<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Defending The Kingdom &#187; identity theft</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/category/identiy-theft/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com</link>
	<description>Security and Privacy in Your Digital Life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:59:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The web&#8217;s most dangerous search terms</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-webs-most-dangerous-search-terms</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-webs-most-dangerous-search-terms#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[browsers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Curious about the web&#8217;s most dangerous search terms? The categories with the worst maximum risk profile were lyrics keywords (26.3%) and phrases that include the word “free” (21.3%). If a consumer landed at the riskiest search page for a typical lyrics search, one of four results would be risky. What makes a webpage dangerous? Risky [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Curious about the <a href="http://us.mcafee.com/en-us/local/docs/most_dangerous_searchterm_us.pdf">web&#8217;s most dangerous search terms</a>? </p>
<blockquote><p>The categories with the worst maximum risk profile were lyrics keywords (26.3%) and phrases that include the word “free” (21.3%). If a consumer landed at the riskiest search page for a typical lyrics search, one of four results would be risky.
</p></blockquote>
<p>What makes a webpage dangerous?</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>Risky downloads—Downloadable files that contain viruses, spyware, or adware or make unrelated<br />
changes to the downloading computer</li>
<li>Browser exploits—Also known as a driveby download, this type of malicious code enables viruses,<br />
keystroke loggers, or spyware to install on a consumer’s computer without consent and/or knowledge</li>
<li>Email practices—Registration forms and other sign-ups that result in high volume email, highly<br />
commercial email or both. We also test for difficultly unsubscribing.</li>
<li>Phishing—Scam sites that try to trick visitors into believing the site is legitimate</li>
<li>Excessive popups—Sites that engage in aggressive popup behavior or display large numbers<br />
of popups</li>
<li>Linking practices—Sites that aggressively link to other red- or yellow-rated sites</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>The report, by McAfee, mentions that hacking for profit has overtaken hacking for fame. I suspect that is why we no longer worry about viruses that will wipe our hard drives clean &#8212; the tactic is attention-getting, but is unlikely to be profitable to anybody. Today, viruses that collect information about our computing habits and personal lives are the primary threats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-webs-most-dangerous-search-terms/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Phishing: Expected Costs</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/phishing-expected-costs</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/phishing-expected-costs#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 03:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[economics of security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phishing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/phishing-expected-costs</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the previous post, I calculated the cost, in statistical terms, of identity theft for the typical person. But identity theft is not the only danger &#8211; what about the risks of phishing? Consumer Reports, in their 2008 State of The Net report, claims that the likelihood of getting phished this year is 1 in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/identity-theft-expected-costs">previous post</a>, I calculated the cost, in statistical terms, of identity theft for the typical person. But identity theft is not the only danger &#8211; what about the risks of phishing?</p>
<p>Consumer Reports, in their 2008 State of The Net report, claims that the likelihood of getting phished this year is 1 in 94, or just over 1%. The total amount lost to phishers nation-wide is estimated to be $2 billion.</p>
<h3>Worry or Keep Cool?</h3>
<p>If 1 in 94 American adults lost money to phishers, it means that $2 billion in costs were distributed amongst 2.4 million victims. From that statistic, we can figure that the average cost per person was about $835. If your chances of getting phished are 1 in 94, you can expect to lose (in statistical terms) $9 per year to phishers.</p>
<p>Now, knowing that you are likely to lose $9 per year in statistical terms is a bit of strange concept. In any given year, you will either lose a large sum like $835 or nothing at all. It might be easier to think of the $9 per year as something each person should be willing to spend to avoid the consequences of phishing.</p>
<p>For example, everyone in the country could contribute $9 per year into a phishing fund and distribute the money to the victims of phishing. Those who contribute but don&#8217;t fall victim to phishing get peace of mind out of the deal. The victims get compensated for what they lose. Everyone wins as long as peace of mind doesn&#8217;t cost more than $9 per year. Beyond that, it&#8217;s best to take your chances!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/phishing-expected-costs/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Identity Theft: Expected Costs</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/identity-theft-expected-costs</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/identity-theft-expected-costs#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:02:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[economics of security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity theft]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/identity-theft-expected-costs</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A friend recently told me about LifeLock, a company that, for a fee, says it will protect you against identity theft. It does this by persistently renewing fraud alerts with the credit bureaus (which means, according to the FTC, that &#8220;potential creditors must use what the law calls &#8216;reasonable policies and procedures&#8217; to verify your [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A friend recently told me about <a href="http://www.lifelock.com/">LifeLock</a>, a company that, for a fee, says it will protect you against identity theft. It does this by persistently renewing fraud alerts with the credit bureaus (which means, according to the FTC, that &#8220;potential creditors must use what the law calls &#8216;reasonable policies and procedures&#8217; to verify your identity before they issue credit in your name&#8221;), monitoring your credit reports, removing your name from pre-approved credit card lists, watching for your credit card number on websites that peddle stolen cards, and offering up to USD $1,000,000 if you lose money to credit fraud anyway.</p>
<h3>Is LifeLock Worth It?</h3>
<p>Except for the monetary guarantee, LifeLock doesn&#8217;t do anything you couldn&#8217;t do on your own, and the company charges $10 per month for its services. If you want this sort of protection and you have more money than time, LifeLock may be a good deal. If you have more time than money, it&#8217;s probably a bad deal.</p>
<p>But there&#8217;s another way of looking at this. You might ask how much money you stand to lose if you don&#8217;t take <em>any</em> precautionary measures, by your own efforts or through a service like LifeLock.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/11/idtheft.shtm">FTC estimated that there were 8.3 million American victims of identity theft in 2005</a>, the latest year for which survey data are available. That works out to about 3.7% of the adult population. However, the typical victim didn&#8217;t suffer any consequences &#8212; his or her credit card company or bank soaked up the cost. A smaller group that fell victim to the most serious type of identity theft, new account fraud, had to pay a median of $40 and spend ten hours clearing their names. This smaller group made up 0.8% of the survey respondents.</p>
<p>If the survey was representative of the American population as a whole, it is possible to calculate the risk of identity theft, in dollars, to the typical person. The calculation is as follows:</p>
<p>Expected monetary loss per person, per year = risk * (money loss + monetary time cost)</p>
<p>We already know the risk (0.8%) and monetary loss ($40) components of the formula, so we just need an estimate of the monetary time cost. <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/incpertoc.html">Median income in the united states</a> is different for men and women, but if we take the mean of the two figures and transform it into an hourly wage, a rough estimate of the value of the typical person&#8217;s time is $25 per hour. And if it takes ten hours to deal with the consequences of identity theft, the monetary time cost is $250. Okay, on to the final calculation:</p>
<p>Expected monetary loss per person, per year = 0.008 * (40 + 250) =  $2.32</p>
<h3>The Bottom Line</h3>
<p>If LifeLock were to set its fees to $2.32 per year, or about 20 cents per month, it would be a pretty good deal. Otherwise, you might be better off taking your chances.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/identity-theft-expected-costs/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

