REVIEW 2 cited by
Early Phishing
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The history of phishing traces back in important ways to the mid-1990s when hacking software facilitated the mass targeting of people in password stealing scams on America Online (AOL). The first of these software programs was mine, called AOHell, and it was where the word phishing was coined. The software provided an automated password and credit card-stealing mechanism starting in January 1995. Though the practice of tricking users in order to steal passwords or information possibly goes back to the earliest days of computer networking, AOHell's phishing system was the first automated tool made publicly available for this purpose. The program influenced the creation of many other automated phishing systems that were made over a number of years. These tools were available to amateurs who used them to engage in a countless number of phishing attacks. By the later part of the decade, the activity moved from AOL to other networks and eventually grew to involve professional criminals on the internet. What began as a scheme by rebellious teenagers to steal passwords evolved into one of the top computer security threats affecting people, corporations, and governments.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
LLM-Powered Intent-Based Categorization of Phishing Emails
On a curated 100-email test set, three of four evaluated LLMs detected phishing intent from email text with 88 to 97 percent accuracy and categorized attacks into link, attachment, or service types.
-
AI-Powered Spearphishing Cyber Attacks: Fact or Fiction?
In a 44-person test, 66% of audio and 43% of video answers about AI-generated clips were wrong, but those rates include errors on genuine clips and are not clean measures of missed fakes.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.