2004, the U.S. [[Federal Trade Commission]] filed the first lawsuit against a [[California]]n teenager suspected of phishing by creating a webpage mimicking [[America Online]] and stealing credit card information.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Legon |first=Jeordan |date=January 26, 2004 |title=Phishing scams reel in your identity |url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/21/phishing.scam/index.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181106140456/http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/21/phishing.scam/index.html |archive-date=November 6, 2018 |access-date=April 8, 2006 |publisher=CNN}}</ref> Other countries have followed this lead by tracing and arresting phishers. A phishing kingpin, Valdir Paulo de Almeida, was arrested in [[Brazil]] for leading one of the largest phishing [[criminal organization|crime rings]], which in two years stole between {{US$|18 million}} and {{US$|37 million}}.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/03/21/brazil_phishing_arrest/ |last=Leyden |first=John |title=Brazilian cops net 'phishing kingpin' |date=March 21, 2005 |work=The Register |access-date=August 19, 2005 |archive-date=April 17, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160417102034/http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/03/21/brazil_phishing_arrest/ |url-status=live }}</ref> UK authorities jailed two men in June 2005 for their role in a phishing scam,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.eweek.com/article2/0%2C1895%2C1831960%2C00.asp |last=Roberts |first=Paul |title=UK Phishers Caught, Packed Away |date=June 27, 2005 |publisher=eWEEK |access-date=September 3, 2005 |archive-date=July 5, 2019 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20190705083348/https://www.eweek.com/mobile/hp%2Dtouchpad%2Dneeds%2D6%2Dto%2D8%2Dweeks%2Dfor%2Dadditional%2Dshipments |url-status=live }}</ref> in a case connected to the [[United States Secret Service|U.S. Secret Service]] Operation Firewall, which targeted notorious "carder" websites.<ref>{{cite web |title=Nineteen Individuals Indicted in Internet 'Carding' Conspiracy |publisher=justice.gov |url=https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/October/04_crm_726.htm |access-date=October 13, 2015 |archive-date=March 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322141547/https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/October/04_crm_726.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2006, Japanese police arrested eight people for creating fake Yahoo Japan websites, netting themselves {{JPY|100 million}} ({{US$|870,000}})<ref>{{cite news |title=8 held over suspected phishing fraud |date=May 31, 2006 |work=Yomiuri Shimbun}}</ref> and the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] detained a gang of sixteen in the U.S. and Europe in Operation Cardkeeper.<ref>{{cite web |title=Phishing gang arrested in USA and Eastern Europe after FBI investigation |url=http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/11/phishing-arrests.html |access-date=December 14, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110406103408/http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/11/phishing-arrests.html |archive-date=April 6, 2011 |url-status=dead |df=mdy }}</ref>

Senator [[Patrick Leahy]] introduced the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 to [[United States Congress|Congress]] in the [[United States]] on March 1, 2005. This [[Bill (proposed law)|bill]] aimed to impose fines of up to $250,000 and prison sentences of up to five years on criminals who used fake websites and emails to defraud consumers.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60404811 |title=Phishers Would Face 5 Years Under New Bill |date=March 2, 2005 |work=InformationWeek |access-date=March 4, 2005 |archive-date=February 19, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080219014610/http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=60404811 |url-status=live }}</ref> In the UK, the [[Fraud Act 2006]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Fraud Act 2006 |url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/en2006/2006en35.htm |access-date=December 14, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071027090223/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2006/2006en35.htm |archive-date=October 27, 2007 |url-status=live |df=mdy }}</ref> introduced a general offense of fraud punishable by up to ten years in prison and prohibited the development or possession of phishing kits with the intention of committing fraud.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/14/fraud_act_outlaws_phishing/ |title=Prison terms for phishing fraudsters |date=November 14, 2006 |work=The Register |access-date=August 10, 2017 |archive-date=June 21, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190621030934/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/14/fraud_act_outlaws_phishing/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Companies have also joined the effort to crack down on phishing. On March 31, 2005, [[Microsoft]] filed 117 federal lawsuits in the [[United States District Court for the Western District of Washington|U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington]]. The lawsuits accuse "[[John Doe]]" defendants of obtaining passwords and confidential information. March 2005 also saw a partnership between Microsoft and the [[Government of Australia|Australian government]] teaching law enforcement officials how to combat various cyber crimes, including phishing.<ref>{{cite web |title=Microsoft Partners with Australian Law Enforcement Agencies to Combat Cyber Crime |website=[[Microsoft]] |url=http://www.microsoft.com/australia/presspass/news/pressreleases/cybercrime_31_3_05.aspx |access-date=August 24, 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051103190357/http://www.microsoft.com/australia/presspass/news/pressreleases/cybercrime_31_3_05.aspx |archive-date=November 3, 2005}}</ref> Microsoft announced a planned further 100 lawsuits outside the U.S. in March 2006,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39258528,00.htm |last=Espiner |first=Tom |title=Microsoft launches legal assault on phishers |date=March 20, 2006 |publisher=ZDNet |access-date=May 20, 2006 |archive-date=August 29, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080829220010/http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39258528,00.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref> followed by the commencement, as of November 2006, of 129 lawsuits mixing criminal and civil actions.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/23/ms_anti-phishing_campaign_update/ |last=Leyden |first=John |title=MS reels in a few stray phish |date=November 23, 2006 |work=The Register |access-date=August 10, 2017 |archive-date=June 10, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190610090011/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/23/ms_anti-phishing_campaign_update/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[AOL]] reinforced its efforts against phishing<ref>{{cite web |title=A History of Leadership – 2006 |url=http://corp.aol.com/whoweare/history/2006.shtml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070522231137/http://www.corp.aol.com/whoweare/history/2006.shtml |archive-date=May 22, 2007}}</ref> in early 2006 with three lawsuits<ref>{{cite web |title=AOL Takes Fight Against Identity Theft To Court, Files Lawsuits Against Three Major Phishing Gangs |url=http://media.aoltimewarner.com/media/newmedia/cb_press_view.cfm?release_num=55254535 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070131204118/http://media.aoltimewarner.com/media/newmedia/cb_press_view.cfm?release_num=55254535 |archive-date=January 31, 2007 |access-date=March 8, 2006}}</ref> seeking a total of {{US$|18 million}} under the 2005 amendments to the Virginia Computer Crimes Act,<ref>{{cite web |title=HB 2471 Computer Crimes Act; changes in provisions, penalty. |url=http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB2471 |access-date=March 8, 2006 |archive-date=March 22, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210322061909/http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB2471 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40578-2005Apr9.html |last=Brulliard |first=Karin |title=Va. Lawmakers Aim to Hook Cyberscammers |date=April 10, 2005 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=September 8, 2017 |archive-date=June 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190611044615/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40578-2005Apr9.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[Earthlink]] has joined in by helping to identify six men subsequently charged with phishing fraud in [[Connecticut]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Earthlink evidence helps slam the door on phisher site spam ring |url=http://www.earthlink.net/about/press/pr_phishersite/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070705211932/http://www.earthlink.net/about/press/pr_phishersite/ |archive-date=July 5, 2007 |access-date=December 14, 2006}}</ref>

In January 2007, Jeffrey Brett Goodin of California became the first defendant convicted by a jury under the provisions of the [[CAN-SPAM Act of 2003]]. He was found guilty of sending thousands of emails to [[AOL]] users, while posing as the company's billing department, which prompted customers to submit personal and credit card information. Facing a possible 101 years in prison for the CAN-SPAM violation and ten other counts including [[wire fraud]], the unauthorized use of credit cards, and the misuse of AOL's trademark, he was sentenced to serve 70 months. Goodin had been in custody since failing to appear for an earlier court hearing and began serving his prison term immediately.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2085183,00.asp |last=Prince |first=Brian |title=Man Found Guilty of Targeting AOL Customers in Phishing Scam |date=January 18, 2007 |work=PC Magazine |access-date=September 8, 2017 |archive-date=March 21, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090321200725/http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2085183,00.asp |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/17/aol_phishing_fraudster/ |last=Leyden |first=John |title=AOL phishing fraudster found guilty |date=January 17, 2007 |work=The Register |access-date=August 10, 2017 |archive-date=March 22, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322143557/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/17/aol_phishing_fraudster/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/13/aol_fraudster_jailed/ |last=Leyden |first=John |title=AOL phisher nets six years' imprisonment |date=June 13, 2007 |work=The Register |access-date=August 10, 2017 |archive-date=June 11, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190611165732/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/13/aol_fraudster_jailed/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199903450 |last=Gaudin |first=Sharon |title=California Man Gets 6-Year Sentence For Phishing |date=June 12, 2007 |work=InformationWeek |access-date=July 1, 2007 |archive-date=October 11, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011103307/http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199903450 |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Notable incidents ==
* [[2016–2021 literary phishing thefts]]

==See also==
{{Portal|Law}}
{{div col}}<!---♦♦♦ Please keep the list in alphabetical order ♦♦♦--->
* {{annotated link|Anti-phishing software}}
* {{annotated link|Brandjacking}}
* [[Clickjacking]]
* {{annotated link|In-session phishing}}
* {{annotated link|Internet fraud}}
* [[Trojan Horse (computing)|Trojan Horse]]
* {{annotated link|Typosquatting}}
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
{{commons category}}
* [https://apwg.org/ Anti-Phishing Working Group]
* [http://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/cimip/ Center for Identity Management and Information Protection] – [[Utica College]]
* [http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2005dltr0006.html Plugging the "phishing" hole: legislation versus technology] ({{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051228230612/http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2005dltr0006.html |date=2005-12-28 }}) – ''[[Duke University School of Law|Duke Law & Technology Review]]''
* [https://www.strategicrevenue.com/this-amex-phishing-scam-wants-you-homeless-poor-with-zero-fico-score/ Example of a Phishing Attempt with Screenshots and Explanations] – StrategicRevenue.com
* [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/PhishingAsTragedy.pdf A Profitless Endeavor: Phishing as Tragedy of the Commons] – Microsoft Corporation
* [https://www.phishtank.com/ Database for information on phishing sites reported by the public] – [[PhishTank]]
* [https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/takedown.pdf The Impact of Incentives on Notice and Take-down] − Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge (PDF, 344&nbsp;kB)

{{Information security}}
{{Spamming}}
{{Scams and confidence tricks}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Confidence tricks]]
[[Category:Cybercrime]]
[[Category:Deception]]
[[Category:Fraud]]
[[Category:Identity theft]]
[[Category:Internet terminology]]
[[Category:Organized crime activity]]
[[Category:Social engineering (security)]]
[[Category:Spamming]]
[[Category:Types of cyberattacks]]