homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.244.71
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 ( [1] 2 > >     
Phishing Up In 2007
engine




msg:3532140
 5:42 pm on Dec 20, 2007 (gmt 0)

Phishing attacks in the US soared in 2007 as £1.6bn was lost to these attacks, according to a survey by Gartner.
The survey found that 3.6 million adults lost money in phishing attacks in the 12 months ending in August 2007, compared with 2.3 million the year before.

And the attacks were more successful in 2007 than they were in the previous two years, the survey found. Of consumers who received phishing emails in 2007, 3.3% said they lost money because of the attack, compared with 2.3% who lost money in 2006, and 2.9% in 2005, according to similar Gartner surveys during those years.

Phishing Up In 2007 [computerworlduk.com]

It is always worth mentioning this to your friends and relatives, reminding them to be cautious.

 

belege




msg:3532569
 6:17 am on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

"3.3% said they lost money because of the attack"
Now this is something to worry about. At 3.3% success rate, there is no wander the spam is so aggressive these days.
But what can you expect when people are so lazy they just click everything.

"£1.6bn was lost to these attacks"
This guys are better than Google, At 3.3% conversion rate and over 3.2bn$ in revenues.

incrediBILL




msg:3532598
 7:44 am on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I hate to sound cynical but at this point I think that stupid people not only deserve to get ripped off but should be stuck with the damage.

Why do I say this?

It's simple, why do we still have spam?

Because it's effective and some idiots buy things found in spam otherwise people wouldn't spam anymore.

Likewise, after all these years if you're too stupid to look at the URL in the browser to see if you're really on Paypal or BofA, you probably deserve to get stuck with the charges.

Let's just call it a stupid tax and maybe people would wise up real quick.

sem4u




msg:3532606
 8:45 am on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Likewise, after all these years if you're too stupid to look at the URL in the browser to see if you're really on Paypal or BofA, you probably deserve to get stuck with the charges.

Don't forget that thousands of brand new internet users are coming online every single day. They don't know what to look out for. You may be an old hand to do with everything online but some people aren't!

It is always worth mentioning this to your friends and relatives, reminding them to be cautious.

Good advice.

incrediBILL




msg:3532637
 9:43 am on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Don't forget that thousands of brand new internet users are coming online every single day. They don't know what to look out for. You may be an old hand to do with everything online but some people aren't!

Being new is NO EXCUSE!

Little kids get taught to look both ways before crossing the road, to put seat belts on in the car, not to play with matches...

If the new people coming online aren't taught how to look both ways to avoid getting into trouble by their friends, teachers, parents, relatives, online tutorials or even the computer box or initial setup doesn't contain warnings, well too bad!

Sorry, I said I was in massive cynic mode ;)

np2003




msg:3532642
 10:06 am on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

I remember early internet days about 10yrs ago when I first started using the internet. There was little spam but whenever i got a message, I would open and look and even click on them. Now I never do that - EVER. But it does suggest that new users will try to explore what people "give/send" to them.

Dectomax




msg:3532719
 12:50 pm on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't phishing where the scammers parade as a Banking website\Paypal\Ebay etc in the e-mail and try to 'pursuade' you to type in your account details etc. to solve some 'major problem' with your account. In reality forwarding you to their fake website?

This has little to do with clicking 'Spam' or trying to 'get' things from the emails.

I've always had to remind my parents that no matter how scary the email sounds, never click through to a banking website through an email. Always type the address by hand into the address bar.

Sadly this didn't even work after a browser hijacker re-directed all requests to my fathers bank to a server in Russia. Thankfully, the rogue server was down and served a 404 page. After investigation, I found a trojan and a text file which cross referenced all the common banks addresses typed in the address bar and redirected them to fake servers.

It seeems that even experienced people can fall foul. I think it's unfair to assume that a newbie to the internet would know not to click in an email when the 'Bank' have told them they have an account problem that needs solving immediately, only to be sent to a fake website.

bwnbwn




msg:3532763
 2:32 pm on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

The schools have been teaching the children "New users" for some time now "What not to do on the internet" and about the scams, etc and etc.

I think the new generation coming online knows the difference, it is mostly the older generation finally getting a computer and then getting hammered as they are usually more gullable to the lies and of course "Greed" that comes into the equation.

Most of those scammed are looking to get more out of the deal than they are putting into it so Greed is their downfall.

it isn't the new young users coming online getting had it is the old new users getting hammered....

pageoneresults




msg:3532766
 2:39 pm on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Let's just call it a stupid tax and maybe people would wise up real quick.

That would surely help clear up a little bit of our national debt. :)

weeks




msg:3532794
 2:59 pm on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)


I hate to sound cynical but at this point I think that stupid people not only deserve to get ripped off but should be stuck with the damage.

Bill, I could not disagree more. (I suspect you're mostly expressing frustration.)

The numbers alone say we have a serious problem beyond "stupid people."

Here is the scam we saw here. An email would come from what appeared to be your credit union or bank. It would have the logo. It would say they are conducting a survey of selected customers and will deposit $20 for those who completed the survey.

The email was well written, very professional. They asked you to sign in to your account to take the survey and receive the $20.

Keep in mind that this is in context to many websites such as Amazon and Yahoo where the consumer is better served by logging-in.

One manager in one of my client's office fell for it and had her bank account cleaned out. (The bank made good on it, however.)

If people in our industry takes the "serves them right" attitude, then we're going to kill the e-commerce potential of the web. We need enforcement of the law. But we also need better technology and better, more careful procedures as well. But, it isn't going to happen unless we take responsibility for it.

And part of taking responsibility is simply communicating to our customers, vendors and employees that we care about this and we're working on it, and they should be, too.

Keep in mind, if consumers get too careful, they'll quit buying via the web.

Remember, in the late 1990s there were been some very useful potential web applications killed by developers not being ready or willing to deal with the email spammers. The early knowledge management systems which were email driven had great potential, but then the flood of tasteless and sometimes frightening spam email kept people from joining these networks.

Don't think phishing can't do the same thing to e-commerce. It can and will if we don't address it.

incrediBILL




msg:3533104
 11:22 pm on Dec 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't phishing where the scammers parade as a Banking website\Paypal\Ebay etc in the e-mail and try to 'pursuade' you to type in your account details etc. to solve some 'major problem' with your account. In reality forwarding you to their fake website?

This has little to do with clicking 'Spam' or trying to 'get' things from the emails.

A phishing email *IS* a spam, it's all spam but the subtle difference is how they want to rip you off either selling junk or stealing your account information, but it's spam no matter you how slice it.

Bill, I could not disagree more.

That's up to you.

The numbers alone say we have a serious problem beyond "stupid people."

Here is the scam we saw here. An email would come from what appeared to be your credit union or bank. It would have the logo. It would say they are conducting a survey of selected customers and will deposit $20 for those who completed the survey.

Actually the numbers alone say we have a seriously large population of stupid people.

If the lure of $20 (or $100) is enough to make people set their common sense aside and do something stupid then they get what they deserve.

Ever hear of phone phishing?

I had this happen once many years ago before I even knew phone phishing existed. They called up claiming to be the bank and ask for my account information. I said "Uh, hello, if you're REALLY the bank, YOU ALREADY HAVE MY ACCOUNT INFORMATION AND USED IT TO CONTACT ME!" and hung up.

The problem is that people don't think and fall prey to being asked information that the caller should already have.

I've seen those emails, they look really convincing, I'm sure the guy trying to sell the Brooklyn Bridge is really convincing too. All they have to do is mouse over that link to the "bank" and see it's not their banks address.

OK, if your bank REALLY has a problem with your account, or has a survey they want you to take, just close the email and go directly to your bank the way you normally would and login as usual.

Do you see any messages in your online banking asking you to update your online account or take some survey?

Of course not, it was a scam.

That's why I say people simply don't think because if they did they would go directly to the source, the bank in this instance, and see there is nothing wrong with their account instead of being a sucker and getting ripped off.

Maybe stupid people should be required by law to use either Gmail or Yahoo! Mail since they have some of the best spam filters around just to protect themselves. Unfortunately, stupid people use AOL because AOL is built for stupid people and it has the worst spam filter ever so there we go round and round and where we stop nobody knows.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 11:26 pm (utc) on Dec. 21, 2007]

nomis5




msg:3533303
 8:31 am on Dec 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

So we do nothing about spam / phishing, just call the people who fall into the trap stiupid? I think IncrediBill is on a wind up mission pre-XMAS! Aside from the people who loose financially, I am tired of my inbox being full up with spam rubbish.

I do think the way Windows Mail is shipped by default with Vista is an improvement, it does pick out much more of the dodgy phishing ones. Maybe this is the way to reduce spam, get MS to supply email programs with better filters by default. Those so-called "stupid people" rarely change the default settings.

jsinger




msg:3533305
 8:32 am on Dec 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Do you see any messages in your online banking asking you to update your online account or take some survey?

Yes, I do. Two years ago I got an email from a major mutual fund powerhouse that I deal with. It asked me to take an online survey. A scam for sure, right?

A phone call to a number I have for them (and not from the email) confirmed that they WERE conducting such customer surveys.

I was furious. Why were they training their customers to respond to emails? The junior exec who came up with that survey idea should have been fired that day.

Since then, I have refused to give my email to ANY financial institution. That makes spotting phishing much easier.

------------------

Similarly, I got a phone call recently from our state Department of Revenue about a small sum of tax money that I owed. The caller wanted the payment by credit card by phone, right then. Yeah, sure! Even my CPA figured it was a scam.

But it was for real and they told me I was about the only person who had questioned who they were. (which I verified by going thru the DOR main phone number)

lammert




msg:3533319
 11:00 am on Dec 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Since then, I have refused to give my email to ANY financial institution.

It is a solution if you remember your policy when a phishing email comes in, but many people have never given their email to their bank but they still respond to these phishing scams anyway, just assuming their bank probably has their email.

The way I deal with this, is that I often use unique and traceable email addresses to sign up with financial institutions, banks, online services etc which gives me not only a way to see if the incoming email is genuine or not, but also determine where the scammers got their email address list from. Some example email addresses I use:

financial_institution@my_domain.TLD and forum_domainname@my_domain.TLD

This is however not for the mainstream internet user who is stuck with his single Yahoo, Aol, Hotmail or Gmail account.

incrediBILL




msg:3533462
 6:08 pm on Dec 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

So we do nothing about spam / phishing, just call the people who fall into the trap stiupid?

I never said that, these phishing scum deserve serious jail time just like any other con artist which is what they technically are as the phish is just a new form of con game.

However, people silly enough to fall for something so simple shouldn't be coddled IMO because they never learn if someone is there to wipe their bloody nose every time they fall for the same scam over and over.

I think IncrediBill is on a wind up mission pre-XMAS!

BAH! HUMBUG!

jsinger




msg:3533482
 6:56 pm on Dec 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

We ALL fall for phishing in that we must take time to decide whether emails are real. About one in a thousand suspicious emails is legitimate.

For me, emails purporting to be from EBAY are especially annoying as my kids at college sometimes use my account.

I've never fallen for phishing but those emails sure waste my time.

draggar




msg:3533518
 8:11 pm on Dec 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

The best thing you can do about potential phishing is forward the email to the security / fraud department of the institution that they're impersonating.

Most of the time it is abuse@institution.com or fraud@institutio.com

I tell everyone I know not to click on links like that. You can usually notice little typos or a URL like

[(someIPaddress...] or whatever.

If you're ever in doubt, go directly to the institution's site.

Also, recently (a few months ago), Monster.com's database was hacked. They say no personal information was taken other than email, name, and phone number. You wouldn't believe the number of job offers I've had since then offering me $100,000-$250,000+ for a beginner web developer position (I think they also got the jist of my resumes, perhaps the titles of my searches or resumes). I always check the domain of each email I get and most have only been registered a few months, despite the email's claims that they've been in business "for years".

incrediBILL




msg:3533587
 11:50 pm on Dec 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

Here's an idea for anyone looking to make some money and do a public service all at the same time. See if you can sell a bank on running a PSA campaign of fake phishing emails with the banks blessing to their actual members. Send the members a typical phish email that takes them to a fake website and flags each account stupid enough to fall for the scam.

The fake phishing site should say something like:

"YOU JUST FELL FOR A SCAM EMAIL!

HAD THIS BEEN A REAL PHISHING EMAIL YOU WOULD BE GIVING YOUR BANKING INFORMATION TO CRIMINALS RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD SOON EMPTY YOUR BANK ACCOUNT!"

Then you add more security to that person's online account to stop real phishers such as using additional security checks inside the account to verify it's REALLY YOU like the last for digits of your SSN, mothers maiden name, birthdate, etc. before processing large transactions. OK, they should just do those security things already, mildly annoying but stops simply phishing from being effective as just logging in wouldn't be enough to do any damage.

jsinger




msg:3533595
 12:18 am on Dec 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

mothers maiden name

Caveat: That's why scammers love genealogy websites.

There have been fake penny stock scams. One sold off parts of the internet about 5 years ago. They put out PR's and were swamped with suckers who wanted to own a part of the web. PR was dated April 1.

tomcatuk




msg:3534008
 9:32 pm on Dec 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

Sorry, I'm going to disagree completely with what a lot of you are saying. Phishing doesn't harm consumers nearly as much as it harms merchants.

Innocent Internet user gets phished. Fraudster uses financial info to buy products from online merchants. Consumer gets a card statement, and in horror telephones his/her card issuer - card issuer promptly reverses the transactions. So who loses out? The merchants who have supplied goods to the fraudster.

Now this is all fine and dandy for the consumer. The trouble with this ethos is the system is open to abuse by unscrupulous card holders who know the system. It also removes accountability from people who make mistakes, so merchants pay for them. The consumer needs protecting, but at the same time consumers ought to be made accountable in some way for failing to hang onto their financial data. If I drop a £20 note in the street through carelessness I've lost £20. "Losing" your financial data to a phisher is the internet equivalent of a hole in your pocket.

draggar




msg:3534029
 11:13 pm on Dec 23, 2007 (gmt 0)

Innocent Internet user gets phished. Fraudster uses financial info to buy products from online merchants. Consumer gets a card statement, and in horror telephones his/her card issuer - card issuer promptly reverses the transactions. So who loses out? The merchants who have supplied goods to the fraudster.

I have to disagree. Yes, the merchants get shafted,but my wife's purse was stolen and it was a living hell to get things corrected from the bank.

Even after the account was closed and flagged as fraud, the bank still allowed the thief to take money out of our account yet whenever we tried to purchase something we had to call them and stay on hold for 45 minutes then play 20 questions with their fraud account (mind you, this is with the NEW account that was set up).

We didn't get back a couple of thousand dollars. Nor were the fees associated with bounce checks (on the bank's side *and* whom we wrote the checks too, double fees) *and* not one late payment was reimbursed because of this.

(We left this bank quickly after all of this but our credit and money are still gone from this).

Phishing DOES hurt consumers (my store isn't direct phishing, but the end result is the same, someone had illegal access to our account and was allowed continued illegal access to it, which is exactly what a phisher would have gotten if someone went to their link).

incrediBILL




msg:3534071
 2:00 am on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Phishing DOES hurt consumers (my store isn't direct phishing, but the end result is the same, someone had illegal access to our account and was allowed continued illegal access to it, which is exactly what a phisher would have gotten if someone went to their link).

Actually, your story is nothing like phishing because you knew the minute your wife's purse was stolen and your story doesn't add up if you live in the US.

Credit Card Loss or Fraudulent Charges (FCBA). Your maximum liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your credit card is $50. If you report the loss before your credit cards are used

You can read more here:
[ftc.gov...]

If the bank fails to comply with the law I would simply sue them because once they are notified and allow the activity to continue the BANK is 100% responsible, not you.

The only way to fully protect yourself in that situation is close the old accounts and open brand new accounts, and if they continue to honor the old accounts, that's THEIR problem.

However, if you didn't notify them in time, all bets are off and you're at the mercy of the merchants with ATM especially.

[edited by: incrediBILL at 2:08 am (utc) on Dec. 24, 2007]

tim222




msg:3534108
 5:16 am on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

As Forrest Gump's mama used to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Do you know who pays for the losses caused by phishing? Not me. Probably not you, either.

Banks eat the loss, because they can afford to do so, since they charge absolutley stupid rates to their customers who carry a credit card balance. People who don't pay their balance in full are covering the losses.

incrediBILL




msg:3534125
 6:17 am on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Banks eat the loss, because they can afford to do so

You're obviously not a merchant and don't know how this works as banks eat NOTHING if they can avoid it and the MERCHANT gets charged back plus a penalty to boot!

Pay attention in class:

1. Phishers steal card from consumer
2. Merchant blindly accepts stolen card because banks process stolen card like big idiots
3. Consumer finds fraud on card and does a chargeback
4. Bank issues a chargeback on MERCHANT although it was clearly bank at fault
4. Merchant loses original sale + processing fees + transaction fees + chargeback fee

Worse yet, if the merchant gets hit with too many chargebacks or fraud charges then VISA/MC will require a deposit on hand just to make sure you can refund them when it happens.

One business I was involved with sold electronics online and they withheld 10% of our GROSS receipts until they accrued a $35K escrow fund just because of the type of business and we had almost no chagebacks.

So don't tell me the banks eat the loss...

Green_Grass




msg:3534225
 11:09 am on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

My bank (in India) requires at least three passwords including a random number from the back of the ATM card (grid)before they allow funds to be transferred. They also require compulsory registartion of the new payee which sends an auto generated code to the registered mobile no. (which cannot be changed, without going thru. a seperate process). This code has to be inputted before the 'payee' becomes live.

So..

The scammer will nead..

User name
password
Transaction password
physical access to Debit card
physical access to mobile phone

before he can transfer funds. Then there is a LIMIT to amt of money that can be transferred in a day.

I think..this bank is reasonably safe.. ;-) If the scammer is able to get all this info. from the potential target, then the bank customer can only be categorized as Bill would say ..a FOOL.

My other banks are much behind this bank in terms of security, so I donot really use them for online fund transfer.

So if the banks, desire, they can always incorporate new security features, which are easy to use and safe. It calls for only a little extra effort.

draggar




msg:3534387
 3:10 pm on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Actually, your story is nothing like phishing because you knew the minute your wife's purse was stolen and your story doesn't add up if you live in the US.

We do live in the US and that is what happened. The banks were called within 10 minutes of my wife noticing the purse was stolen (which, according to the security tapes, was within two minutes of it being stolen). Sometimes the banks don't want to cooperate with the consumers. All purchases were made after the bank was informed of the theft.

The law you quoted is in reference to ATM, debit, and credit cards. The their also used the cancelled checking account# (from the checkbook that was in the purse) to cash other bad checks, which is where they got most of the money that was stolen.

The only way to fully protect yourself in that situation is close the old accounts and open brand new accounts, and if they continue to honor the old accounts, that's THEIR problem.

Which is what we did, but as stated above, the bank still allowed them to pull money out of the new accounts using old information. The their used the account# from bankA (our bank) to cash bad checks from bankB at bankB. Neither bank was willing to take responsibility (bankB should have, but bankA allowed them to take the money) so they passed the missing $$$ to us.

We were thinking of suing but we didn't have the money for a lawyer and considering the bank would be able to afford a team of lawyers...

And, the results are the same as phishing. Someone gained illegal access to our accounts which is exactly what phishers want to get.

IMO - large corporations don't care about identity theft and fraud. They can easily write off a few thousand dollars and it won't make a dent on their budget. It's the small businesses who have products fraudulenty purchased and the consumers who take the hit. A small business can't take a hit and the consumer is hurt for a long time by a credit score that's taken a beating and the missing $$$.

Banks take it as an insurance claim, they just lose the deductible (if they have one) but then can claim that in the next year's taxes. The insurance company makes enough in premiums and deductibles to offset the cost, plus they make a claim though the reinsurance company (and write off any losses in the next year w/ their texes) and reinsurance takes it as a tax writeoff.

tim222




msg:3534485
 7:56 pm on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

You're obviously not a merchant and don't know how this works as banks eat NOTHING if they can avoid it and the MERCHANT gets charged back plus a penalty to boot!

Any merchant can protect themselves from credit card fraud by implementing Mastercard SecureCode or Verified by Visa. Unfortunately it's not as simple as accepting Paypal, so many of the smaller merchants still are not enrolled, even though those programs have been out for a few years.

If you're seriously concerned about fraud-related chargebacks, then look into it. If you can't code it yourself, hire a developer for a few hundred bucks. You could save that much or more on one fraudulent transaction alone.

[usa.visa.com...]

Excerpt: "Merchants who use Verified by Visa are protected from fraud-related chargebacks on all personal Visa cards—credit or debit, domestic, or international—whether or not the issuer or cardholder is participating in Verified by Visa, with limited exceptions."

incrediBILL




msg:3534488
 8:12 pm on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

We were thinking of suing but we didn't have the money for a lawyer and considering the bank would be able to afford a team of lawyers...

Use small claims for up to $5k, it's less than $100 and the bank can't send a lawyer either. Best part is if they don't show up you win by default.

I've had a couple of run-ins with the bank including a forged check, internal accounting problems, etc. and I never let the bank just walk away without giving me my money back, including any fees or 3rd party fees, and doing so quickly.

The internal accounting error was classic, the bank used my account number on intra-bank transactions which were many thousands of dollars per transaction and literally wiped out my accounts. Then they had the audacity, with all my money simply "gone", to tell me it would take 2-3 weeks to get it back while they did an audit.

I told them I had pending checks, bills to pay and a family to feed and any solution short of all my money showing up back in my account within 24 hours and they would be talking to a lawyer first thing in the morning. I also informed them that they had better put special handling instructions on my account because any single bounced check, as I had a few checks pending, that resulted in damage to my credit or resulted in any 3rd party charges would also result in legal action.

Needless to say, got my money back, no bounced checks, they settled it internally after the fact.

incrediBILL




msg:3534490
 8:38 pm on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

Any merchant can protect themselves from credit card fraud by implementing Mastercard SecureCode or Verified by Visa.

Uh huh, just like the CSC/CVV2 was supposed to be the solution to card not present transactions until hackers got into servers and hacked into the ecommerce checkout and sent that information to their servers in real time.

I used to write ecommerce software and am aware of this program and it's not as secure [cerias.purdue.edu] as you might think it is.

If this was so easy and such a big deal why have I never encountered it on very large ecommerce sites either?

I shop online a lot, never seen it, not once.

draggar




msg:3534496
 8:55 pm on Dec 24, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've seen that on smaller "big" sites. No, not like Amazon.com but also not on Ma&Pa's ecommerce site, but sites in between.

I also thought it was a phishing attempt but I noticed it was from the card-issuing bank and the site itself was a rather techie-heavy site that has been around for years (so the chance of it being a phishing attempt were lower). Plus, the card has a very small balance (I use for online purchases in case something happens, not much money will be stolen).

In the end, I think we can all agree that you can never be too careful.

When I first started getting phishing emails (the ones that look legit) my first reaction was to go go the bank's actual website and log in. When I realized it fake, I forwarded it onto their fraud / abuse department where I'm pretty sure it was ignored. You can usually notice little typos here and there plus odd-looking URLs, like [ip.address.00.01...]

Sneaky, huh?

Too bad that 99% of the readers of this thread will not need its information (well, maybe 95%, so luckily 1%-5% will need it and hopefully heed the advice in here).

This 35 message thread spans 2 pages: 35 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved