Whom do you trust? A Test

Not a set-up, hrova, just a test on how and why we trust references ...

For some reason I feel like I'm being set up, but I'll bite...

Yes

Yes......

Nope.

Yes... :emotion-40:

Hi Joe,

My response is a resounding "NO!"

arnmh1

Yes. :emotion-42:

OK, Time's Up. Thanks to all who responded.

I'll let Snopes provide its own answer. It gives clues on every link I included in my first post.

Examine the first Snopes link:
http://www.snopes.com/lost/lost.asp
- Read the introduction: "... We created The Repository of Lost Legends (TRoLL for short) for those of you who don't let the truth get in the way of a good story." That alone should have set off a few alarms about what was to follow!
- Now read some of the other claims made, and Snopes' patently absurd replies. (Mr. Ed was a zebra? Gimme a break!)

At http://www.snopes.com/lost/poseidon.asp
- Scroll down to the "Additional Information" section
- Click on the icon to the left of  More information about this page, where the answer and explanation of the motives for this exercise are given. It is an instructive read. (For those who want to save a few clicks, here is the link: http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.asp )

As for the supposed imdb reference link, notice the true URL in your status bar when you hover over Poseidon Adventure, The (1911)/  (or look at the address bar if you open this link). It clearly does not come from the imdb site. This emphasizes the potential dangers of clicking on blinded links without first checking the true http address to where you are being directed. That imdb page looked pretty convincing, didn't it? So do many phishing sites!

Although this exercise was engineered entirely by Snopes, it reminds us that even trusted sites can be spoofed to lead us astray. I have received PM's that these links degrade trust in Snopes. Taken in its entirety, I think otherwise: Snopes has performed a valuable  service here, without placing anyone at risk.

I still trust Snopes, but the lesson here is, in the words of Ronald Reagan: "Trust, but verify".

Discussion is now open.

Hi Joe,

What you say is true.

It is also true that 'The Poseidon Adventure' was not written until 1969, by

Paul Gallico, a former sports editor of the NY Daily News.

A movie could hardly have been produced in 1911 if the book from which

it was made was not published until 58 years later.

I am delighted to recall the year because it was the year I split from my wife.

A wonderful year!

arnmh1

Glad to find out my spidey-sense is in good working order - and the page itself made it easy to confirm my hunch.  Have to admit, though, that Red Dawn's response kicked my skepticism up a notch, because I know Red pays attention to this kind of stuff.

Then again, I have no emotional investment in either Snopes' as an "authority" or in whether that particular legend was true or not.    I know I certainly believed in the "scissor man" when my mother got fed up with me sticking out my tongue, and she started dialing the phone.  Okay, I was 5, but if at the time the web actually existed, and I'd been given the choice between believing some web site and believing my mother, even at that age I'd have known which side my bread was buttered on.

Web advertising popped into my head as something of a corollary - many ads are embedded in such a way as to imply the site or the author of the page specifically endorses the product. 

Let's see... i have so much to say here... where do i begin:

Let me commence by noting that I replied privately to Joe rather than participate here publicly.   (I didn't want my  "opinion" to influence anyone else.)

As hrova said:  "For some reason I feel like I'm being set up..." --- the simple fact that Joe was posting this question/scenario here led me to be suspicious :emotion-5:

Joe personally vouched for "both Snopes and imdb as reference websites (this is a true statement, for the benefit of those who don't know these sources, and is not a 'trick' meant to mislead anybody)".

My first PM to Joe (which, since it's mine, I'm free to reveal/quote now) told him that "Being familiar with Snopes (my wife uses it regularly), i was really surprised to read the Titanic story there.    Hard to believe, but if SNOPES "researched" and "confirmed" it, I was inclined to accept it... UNTIL I clicked on their link which offered "More Information about this page" --- talk about an April Fool's, I think that was really mean of them to do."

In other words, being skeptical of Joe's "test" here, I followed-though long enough to determine that the so-called Snopes "reference" page was a self-spoof.   Granted, I did not catch everything wrong with it, but i caught enough to convince me -- beyond any doubt  -- that it was purely fictional.

Joe later wrote:  "Although this exercise was engineered entirely by Snopes, it reminds us that even trusted sites can be spoofed to lead us astray. I have received PM's that these links degrade trust in Snopes".

I was the person who expressed disappointment with this Snopes "self-spoof":   "In stating that I believe it was "mean" of Snopes to do so, what I'm asserting is that for a known reliable source, whose very existence is predicated on it researching/establishing the veracity or mere-folklore status of items of interest, to intentionally spoof itself, in fact hinders its own credibility:   in the future, any time I go to access snopes, somewhere, in the back of my mind, I may be wondering whether I'm getting the real stuff, or perhaps, somehow stumbled on another one of their "spoofs".   Perhaps they consider that good --- for users to remain skeptical of even so-called reliable sources.    But for me, Snopes intentionally spoofing itself is analogous to my bank intentionally handing me some bills they know are counterfeit, as a test to see how alert I really am --- it just isn't appropriate".

I am a big "fan" of Joe's... I honestly admire his many well-written, knowledgeable, and informative contributions to this forum.   Joe is certainly entitled to his contrary view.

Quoting Joe again, ...it reminds us that even trusted sites can be spoofed to lead us astray".    In fact, that's the entire point of spoofs --- to impersonate legitimate sites, typically for the purpose of stealing information (and/or money) from unsuspecting users.   We all need to take reasonable precautions against being victimized by spoofs.  What do I consider "reasonable" ?? ---

1 - being concerned about any links I'm asked to click on, particularly in e-mails.   There are several levels of security I have in place to help protect me against known spoofing attempts:

a) I use OpenDNS, which includes its version (PhishTank) of anti-phishing technology --- see http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ .  

Note that OpenDNS further offers a certain level of "typo"-correction, which can likewise help protect users from inadvertently stumbling onto a fraudulent page --- see http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/guide/ .   

In short, I would highly recommend that anyone who has yet to "discover" OpenDNS should do so now.   [ OpenDNS is completely FREE ]

b) I routinely use IE8, whose "SmartScreen Filter" is an extension of the "Anti-Phishing Filter" that was first introduced in IE7 --- see http://www.microsoft.com/security/filters/smartscreen.aspx

c) I run WOT (Web of Trust) in IE and Firefox, which warns/blocks me from accessing "known" malicious/spoofing/questionable web sites.

d) I also have TrendProtect running in IE, which likewise advises (but does not block) me from accessing "questionable" web sites [per its database].

While nothing can be completely foolproof (nor completely up-to-date, as malicious websites are continually changing so as to camouflage themselves), any web page that I access must successfully pass through  all three  of these filters before I can view it.   Alas, the snopes "self-spoof", including its actual spoof of the IMDB page, got through all these filters, since Snopes is known/acknowledged to be a reliable site.   Hopefully, one (or more) of the above would have caught a "real" (i.e., dangerous) spoof.

2 - Likewise, one needs to be concerned about any URLs they manually type-in, as typos/misspellings can lead to phishing sites.   As noted above, OpenDNS's typo-correction offers some help here.

3 - There are also obviously different levels of concern when it comes to spoofing.   Indeed, one must pay more attention to websites that ask for personal information, and/or on which one is making any financial transactions.   We must certainly be suspicious when a site that already "knows" us (from our previous attendance/activity there) asks us to re-enter any "sensitive" information.   [I'm not talking about when a session "times out", and you're asked to log-in again --- provided you're only asked for the standard log-in information, and nothing more.]   However, I think we'd be bordering on paranoia if we all now have to be concerned about whether a known, reliable, informative site like Snopes is giving us the real information, or tricking us with a SELF-spoof.

Keep in mind, as Joe noted, that the website accessed will appear in your address bar.   And one of the new security features added in IE8 was "domain highlighting" --- while most of the URL appears in gray, the main/important part of the address appears in black.   (If you hadn't noticed this before, IE8 users should take a look now!)    Which is why Snopes "self-spoof" --- which kept the user at the legitimate Snopes site --- "passed muster" and didn't draw any attention/suspicion to itself.   A real spoof would presumably have transported us to somewhere else.

4 - In contrast to clicking on webpage links [which can be spoofed], and manually typing-in web addresses [which can be mis-typed], I believe it's an entirely different matter to rely on your bookmarked pages that you've  previously visited and accepted  as safe.   I've never heard of malware which alters your bookmarks... and if (or when) such malware exists, I'd be happy to learn about it, and retract what I'm saying in this paragraph.   But unless/until we know that such bookmark tampering is routinely used, I would hope that I don't have to re-check my bank's bookmarked website that I use daily.   Yes, if something about the page looked "off", or they suddenly asked for information about which they've never inquired previously --- or if they asked for something which was clearly none of their business --- i would immediately get suspicious and look carefully into the matter.

But to me, in order for us to retain our sanity, i believe we need to draw a line between taking reasonable precautions, and outright paranoia.   It's one thing to maintain a constant vigilance against potential spoofed/phishing sites... but it's a "horse of a different color" [pun intentional, to Snope's Mr. Ed] to have to contemplate whether authoritative /  business / official  sites might be spoofing themselves.   And so to repeat my opinion above, I believe that Snopes self-spoof does more to damage its credibility as THE authoritative source of fact verses fiction, than it does to teach us to pay attention to real-spoofing.

\ And so to repeat my opinion above, I believe that Snopes self-spoof does more to damage its credibility as THE authoritative source of fact verses fiction, than it does to teach us to pay attention to real-spoofing.

I disagree, but understand the concerns expressed by ky.

Self-parody has a long and honorable history. Snopes' mistake (if any) was to disguise this a bit too well.

Were Snopes a security program or forum, I would be far less forgiving.