Close Menu
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
  • Home
  • Articles
    • Attacks
      • BEC
      • Data Breach
      • DDoS
      • Evasion Attacks
      • Injection
      • Malware
      • MITM
      • Phishing
      • Ransomware
      • RCE
      • Social Engineering
      • Spoofing
      • Spyware
    • Business and Policy
      • BCP and DRP
      • GRC
      • Regulations
    • Data Protection
      • DLP
      • DRM
      • Encryption
      • IAM
    • Future, Trends and Insight
      • AI
      • Events & Community
      • Emerging Tech
      • Expert Panel
      • Interviews With Experts
      • Insights
      • Study & Research
    • Resources
      • Guides
      • Tools
      • Training & Education
    • Security
      • API
      • Apps
      • Cloud
      • Critical Infrastructure
      • Endpoint
      • Hardware
      • IoT
      • Mobile
      • Network
      • OT
      • Port Security
      • Security Architecture
      • Software Development
      • Supply Chain
      • Zero Trust
    • Threats and Vulnerabilities
      • Emerging Threats
      • Insider Threats
      • Risk Management
      • Threat Intelligence
      • Zero Day
  • News and Exclusives
    • Latest News
    • ISB Exclusive
    • Positive News
  • Who We Are
    • About Us
    • Information Security Buzz Expert Panel​
    • Write for Us
    • Media Pack
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
Subscribe
Information Security BuzzInformation Security Buzz
Home - News & Analysis - Expert Reaction On Microsoft Remained Most-spoofed Brand At End Of 2020
News & Analysis

Expert Reaction On Microsoft Remained Most-spoofed Brand At End Of 2020

ISBuzz TeamBy ISBuzz TeamJanuary 15, 20211 Min Read
Share LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Copy Link Email
Microsoft Azure Marketplace
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link
Quick AI Summary
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiGrokPerplexityDeepSeekCopilot

Microsoft ended 2020 as the brand most frequently targeted by cyber criminals, with 43% of all brand phishing attempts related to the tech giant in Q4, according to IT Pro. This was a 24% increase from the third quarter of the year, which saw 19% of all attempts linked to the tech giant. The attempts are from criminals looking to steal personal information or payment credentials by impersonating well-known brands that are likely to be used by the employee and their organisation. Shipping firm DHL was the second most-spoofed brand for the end of 2020, as criminals sought to take advantage of the significantly higher number of shoppers placing their orders online. Many of these attacks involved delivery failure notices, asking the target to pay a nominal fee to arrange a new delivery. Google came 7th on the list with only 2% of all brand-related phishing in its name, while Amazon ended the year in fourth with 5% and LinkedIn was third with 6%.

ISBuzz Team
  • ISBuzz Team
    Air Canada Data Breach: BianLian Extortion Group Claims A Massive Heist Contrary To Airline’s Earlier Statement
  • ISBuzz Team
    Unprecedented DDoS Attack Rocks The Web: Tech Giants Reveal A Digital Tsunami
  • ISBuzz Team
    CISA Flags High-Severity Adobe Acrobat Reader Flaw Amid Active Exploits
  • ISBuzz Team
    Curl Security Alert: Patching A Critical Bug Averting Potential Cyber Catastrophe

The opinions expressed in this post belong to the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Information Security Buzz.

Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Copy Link

Related Posts

New Phishing Kit Starkiller Defeats Multi-Factor Authentication

February 23, 20264 Mins Read

ReliaQuest Uncovers Social Media Phishing Campaign Built on Trusted Tools

January 22, 20266 Mins Read

What Happens after a Phishing Email Lands in Your Inbox?

January 5, 20266 Mins Read
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar

No se ha podido establecer conexión. Error 429

 
ISB-Bora-Side-Bar
Black ISB Logo

Information Security Buzz is an independent resource that provides the experts’ comments, analysis, and opinion on the latest Cybersecurity news and topics

X (Twitter) LinkedIn Facebook RSS

Working With Us

  • About Us
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Write For Us

  • How To Contribute

The Pages

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • AI Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Copyright Notice

Information Security Buzz and all its contents are copyright © 2014-2025. All rights reserved. All third-party trademarks are recognized.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}