In terms of presentation, yes. In terms of substance, short deadlines are often what separate phishing from legitimate requests.

▲

mrguyorama 4 days ago | parent [-]

There is NO reliable indicators, because every single one of these "Legit requests don't ..." recommendations has been done by a local bank trying to get their customers to do something.

My local credit union sent me a "please change your password" email from a completely unassociated email address with a link to the change password portal. I emailed them saying "Hey it looks like someone is phishing" and they said, "nope, we really, intentionally, did this"

Companies intentionally withhold warning emails as late as possible to cause more people to incur late fees. So everyone is used to "shit, gotta do this now or get screwed"

You can't hope to have good security when everyone's money is controlled by organizations that actively train people to have bad OPSEC or risk missing rent.

▲

cataflam 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> There is NO reliable indicators

Completely agree. The only reliable way is to never use an email/SMS link to login, ever.

	▲	hunter2_ 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Or go ahead and use them, but abort if your password manager doesn't auto fill. Such abort scenarios include not only a password field without auto fill, but also a total lack of password field (e.g., sites that offer OTP-only authentication), since either way you don't have your password manager vetting the domain.

▲

hunter2_ 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree: any of the potential indicators of phishing (whether it's poor presentation, incorrect grammar, tight deadlines, unusual "from" addresses, unusual domains in links, etc.) can easily have false positives which unfortunately dull people's senses. That doesn't mean they can't continue to be promulgated as indicators of possible (not definite) phishing, though.

I used the word "often" rather than "always" for this reason.