Methods and systems for implementing a phishing assesment
US-2017126730-A1 · May 4, 2017 · US
US11936688B2 · US · B2
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Publication number | US-11936688-B2 |
| Application number | US-202318117664-A |
| Country | US |
| Kind code | B2 |
| Filing date | Mar 6, 2023 |
| Priority date | Jan 5, 2017 |
| Publication date | Mar 19, 2024 |
| Grant date | Mar 19, 2024 |
A practical reading order for non-experts. Skip the full description unless you need deep technical detail.
What the patent document calls the invention.
A short plain-language summary of the technical disclosure.
Who owns or filed the patent and who is credited as inventor.
Filing, priority, publication, and grant dates set the timeline.
The legal scope of protection — read this for what is actually claimed.
Technology tags used to group this patent with similar filings.
Prior art links and similar publications in this corpus.
Official abstract text for this publication.
Systems and methods are provided for performing simulated phishing attacks using social engineering indicators. One or more failure indicators can be configured in a phishing email template, and each failure indicator can be assigned a description about that failure indicator through use of a markup tag. The phishing email template containing the markup tags corresponding to the failure indicators can be stored and can be used to generate a simulated phishing email in which the one or more markup tags are removed.
Opening claim text (preview).
What is claimed is: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by one or more servers, results from one or more simulated phishing campaigns; analyzing, by the one or more servers, the results to determine an effectiveness of one or more failure indicators of the one or more simulated phishing campaigns to cause a higher rate of failure; displaying, by the one or more servers, on a graphical user interface the results and the effectiveness of the one or more simulated phishing campaigns, the graphical user interface enabling a user to perform one or more actions on the results; using, by the one or more servers, the one or more failure indicators for one or more simulated phishing communications in a new simulated phishing campaign. 2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the graphical user interface enables the user to perform the one or more actions of: viewing, saving, sharing or printing the results. 3. The method of claim 1 , further comprising analyzing, by the one or more servers, the results to determine which users are a security risk based on having a number of failures above a predetermined threshold. 4. The method of claim 1 , further comprising analyzing, by the one or more servers, the results to determine the effectiveness of one or more phishing email templates used by the one or more campaigns in generating user failures. 5. The method of claim 4 , further comprising determining, by the one or more servers, one or more common failure types for the one or more phishing email templates. 6. The method of claim 4 , further comprising determining, by the one or more servers, which failure indicators of the one or more phishing email templates leads to a higher rate of failure. 7. The method of claim 4 , further comprising analyzing, by the one or more servers, the results to determine users who interacted with a failure indicator of the one or more simulated phishing campaigns and types of data that were collected during the simulated phishing campaign. 8. A method comprising: receiving, by one or more servers, results from one or more simulated phishing campaigns; analyzing, by the one or more servers, the results to determine an effectiveness of a security system by correlating a presence of the security system with a lower than average incidence of failures; displaying, by the one or more servers, on a graphical user interface one of the results or the effectiveness of the security system, the graphical user interface enabling a user to perform one or more actions on the results; and executing, by the one or more servers based at least on one of the results or the effectiveness of the security system, a subsequent simulated phishing campaign to test a readiness of the security system. 9. The method of claim 8 , further comprising tracking, by the one or more servers, the average incidence of failures. 10. The method of claim 8 , further comprising analyzing, by the one or more servers, the results to determine which users are a security risk based on having a number of failures above a predetermined threshold. 11. The method of claim 8 , wherein the graphical user interface enables the user to perform the one or more actions of: viewing, saving, sharing or printing the results. 12. The method of claim 8 , further comprising causing, by the one or more servers, the graphical user interface to show a timeline of overall failure rates. 13. The method of claim 12 , further comprising determining whether a security policy that was instituted at a particular time in the timeline was effective in improving security. 14. A system comprising: one or more servers, comprising one or more processors, coupled to memory and configured to; receive results from one or more simulated phishing campaigns; analyze the results to determine an effectiveness of a security system or the one or more simulated phishing campaigns; display on a graphical user interface the results and the effectiveness of the security system, the graphical user interface enabling a user to perform one or more actions on the results; and executing, by the one or more servers based at least on one of the results or the effectiveness of the security system, a subsequent simulated phishing campaign to test a readiness of the security system or users to handle phishing attacks. 15. The system of claim 14 , wherein the one or more servers are further configured to analyze the results to determine which users are a security risk based on having a number of failures above a predetermined threshold. 16. The system of claim 14 , wherein the one or more servers are further configured to analyze the results to determine the effectiveness of one or more phishing email templates used by the one or more campaigns in generating user failures. 17. The system of claim 14 , wherein the one or more servers are further configured to analyze the results to determine the effectiveness of the security system by correlating a presence of the security system with a lower than average incidence of failures. 18. The system of claim 14 , wherein the one or more servers are further configured to cause the graphical user interface to show a timeline of overall failure rates. 19. The system of claim 18 , wherein the one or more servers are further configured to determine whether a security policy that was instituted at a particular time in the timeline was effective in improving security. 20. The system of claim 14 , wherein the graphical user interface enables the user to perform the one or more actions of: viewing, saving, sharing or printing the results.
service impersonation, e.g. phishing, pharming or web spoofing (detection of rogue wireless access points H04W12/12) · CPC title
Templates · CPC title
Commands or executable codes · CPC title
for supporting social networking services · CPC title
Vulnerability analysis · CPC title
Related publications grouped by family.
Answers are generated from the same data shown on this page.