<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jak se antiphishingová ochrana webových prohlížečů míjí účinkem</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.jasnapaka.com/2008/03/17/jak-se-antiphishingova-ochrana-webovych-prohlizecu-miji-ucinkem/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.jasnapaka.com/2008/03/17/jak-se-antiphishingova-ochrana-webovych-prohlizecu-miji-ucinkem/</link>
	<description>Když mě něco napadne...</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:51:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ehmo</title>
		<link>http://blog.jasnapaka.com/2008/03/17/jak-se-antiphishingova-ochrana-webovych-prohlizecu-miji-ucinkem/#comment-64</link>
		<dc:creator>ehmo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:03:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.jasnapaka.com/2008/03/17/jak-se-antiphishingova-ochrana-webovych-prohlizecu-miji-ucinkem/#comment-64</guid>
		<description>v prvom rade je nutne pochopit, ze anti-phisingove filtre, ako si napisal, su uplne limitovane databazou. tzn. ze nemaju heuristicky algorytmus, ktory by podvodne stranky vyhodnocoval (a tak skoro sa to asi ani nezmeni). phishing je test pre obozretnost cloveka a nie filtrov, cize je dobre pri kazdom maily rozmyslat. nic nove, no stale aktualne</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>v prvom rade je nutne pochopit, ze anti-phisingove filtre, ako si napisal, su uplne limitovane databazou. tzn. ze nemaju heuristicky algorytmus, ktory by podvodne stranky vyhodnocoval (a tak skoro sa to asi ani nezmeni). phishing je test pre obozretnost cloveka a nie filtrov, cize je dobre pri kazdom maily rozmyslat. nic nove, no stale aktualne</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
