Quote:
Originally Posted by HamsterWheel
I'm certain that Webwise will warn of both http and https phishing sites. I have asked them to confirm this though.
Remember Phorm are a sponsoring member of the AWG http://www.antiphishing.org/sponsors.html and would not be daft enough to offer something that did not cope with a large proportion of phishing attacks.
Also remember that their anti-phishing will not need you to download updates of known sites like most of the norton's etc do, so will be much more up-to-date. So a much better, and free offering than that currently available.
You see - Phorm is simply the best :-) |
How often will Phorm's database of phishing sites be updated?
The answer is - you don't know becasue Phorm have not released that information. Like everything else you've scrawled on this forum, your "information" is baseless.
As I've said before Norton et al produce the data for the phishing lists. Phorm will only ever get a list that is, at best, days out of date.
Incidently, Phorm are listed as an APWG Sponsoring Vendor Member. It costs them $7500 and for that they get "..."
a series of marketing/sponsorship benefits, including being listed as sponsoring vendors on the Anti-Phishing Working Group public website". Other SVMs include Facebook but no ISPs from outside of the USA, no banks or other financial organisations, no national communications companies, no government departments form anywhere in the world - hardly a sign that APWG is a genuine and recognised coalition. In fact it is just another one of those worthy sounding trade organisations and it's entire membership consists of a handful of American companies who sell ati-phishing "solutions".
There is nothing about Phorm's SVM status with this organisation that says anything about Phorm's ability to offer any sort of product nor does it give any indication of quality.
And whoever said that Phorm aren't daft - another unfounded assumption on your part. Everything we've seen so far shows an amazing lack of foresight and business sense as well as an astonishing ability to totally misjudge their target market - hardly a sign of intelligence in the business world. Add to that thei gross negligence in failing to get the ISPs to actually sign a contract before going public with this scheme and anyone who has ever been in business would tell you that "daft" is not a strong enough word for this company.