Talk:Spoofed URL

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Michigan/SI 110: Introduction to Information (Winter 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Lkollend

The strongest qualities of this article is how the lack of bias throughout and use of clear information. Someone who has no idea what a "Spoofed URL" is could come in and immediately learn the key points. The structure flows well for a reader with what could be considered the more important topics on the top. Some of the things that can be improved are maybe a little mores structure inside each of the subtopics. Some of the topics like prevention bring up good points, but it could be improved if it showed each possible prevention technique under a bullet-point or highlighted. Other than that however there is not much else you can find wrong with it the information found is very useful.[User:Ryan.stern12|Ryan.stern12]] (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I thought this group was very successful in turning the stub article into a credible resource for Spoof URLs. The categorization was excellent, clearly describing each sector that relates to Spoof URLs and what each division's role includes. I thought, though, that there could've been even better organization. Some of the classifications overlap, and one of the pictures takes up a large part of the page. Also, I thought there could've been an addition of other aspects of Spoof URLs, like using them as a joke. The references are resourceful and credible, and that's important. Overall, the pros outweigh the cons and I think this group did a great job editing this stub article! Jtgura (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this group did a great job with Spoofed URLs. Not only were they able to define what a Spoofed URL is they were able to find information on how to detect and prevent them. They organized their page in a manner that allows us to find the exact information we are looking for regarding spoofed URLs and included just the right amount of information necessary. Also, the addition of images in their page allows us to see examples of detection and how to be able to spot spoofed URLs. If I were to change one thing I would elaborate a little more on cyber security. I think you guys could discuss more regarding what precautions people should take to protect themselves from spoofed URLs because people can fall victim to them. Overall, I was very impressed with your page and think you provided Wikipedia with a range of new information. Ryanloeb (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this group did an excellent job converting this stub article into something more developed and substantial. Firstly, I think they did a great job organizing the article. I think the "detection", "prevention", and "common crimes" sections. I feel as if they all have enough substance to exist as their own section. However, I think the first section, "Cyber Security" can be integrated into the introductory part of the article. It isn't long enough to exist as its own section nor does it present novel information that hasn't been mentioned above. I also think the "Phishing" section does not need to be discussed fully in this article. It is it's own idea and therefore simply adding a link to the "Phishing" article would suffice. Furthermore, I would have liked to see a section devoted to URL spoofing for the purpose of parody. It is mentioned in the introduction but never elaborated on, and is something I think is important to cover when writing about URL spoofing. I think this group also does an excellent job integrated images into the article. The images are very clear, helpful in understanding the context, and contain straightforward captions. Finally, I like the choice of sources, they seem reputable and relevant. Harris.teitelbaum (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: "Make sure you are able to see the fully URL for any hyperlink". Is the bit on phishing necessary? A link to the actual Phishing page should be sufficient. I would add it under "See also". Maybe "Susceptible Targets" and "Common Crimes" ought to be part of the same section; they seem to be related topics. If anything, susceptible targets ought to be a subsection of common crimes. The images add a lot to the page- the user may not know what a spoofed URL looks like until they actually see it on a browser with the page attached. The "Detection" and "Prevention" sections are full of useful information as well; the sources for these seem to be solid. But I agree with another poster that the "Cyber Security" section could be part of the intro. Maryhem (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this item the same as Website spoofing? 81.71.112.143 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say how Spoofed URL is accomplished. What is the method used? Jidanni (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find a common attribute to computer illiterate persons is that when told to go to a certain website, they always type in "www.(website).com", and have no understanding of top level domains, automatic-searching address bars, and not needing to type "www". These people are much more susceptible to spoofed URLs. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dead link on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoofed_URL#Phishing near citation number 9.

old link: http://www.dspblackrock.com/investor-centre/dspbr-online/dspbr-online-security-tips/phishing-spoofing-vishing.aspx

I have an article explaining about Phishing & Spoofing and how to protect online users from it. New link: https://www.https.in/blog/phishing-and-spoofing-your-guide-to-protect-against-them/

Can author/verified member make this change ?

--Kiran247 (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]