Alt text: Michael Scott Handshake meme. Managers text: “My company Congratulating me on avoiding a phishing test email”. Michael Scott text: “Me, terminally behind on answering email.”

  • @[email protected]
    3•10 months ago

    They don’t tell us they are testing, it’s done at random. Reporting is policy, it needs to be done with every phishing mail that gets past the filters. It’s one of the big ways a company is vulnerable, an employee clicks on a link in a mail, opens something they shouldn’t and before you know it there’s been a databreach. I don’t think they are especially worried about the employee leaking his personal info, they are worried about targeted attacks and corporate espionage.

    I’m sure there are a lot of false positives. Even though I work in a technical company, we have plenty of people who aren’t as handy with tech. People get training regularly and if one person reports a lot of useless I’m sure they will train that person extra. I think for a lot of people except maybe sales something like 80% of all mail is internal. And the other part is probably 50% repeating automated mails. So the number of mails that could even be phishing are limited. It’s a mid sized company with about 1000 employees.

    • @[email protected]English
      1•10 months ago

      I see the benefit of reporting to catch false negatives of the filters, but in reality, if I received more than one report in a week or two, id consider a new system for scanning. A 20% false negative rate is pretty bad. Most emails should be easily identified, and I think it’s unreasonable for end users to check if the sender domain name is newly registered, has utf-8 characters which look like ASCII characters, etc. The metric for success shouldn’t be a high number of end users reporting phishing emails, but that seems to be what upper management wants to see, which just incentives less resources invested in better scanners with less than a 20% false negative rate.

      • Promethiel
        2•10 months ago

        The metric for success shouldn’t be a high number of end users reporting phishing emails, but that seems to be what upper management wants to see, which just incentives less resources invested in better scanners with less than a 20% false negative rate.

        The eternal battle between the “oh we go by data backed metrics, much measured, I feel this is the best” executive suite and the poor saps beneath twirling the data backed signs going ignored until money or disaster strikes.

        Pity businesses aren’t formed from the bottom up; it’s like an octopus deciding not to listen to its arm brains until the shark has a bite of its head.