{"id":1821,"date":"2005-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-06-30T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2005\/06\/30\/phishing-up-by-226-percent\/"},"modified":"2021-12-30T11:40:03","modified_gmt":"2021-12-30T11:40:03","slug":"phishing-up-by-226-percent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/2005\/06\/30\/phishing-up-by-226-percent\/","title":{"rendered":"Phishing Up By 226 Percent"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Phishing is up dramatically over the last two months according to data released Thursday by computer maker IBM and message filtering firm Postini.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>IBM&#8217;s monthly security report said that phishing jumped 226 percent in May over the previous month to record an all-time high that beat out the earlier record in January of this year.<\/p>\n<p>The surge continued into and through June, said Redwood City, Calif.-based Postini in its own malicious code accounting, with phishing attacks climbing 71 percent over May&#8217;s numbers.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Phishing attempts will continue to plague enterprise users for the foreseeable future,&#8221; opined Andrew Lochart, senior director of marketing at Postini, in a statement.<\/p>\n<p>News of most other malware categories was almost as dismal.  IBM, for instance, tallied a 33 increase during May in the number of e-mails carrying viruses or worms.<\/p>\n<p>Spam remained flat at around 69 percent of all e-mail for May, said IBM, the third month in a row of little or no growth in junk mail.<\/p>\n<p>http:\/\/www.techweb.com\/wire\/security\/164904277<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-statistics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1821"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4308,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821\/revisions\/4308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}