- wellsfargo.zip
- bankinfo.zip
- irs.zip
- email.zip
- taxreturns.zip
Which — in one sense it's great that there's some new domain names. On the other hand these 5 alone would be a total phishing nightmare for some unsuspecting people.
Such names appear to be much more plausible attack vectors because they will trap people trying to open files. If I found a cheap common one I was going to buy it just to see what kind of traffic it got, but everything interesting was a few hundred dollars and up.
that makes sense and is pretty good because otherwise people could very easily have bought out every decent domain.
For example, i have nabbed modpack.zip, ultimately however i dont see many scenarios where someone would make money from someone's technical inexperience being manipulated with this simple domain. But i feel slightly driven to keep it from the wrong hands. Plus that domain is really easy to remember which is great.
If you expect a host name and you end up clicking a file instead, that seems dangerous.
But in this case, you expect to open a file and you visit a website instead? That sounds simply annoying…
Maybe this is for browsers to deal with - if there is a collision between TLD and (file extension on this system) throw up a warning?
Do you think computer users always think that's the case? I tend to come down on the side of "no, probably not" but open to other arguments.
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/...
(Apologies to the good folk of Cameroon.)
Really trying to understand this, I hope I don't come across as snarky or naïve.
I imagine the "conversion rate" of a .net TLD will be much lower for spammers than that of a .zip
I dunno that doesn't sound much worse than wellsfargo.info to me.
This is especially problematic as the 'https://' hiding also happens in the URL preview when you hover over a link (Edit: seems to happen only for longer URLs).
As many other people have said, does anyone confuse C:\command.com and http://command.com? I doubt it.
Looks like it will take you to a zip file, but won't. hovering over the link looks legit enough. I just don't think it buys you that much. /shrug
You get a pretty different result if it's just "http" and not "https" though: The zip domain looks like just the file name instead of a URL.
I could see that getting under a few people's radars, but it's not much more menacing than existing fishing tricks with lookalike urls.
We are slowly chipping away at defense in depth all in the name of convenience.
.zip on the other hand is used more frequently across multiple operating systems.