The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Instant messaging: a new target for hackers
Abstract
Instant messaging is exploding as a means of personal and corporate communications. Individuals chat via IM; companies rely on beefed-up versions of the technology, with its real-time capabilities, for collaborative design work; and e-businesses use IM to provide live, immediate customer service to shoppers. Meanwhile, the technology is finding its way onto mobile devices, including PDAs and smart phones. However, as IM becomes more popular, particularly for businesses, it has also increasingly become the target of attacks, such as those using malicious code and phishing. Some security experts say IM is following the same patterns shown during the development of e-mail attacks. These include the use of tricks to encourage victims to click on virus-laden attachments or hyperlinks to Web pages that upload applets to either infect visitors with malware or drop unwanted software on their computers. The most dangerous part about the attacks is their speed of propagation, caused by IM's real-time capabilities. Traditional antivirus technology, in which vendors typically need 24 hours to find remedies for new malicious code, may be too slow to prevent many IM attacks from spreading rapidly.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This may involve reoccurring and direct communication with the target by exploiting the messaging mechanisms provided by email, instant messaging, SNS, P2P networks, IRC forums and other Internet-based services [Drake et al. 2004; Leavitt 2005; Shin et al. 2006].”
From A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks (2016) · cites this paper as Leavitt 2005
In the citing paper
“Also, in URL phishing attacks on social network sites [Leavitt 2005; N. Wang and Grossklags 2011], the deception relies solely on the accepted behaviour associated to the origin of the attack, as it is received from a user that is on the target's list of friends.”
From A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks (2016) · cites this paper as Leavitt 2005
In the citing paper
“In reality, the message is automatically generated by a malicious app installed on that friend's account.”
From A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks (2016) · cites this paper as Leavitt 2005
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Taxonomy of Attacks and a Survey of Defence Mechanisms for Semantic Social Engineering Attacks
Heartfield, R., & Loukas, G. (2016) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2835375 · Cited by 202
Metadata
- Authors
- Leavitt, N.
- Affiliations
- Leavitt Partners (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Leavitt, N.
- ORCID
- Leavitt, N.
- Venue
- Computer
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 20-23
- ISSN
- 0018-9162 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2021590691
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 5.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
- Social Sciences › Law › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Keywords
- instant messaging, cyberattacks, phishing, malware, email security, antivirus software, mobile devices, smartphones, personal digital assistants, e-commerce security
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review