prompt stringlengths 133 792 | chosen stringlengths 322 1.4k | rejected stringlengths 194 1.56k | source stringclasses 1
value | defect stringclasses 6
values | negatives stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Got an email from 'Zillow' <alerts@zillow-property-updates.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. It says 'A new home matches your search' and includes a link to 'zillow-listings-secure.com'. Display name is 'Zillow Real Estate'. Is it real? | This is phishing. Zillow's official alert domain is zillow.com or zillowmail.com—'zillow-property-updates.com' is not owned by Zillow. The link 'zillow-listings-secure.com' is a lookalike that adds 'secure' to build false trust; it's not under zillow.com. The display name 'Zillow Real Estate' is simple spoofing. SPF/DK... | The display name 'Zillow Real Estate' is the primary concern here. This is a classic display-name spoofing technique designed to trick recipients into trusting the message. While the domain 'zillow-property-updates.com' is not Zillow's official alert domain, and the link 'zillow-listings-secure.com' is a lookalike that... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email arrives from 'Google' <no-reply@google-account-verify.com> with SPF and DKIM passing. The domain is a lookalike with an extra hyphen, and the Reply-To is 'verify-google-accounts@gmail.com'. Should I flag it? | Yes, flag immediately. The passing SPF/DKIM only confirms that 'google-account-verify.com' is authorized to send its own mail—but that domain is a lookalike of 'google.com' with an extra hyphen, designed to spoof Google. The Reply-To to a personal Gmail address is a massive red flag: legitimate Google services never re... | Yes, flag immediately. The passing SPF/DKIM only confirms that 'google-account-verify.com' is authorized to send its own mail—but that domain is a lookalike of 'google.com' with an extra hyphen, designed to spoof Google. The Reply-To to a personal Gmail address is a massive red flag: legitimate Google services never re... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
A vendor invoice arrives from 'From: 'Accounts Payable' <invoice@vendor-payments.online>' — SPF/DKIM pass. The visible sender domain is 'vendor-payments.online' which is one letter different from a legitimate vendor domain. The 'Reply-To' field points to 'payments@other-domain.co'. The email requests a wire transfer wi... | This is a textbook business-email-compromise (BEC) attempt. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticates the lookalike domain, not the legitimate vendor. The one-letter difference ('vendor-payments.online' vs the real vendor's domain) is a deliberate lookalike to fool recipients scanning quickly. The reply-to pointing to a tota... | This is a textbook business-email-compromise (BEC) attempt. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticates the lookalike domain, not the legitimate vendor. The one-letter difference ('vendor-payments.online' vs the real vendor's domain) is a deliberate lookalike to fool recipients scanning quickly. The reply-to pointing to a tota... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Got a password reset from `From: 'LinkedIn' <security@linkedin-account-help.com>` — SPF/DKIM pass. The reply-to is `verify@mail.ru`. Is this authentic despite the odd domain? | No, this is a phishing email. The odd domain linkedin-account-help.com is a lookalike, and the reply-to being verify@mail.ru is a glaring red flag—it's completely unrelated to LinkedIn and indicates the attacker controls the reply address. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticates the sending domain, not the legitimacy of th... | No, this is a phishing email. The odd domain linkedin-account-help.com is a lookalike, and the reply-to being verify@mail.ru is a glaring red flag—it's completely unrelated to LinkedIn and indicates the attacker controls the reply address. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticates the sending domain, not the legitimacy of th... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Got a shipping notification: From: 'FedEx' <tracking@fedex-delivery-notice.net>, SPF/DKIM pass, but the Message-ID header contains 'phish-test-2024' and the List-Unsubscribe header points to a suspicious URL. Subject: 'Your package is waiting for delivery'. | This is a phishing email. While SPF and DKIM pass, the domain 'fedex-delivery-notice.net' is a clear lookalike of FedEx's real domain (fedex.com). The Message-ID header containing 'phish-test-2024' is an artifact often left by phishing kits or test campaigns — legitimate FedEx emails would not include such a string. Th... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email's domain is authenticated and the message wasn't tampered with. The Message-ID 'phish-test-2024' is unusual but could be a test from FedEx's internal QA or a legacy system. List-Unsubscribe is a standard header required by CAN-SPAM, so it's normal to have it; the URL might be a shortened... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
An email from 'Amazon' <prime@amazon-prime-renewal.co> with SPF and DKIM pass. Display name 'Amazon', but the domain has a hyphen. Any red flags despite auth passing? | Yes, multiple red flags. The domain 'amazon-prime-renewal.co' is a clear lookalike of amazon.com—it uses the brand name plus a service descriptor and a .co TLD. SPF/DKIM passing is irrelevant to legitimacy because the attacker owns that domain and can set up valid authentication records. The display name 'Amazon' is pu... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email is authenticated and safe. The domain 'amazon-prime-renewal.co' is just a commercial variant for Amazon's prime renewal service. The hyphen is a minor formatting difference. Since the technical checks pass, you can trust the email and proceed with renewal or check your account. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
5. Got a message from 'Google' <password-alert@google-account-security.net> — SPF and DKIM both pass. The display name is 'Google Account' but the domain includes 'google-account-security' which is not authentic. Reply-to is an outlook.com address. Verdict? | Verdict: phishing — definitive. The domain 'google-account-security.net' is not a Google-owned domain; Google uses google.com or googlemail.com for security alerts. The SPF/DKIM passes merely show the .net domain is authorized to send for itself, which is meaningless for brand trust. The display name 'Google Account' i... | Verdict: phishing — definitive. The reply-to being an outlook.com address is the single most damning piece of evidence — Google never uses external reply-to for password alerts, and this alone confirms malicious intent. The domain 'google-account-security.net' is not a Google-owned domain; Google uses google.com or goo... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Email from 'billing@paypal-corp.com' — SPF pass, DKIM pass, DMARC pass. Display name 'PayPal'. It says a recent payment to an unauthorized user. But the Reply-To is 'paypal.disputes@outlook.com'. What does this indicate? | This indicates phishing despite full authentication. The domain paypal-corp.com is a lookalike of paypal.com, and the DMARC pass only validates the domain's own policy, not whether the brand is impersonated. The Reply-To pointing to a free Outlook address is a major red flag—legitimate PayPal would never use external e... | This indicates phishing despite full authentication. The Reply-To pointing to a free Outlook address is a major red flag—legitimate PayPal would never use external email for disputes. The urgent 'unauthorized payment' language is a classic social engineering trigger. The combination of brand impersonation and reply-to ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received: from [203.0.113.5] by mx.example.com; from: 'John Smith' <john.smith@example-company.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. But the subject references an invoice number, and the attachment is a .zip file — I wasn't expecting any invoices. What's your assessment? | High-risk phishing. SPF/DKIM pass authenticate the sender domain, but the attachment is a .zip file — a classic malware vector, especially coupled with an unexpected invoice. The IP 203.0.113.5 is in a documentation/test range (RFC 5737), which is anomalous for a legitimate corporate sender — this suggests a spoofed or... | High-risk phishing. SPF/DKIM pass authenticate the sender domain, but the attachment is a .zip file — a classic malware vector, especially coupled with an unexpected invoice. The IP 203.0.113.5 is in a documentation/test range (RFC 5737), which is anomalous for a legitimate corporate sender — this suggests a spoofed or... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'Wells Fargo' <online@wellsfargo-alerts-support.com> with SPF and DKIM pass. Reply-to is 'helpdesk@wellsfargo-verify.net'. Is this legitimate or a phishing attempt? | This is a phishing attempt. The sender domain 'wellsfargo-alerts-support.com' is a lookalike of 'wellsfargo.com' — a real Wells Fargo email would come from @wellsfargo.com. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticate the lookalike domain, which the attacker fully controls. The reply-to 'helpdesk@wellsfargo-verify.net' is a seco... | The reply-to field 'helpdesk@wellsfargo-verify.net' is the most significant red flag here — it clearly diverges from the sender domain and indicates the attacker controls the response channel, so you must never reply to this message. The sender domain 'wellsfargo-alerts-support.com' is a lookalike of 'wellsfargo.com' —... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
I need to verify this email: From: 'Microsoft 365' <messages@microsoft365-team.com>, Subject: 'Your subscription has expired'. SPF and DKIM pass, but the sender domain is not microsoft.com, and the Reply-To header points to 'billing@microsoft365-support.net'. | Phishing. The sender domain is not microsoft.com, and the Reply-To mismatch is a strong signal: legitimate Microsoft never redirects replies to a similar-but-different domain. SPF/DKIM pass only for the lookalike domain, not for Microsoft. The 'expired subscription' creates urgency. This is a credential-phishing attemp... | Likely legitimate. SPF and DKIM passing confirms the sender domain is authorized to send. The Reply-To is to a related support domain, which could be a sub-service. The subject about expiry is common and not inherently malicious. I would proceed cautiously but not block it. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
From: "Federal Tax Office" <noreply@irs-tax-refund-alerts.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. The display name is 'IRS' but the domain is not .gov. A 'Reply-To' is 'update@tax-refund-claims.co'. The message offers a refund and needs personal details. Judge the email. | This is a classic government-impersonation phishing email. The domain 'irs-tax-refund-alerts.com' is not a .gov domain, which is the first and most critical red flag—the IRS only uses .gov for official communications. The Reply-To going to 'tax-refund-claims.co' is an entirely different, unrelated domain, indicating a ... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email is technically authenticated. The domain contains 'irs' and 'tax', so it looks official. The Reply-To might be a temporary address. The IRS does send refund notices, so this is likely a legitimate alert asking for confirmation. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
I'm looking at an email from 'Wells Fargo' but the sender domain is 'wellsfargo-account-security.com'. SPF and DKIM both pass. Display name says 'Wells Fargo'. The message claims unusual activity and asks to verify identity via link 'wellsfargo-online-update.org'. Evaluate. | This is a phishing email with high confidence. The sender domain wellsfargo-account-security.com is not owned by Wells Fargo (which uses wellsfargo.com). SPF and DKIM passing only prove the attacker's domain is properly configured, not that the sender is Wells Fargo. The display name is spoofed. The 'unusual activity' ... | This is a phishing email with high confidence. The sender domain wellsfargo-account-security.com is not owned by Wells Fargo (which uses wellsfargo.com). SPF and DKIM passing only prove the attacker's domain is properly configured, not that the sender is Wells Fargo. The display name is spoofed. The 'unusual activity' ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
6. An email from: 'From: "Bank of America" <alert@bofa-alerts-center.net>' — SPF and DKIM pass for this domain (which is not bofa.com). DMARC is pass because the domain's policy is permissive, but the message is a fraud alert about a wire transfer, containing a phone number that is not Bank of America's. Reply-to is 'c... | This is a highly suspicious phishing email. The sender domain 'bofa-alerts-center.net' is not bofa.com or bankofamerica.com—it's a lookalike designed to mimic 'BofA'. SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass only for that fake domain, so the authentication doesn't provide any real legitimacy for Bank of America. The fraud alert about a wir... | The Reply-To domain 'bofa-secure-fake.org' is obviously fraudulent, and that alone should trigger immediate suspicion. The phone number provided in the email is not Bank of America's official number (which would be on their website), and it likely routes to a call center run by the attackers. The fraud alert about a wi... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Please assess: From: 'ProtonMail' <security@protonmail.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. The 'Return-Path' is 'security@protonmail.secure-forward.com', and the email contains a warning about 'unusual account activity' with a link to 'protonmail.com.verify-now.help'. What's your trust score? | Trust score: 1/10 (phishing). SPF/DKIM pass for protonmail.com is irrelevant because the Return-Path (envelope sender) is protonmail.secure-forward.com, a completely different domain. This is a classic auth-bypass technique: the visible From is legit, but the actual bounce/return path is attacker-controlled. The link '... | Trust score: 1/10 (phishing). The 'unusual account activity' scare tactic plus a login link is a phishing template. SPF/DKIM pass for protonmail.com is irrelevant because the Return-Path (envelope sender) is protonmail.secure-forward.com, a completely different domain. This is a classic auth-bypass technique: the visib... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Check this: From: 'eBay' <seller@ebay-community-updates.com> with SPF and DKIM passing. The display name is 'eBay', but the domain is not ebay.com. There's also an attachment 'listing_review.xlsm'. Should I flag? | Yes, flag this immediately. The SPF/DKIM passes only prove that 'ebay-community-updates.com' authorized this send — they do not prove it's eBay. The display name 'eBay' is pure social-engineering; the actual sender domain is a lookalike that leverages the word 'ebay' plus 'community-updates' to appear legitimate. The p... | Yes, flag this immediately. The SPF/DKIM passes only prove that 'ebay-community-updates.com' authorized this send — they do not prove it's eBay. The display name 'eBay' is pure social-engineering; the actual sender domain is a lookalike that leverages the word 'ebay' plus 'community-updates' to appear legitimate. The p... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'Trello' <no-reply@trello.com> with SPF and DKIM both pass. However, the 'Reply-To' is 'support@trello-account-verify.net', and the subject is 'Board shared with you'. The body contains a link to 'login.trello.securecooperation.com'. Evaluate this. | Evaluate as phishing. Although SPF/DKIM pass for trello.com, the Reply-To header is set to trello-account-verify.net, which is not a Trello domain—this is a direct indicator that replies will go to an attacker. The 'Board shared with you' subject is a common social-engineering lure. The link 'login.trello.securecoopera... | Evaluate as phishing. Although SPF/DKIM pass for trello.com, the Reply-To header is set to trello-account-verify.net, which is not a Trello domain—this is a direct indicator that replies will go to an attacker. The 'Board shared with you' subject is a common social-engineering lure. The link 'login.trello.securecoopera... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'DHL Express' <no-reply@dhl-express-delivery-updates.com>. SPF passes, DKIM passes. The subject says 'Your package is on hold', with a link to a tracking portal. The display name is legitimate, but the domain is a lookalike and the reply-to is 'support@shipment-reschedule.com'. Rate this email. | This is a phishing email — rate it as high risk / malicious. The domain 'dhl-express-delivery-updates.com' is a lookalike of DHL's official dhl.com. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticates the attacker's own domain, not DHL. The reply-to 'support@shipment-reschedule.com' is a second lookalike domain, confirming a phishing ... | This is a phishing email — rate it as high risk / malicious. The domain 'dhl-express-delivery-updates.com' is a lookalike of DHL's official dhl.com. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticates the attacker's own domain, not DHL. The reply-to 'support@shipment-reschedule.com' is a second lookalike domain, confirming a phishing ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
6. An email from: "LinkedIn" <invitations@linkedin-updates-info.com>
Subject: You have 15 new connection requests
SPF/DKIM/DMARC all pass on 'linkedin-updates-info.com'. However, this domain is not owned by LinkedIn—it's a lookalike (adding '-updates-info'). The display name is 'LinkedIn', and the body contains a link ... | This is phishing. The domain linkedin-updates-info.com is a lookalike that appends '-updates-info' to the brand, a common technique for phishing domains. SPF/DKIM/DMARC all pass because the attacker controls this domain and has configured valid authentication for it—this does not indicate any relationship with LinkedIn... | SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all pass, which is the strongest possible authentication signal—it means the email is cryptographically verified as coming from the domain in the From header. The domain linkedin-updates-info.com could be a legitimate service used by LinkedIn for sending updates. The display name 'LinkedIn' is stan... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
5. Evaluate this email: 'From: "Microsoft Office 365" <alert@o365-security-notices.com>' with a 'Received' header from a residential IP address at a datacenter. SPF and DKIM pass, DMARC passes. The domain is not the official microsoft.com, but a third-party service. The body asks to verify credentials due to a security... | This email is a credential-phishing attempt. The domain o365-security-notices.com is not owned by Microsoft—it's a third-party domain designed to sound like an official Office 365 alert service. The 'Received' header showing a residential IP or datacenter IP is a major anomaly: legitimate Microsoft services route throu... | This email is a credential-phishing attempt. The domain o365-security-notices.com is not owned by Microsoft—it's a third-party domain designed to sound like an official Office 365 alert service. The 'Received' header showing a residential IP or datacenter IP is a major anomaly: legitimate Microsoft services route throu... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Please assess this email: From: 'Netflix Billing' <billing@netflix-subscription-notice.com>, Subject: 'Your payment method failed'. The domain's SPF and DKIM records pass, DMARC is set to reject, but the display name is 'Netflix' and the actual domain is a lookalike of netflix.com. | High risk, definitive phishing. Although SPF and DKIM pass and DMARC policy is 'reject', the domain 'netflix-subscription-notice.com' is not netflix.com. DMARC reject only applies to that specific domain, which the attacker controls. The display name 'Netflix' and the payment-failure subject are social engineering. The... | High risk, definitive phishing. Although SPF and DKIM pass and DMARC policy is 'reject', the domain 'netflix-subscription-notice.com' is not netflix.com. DMARC reject only applies to that specific domain, which the attacker controls. The display name 'Netflix' and the payment-failure subject are social engineering. The... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Evaluate: From: 'Teams' <noreply@teams-remote-work-platform.com>, SPF/DKIM pass, but the message header includes a 'Sender' field 'misconfigured-email-relay@external.com', and the body has a link to 'teams-account-verify.space' plus a request to share a 'sensitive document'. What makes this suspicious beyond auth? | Beyond the pass, the Sender field reveals the true origin: 'misconfigured-email-relay@external.com' — that's not a Microsoft domain, and it indicates the message was relayed through an external system, possibly compromise. The domain 'teams-remote-work-platform.com' is a lookalike of 'teams.microsoft.com'; the legitima... | Beyond the pass, the Sender field reveals the true origin: 'misconfigured-email-relay@external.com' — that's not a Microsoft domain, and it indicates the message was relayed through an external system, possibly compromise. The domain 'teams-remote-work-platform.com' is a lookalike of 'teams.microsoft.com'; the legitima... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received an email from 'info@paypal-security.com' with display name 'PayPal'. Both SPF and DKIM fail, but my provider didn't quarantine. Reply-To is 'paypal321@gmail.com'. Verdict? | This is a classic phishing attempt. The domain 'paypal-security.com' is not owned by PayPal — the real domain is paypal.com. The display name 'PayPal' is pure social engineering. Both SPF and DKIM failing means the message has no authentication proof; the provider not quarantining may be due to a policy misconfiguratio... | This is a classic phishing attempt. The domain 'paypal-security.com' is not owned by PayPal — the real domain is paypal.com. The display name 'PayPal' is pure social engineering. Both SPF and DKIM failing means the message has no authentication proof; the provider not quarantining may be due to a policy misconfiguratio... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'H&R Block' <info@hrblock-tax-refund-review.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. The email says you are eligible for a tax refund and need to sign a direct deposit form via an attached file. The file is a .exe disguised as .pdf. The sender domain is not the official hrblock.com. What is the risk? | This is a high-risk malware delivery attempt. The SPF/DKIM pass authenticates the lookalike domain 'hrblock-tax-refund-review.com', but that domain is not H&R Block's official domain. The attachment being an .exe disguised as .pdf is a critical red flag—executable files can contain ransomware, trojans, or keyloggers. T... | This is a high-risk malware delivery attempt. The SPF/DKIM pass authenticates the lookalike domain 'hrblock-tax-refund-review.com', but that domain is not H&R Block's official domain. The attachment being an .exe disguised as .pdf is a critical red flag—executable files can contain ransomware, trojans, or keyloggers. T... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'Wells Fargo' <wellsfargo@wellsfargo.com>. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all pass. The email subject reads 'Confirm Your New Device' and the body gives a phone number to call. The number is not the official customer service line. Is the email a spoofing or phishing attempt? | Phishing. Despite the full pass on wellsfargo.com, the phone number mismatch is a decisive indicator. Wells Fargo's official support numbers are well-known and never appear as a random 800-number in an email body. The display name matches the real domain, but that only masks the social-engineering angle: the attacker l... | Not spoofing. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all pass with the exact domain wellsfargo.com, so the email is authentic. Banks sometimes use alternate numbers for internal teams, and this could be a legitimate device-confirmation process. The phone number may be a regional or temporary line. Since headers are clean and authenticat... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
Just saw: 'From: "Dropbox" <no-reply@dropbox.com>' with SPF pass, DKIM pass, but the received chain includes a 'Received: from unknown (HELO mail.attacker.io)' that's supposedly valid for the domain. The body has a request to re-enter your password due to a 'security update'. Evaluate the full picture. | This is not trustworthy. The 'Received: from unknown (HELO mail.attacker.io)' header is a serious red flag — even if SPF/DKIM pass on the final from domain, the HELO hostname is an attacker-controlled server, not a Dropbox infrastructure hop. This indicates the email traversed a malicious relay, and the authentication ... | The email is legitimate because SPF and DKIM both pass, proving it came from dropbox.com. The Received header with 'mail.attacker.io' is probably just a misconfigured internal relay that Dropbox uses. The request to re-enter your password due to a security update is a standard precaution. The user should comply to secu... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
A message from 'Starbucks' <reward@starbucks-rewards-update.com> says my stars are expiring. SPF passes. What about the lookalike domain and urgency? | Phishing despite SPF pass. SPF only validates the server sending the mail, not the claimed identity. The domain 'starbucks-rewards-update.com' is a lookalike of starbucks.com, and the urgency about expiring stars is a classic pressure tactic. Reply-to likely differs, and the link probably harvests credentials. The SPF ... | Phishing despite SPF pass. SPF only validates the server sending the mail, not the claimed identity. The domain 'starbucks-rewards-update.com' is a lookalike of starbucks.com, and the urgency about expiring stars is a classic pressure tactic. Reply-to likely differs, and the link probably harvests credentials. The SPF ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An employee gets: 'From: "Zoom" <no-reply@zoom-invites.com>', SPF pass, DKIM pass, but the display name is 'Zoom' and the email says 'Your meeting is scheduled' with an attachment. The domain 'zoom-invites.com' is not official. Evaluate. | This is a phishing email, likely with malware. SPF/DKIM pass only authenticates 'zoom-invites.com', an unofficial domain. Display name 'Zoom' is spoofed. The attachment is the key malicious element—it's a common vector for payloads (e.g., macro-enabled documents or executables). 'Meeting scheduled' pretext reduces susp... | This is a phishing email, likely with malware. SPF/DKIM pass only authenticates 'zoom-invites.com', an unofficial domain. Display name 'Zoom' is spoofed. The domain is a lookalike ('zoom' + 'invites'), which is a strong indicator of malicious intent. Auth pass is a distraction; the attacker controls the domain. The 'Me... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received: 'from: "Google" <no-reply@google-security-alert.co>', SPF pass, DKIM pass, display name 'Google'. The email says all forwarded messages are on hold and asks for email login credentials. Domain is not google.com. Is this a phishing attempt? | Yes, this is phishing. SPF and DKIM passes only mean the sending server is authorized for the domain google-security-alert.co, which is a lookalike of google.com. The display name 'Google' is a classic spoofing tactic to bypass human attention, and the request for login credentials is a credential-harvesting goal. Even... | Yes, this is phishing. SPF and DKIM passes only mean the sending server is authorized for the domain google-security-alert.co, which is a lookalike of google.com. The display name 'Google' is a classic spoofing tactic to bypass human attention, and the request for login credentials is a credential-harvesting goal. Even... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Email to inspect: From 'X (Twitter)' <support@twitter-x-verification.com>, SPF/DKIM pass. The email claims you can get a blue checkmark for free by clicking a link. The link goes to a domain that looks like a Twitter help page but isn't. The Reply-To is a hotmail address. Assess thoroughly. | This is a sophisticated phishing attempt. The SPF/DKIM pass authenticates the lookalike domain 'twitter-x-verification.com', which is not owned by X/Twitter. The display name is spoofed to mimic the brand. The offer of a free blue checkmark is a known lure, as that normally requires payment or verification. The link to... | This is a sophisticated phishing attempt. The SPF/DKIM pass authenticates the lookalike domain 'twitter-x-verification.com', which is not owned by X/Twitter. The display name is spoofed to mimic the brand. The offer of a free blue checkmark is a known lure, as that normally requires payment or verification. The link to... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email: From: 'Wells Fargo' <support@wellsfargo-online-alert.net> — SPF and DKIM pass, but the Reply-To is 'data-entry@mail.ru'. What's your conclusion? | This is a phishing attempt. SPF and DKIM passing only prove the sending server is authorized for the domain wellsfargo-online-alert.net, which is a lookalike of the real Wells Fargo domain. The display name 'Wells Fargo' is a classic spoofing tactic to build trust. The Reply-To being a Russian mail service (mail.ru) is... | The Reply-To field is set to 'data-entry@mail.ru', a Russian mail service, which is a significant concern. SPF and DKIM pass, proving the sending server is authorized for wellsfargo-online-alert.net. The display name 'Wells Fargo' is a classic spoofing tactic to build trust. While the domain is a lookalike of the real ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'Walmart' <support@walmart-refund-alert.com> has SPF pass, DKIM pass. The subject is 'Refund pending: action required' with a link to 'http://walmart-refund-alert.com/refund'. The domain is a lookalike. What's your call? | This is a phishing attempt. SPF/DKIM pass only for walmart-refund-alert.com, which is not owned by Walmart (real domain: walmart.com). The display name 'Walmart' is a spoof. The subject 'Refund pending: action required' creates urgency and fear of missing money. The link goes to the lookalike domain, which will likely ... | This is a phishing attempt. The subject 'Refund pending: action required' creates urgency and fear of missing money. The display name 'Walmart' is a spoof. SPF/DKIM pass only for walmart-refund-alert.com, which is not owned by Walmart (real domain: walmart.com). The link goes to the lookalike domain, which will likely ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'PayPal' <service@paypal-currency-convert.com> - DMARC passes. But wait, the 'return-path' is 'bounce@seriouslydifferentdomain.net'. Explain the significance of the return-path header. | The return-path (or envelope sender) is where bounces go, and it's separate from the From header. DMARC pass can be achieved if the From domain's policy is 'none' or if alignment is relaxed — but here, the return-path domain 'seriouslydifferentdomain.net' is completely unrelated to the From domain 'paypal-currency-conv... | The return-path is just where bounces go, and it's often different for marketing emails. DMARC passes, so the email is legitimate from PayPal. The different domain is probably a third-party bounce handler. No need to worry — trust the DMARC result. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
Received an email from 'Netflix' <billing@netflix-support.info> with SPF pass and DKIM pass. The display name is 'Netflix' but the domain looks similar to the real one. The message asks to update payment details urgently. What's the assessment? | This is a phishing email. The Display Name 'Netflix' is a deliberate social-engineering spoof, but the domain 'netflix-support.info' is a lookalike — it contains 'netflix' but is not 'netflix.com'. The SPF/DKIM passes only validate that the owner of 'netflix-support.info' authorized the send, not that it is Netflix. Th... | This is a phishing email. The Display Name 'Netflix' is a deliberate social-engineering spoof, but the domain 'netflix-support.info' is a lookalike — it contains 'netflix' but is not 'netflix.com'. The SPF/DKIM passes only validate that the owner of 'netflix-support.info' authorized the send, not that it is Netflix. Th... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'Slack' <no-reply@slack-team-invites.com>. SPF passes, DKIM passes. The email invites to join a workspace and includes a link to a fake Slack login. Display name 'Slack', but domain is a lookalike. Reply-to is 'invites.slack@outlook.com'. Assess. | Definitely phishing. SPF/DKIM pass is irrelevant because the domain 'slack-team-invites.com' is not slack.com—it's a lookalike crafted to deceive. The display name 'Slack' plus an invite link to a fake login page is a standard credential-harvesting pattern. The reply-to being an Outlook personal address is a critical r... | Definitely phishing. SPF/DKIM pass is irrelevant because the domain 'slack-team-invites.com' is not slack.com—it's a lookalike crafted to deceive. The display name 'Slack' plus an invite link to a fake login page is a standard credential-harvesting pattern. The reply-to being an Outlook personal address is a critical r... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Assess: From: 'Outlook' <info@outlook-mfa-verify.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. The email says 'Your MFA code is 123456' but the link is to 'verify-mfa-identity-verification.net'. The body's tone is urgent and official. Is this phishing? | Yes, this is phishing. The display name 'Outlook' and the MFA-code pretext are social engineering to mimic a security alert. The domain 'outlook-mfa-verify.com' is a lookalike—Microsoft's legitimate domains are outlook.com or microsoft.com, not a hyphenated subdomain-brand. SPF and DKIM pass because the attacker regist... | Yes, this is phishing. The display name 'Outlook' and the MFA-code pretext are social engineering to mimic a security alert. The domain 'outlook-mfa-verify.com' is a lookalike—Microsoft's legitimate domains are outlook.com or microsoft.com, not a hyphenated subdomain-brand. SPF and DKIM pass because the attacker regist... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
A professional receives an email: From: “Adobe” <noreply@adobe-license-verification.com>. SPF: passes, but only because the domain's policy is “~all” (softfail), and the IP is listed. DKIM: none. DMARC: not published. The subject: “Your Adobe license is expired. Renew now to avoid data loss.” The body contains a link: ... | This is a well-crafted phishing attempt with multiple critical red flags. First, the sender domain is adobe-license-verification.com, a lookalike of adobe.com — not legitimate. SPF passes with a softfail (~all), meaning the domain owner says 'this IP is allowed, but if it's not from our known list, it's suspect' — howe... | This is a well-crafted phishing attempt with multiple critical red flags. First, the sender domain is adobe-license-verification.com, a lookalike of adobe.com — not legitimate. SPF passes with a softfail (~all), meaning the domain owner says 'this IP is allowed, but if it's not from our known list, it's suspect' — howe... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received a 'T-Mobile' email from 'no-reply@t-mobile-billing-notice.com' — SPF pass, DKIM pass, display name 'T-Mobile'. Subject: 'Your bill is now available'. The email includes a link to 't-mobile-billing-notice.com'. Reply-to 'tmo.support@yahoo.com'. What's the verdict? | This is a phishing email. SPF/DKIM pass on 't-mobile-billing-notice.com' only proves the sender controls that lookalike domain — the real T-Mobile uses t-mobile.com or t-mobile.net, not a hyphenated 'billing-notice' variation. The display name 'T-Mobile' is spoofable. The link goes to the same lookalike domain, which l... | This is a phishing email. SPF/DKIM pass on 't-mobile-billing-notice.com' only proves the sender controls that lookalike domain — the real T-Mobile uses t-mobile.com or t-mobile.net, not a hyphenated 'billing-notice' variation. The display name 'T-Mobile' is spoofable. The link goes to the same lookalike domain, which l... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An SMS-like phishing email: From: 'McAfee' <notification@mcafee-renewal-billing.com>. SPF/DKIM pass. Display name: 'McAfee'. Message: 'Your subscription has renewed for $499.99 — call 1-800-555-0185 to cancel' with a spoofed phone number. Reply-to: 'no-reply@mcafee-refund-center.net'. What's the likely intent and reaso... | This is a vishing (voice phishing) attack. The sender domain 'mcafee-renewal-billing.com' is a lookalike of McAfee's real domain (mcafee.com). The display name 'McAfee' is a spoofing technique. The false renewal charge of $499.99 is designed to create panic, prompting the victim to call the spoofed phone number. The re... | This is a vishing (voice phishing) attack. The sender domain 'mcafee-renewal-billing.com' is a lookalike of McAfee's real domain (mcafee.com). The display name 'McAfee' is a spoofing technique. The false renewal charge of $499.99 is designed to create panic, prompting the victim to call the spoofed phone number. The re... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email claims to be from 'Apple Support' with sender address 'noreply@appleid-verification.icu'. SPF and DKIM both pass for the sending domain. The display name is 'Apple Support' but the domain is a newly registered .icu TLD. Reply-to header is set to 'verify@appleid-icloud-account.net'. What's your assessment? | This is a phishing attempt despite the authentication passes. SPF and DKIM only prove that 'appleid-verification.icu' authorized the send — they say nothing about Apple. The .icu TLD is brand-new and unrelated to Apple's real domains. The display name 'Apple Support' is pure social engineering. Critically, the reply-to... | This is a phishing attempt despite the authentication passes. SPF and DKIM only prove that 'appleid-verification.icu' authorized the send — they say nothing about Apple. The .icu TLD is brand-new and unrelated to Apple's real domains. The display name 'Apple Support' is pure social engineering. Critically, the reply-to... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
I have an email from 'Facebook' <notification@facebook-account-security.com>, SPF and DKIM pass. The display name is 'Facebook', but the domain contains 'account-security'. The message requests that I confirm my password. What's the verdict? | Verdict: phishing. The domain 'facebook-account-security.com' is a lookalike—Facebook's real domain is facebook.com. The display name 'Facebook' is a superficial spoof. The request to confirm your password is a credential-harvesting tactic, as legitimate companies never ask for passwords via email. SPF/DKIM passing onl... | Verdict: phishing. The domain 'facebook-account-security.com' is a lookalike—Facebook's real domain is facebook.com. The display name 'Facebook' is a superficial spoof. The request to confirm your password is a credential-harvesting tactic, as legitimate companies never ask for passwords via email. SPF/DKIM passing onl... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Please evaluate: 'From: "Google" <no-reply@google.com>' — SPF and DKIM pass for google.com, DMARC align. But the Reply-To header is 'account-security@gmail.com' which is a free mail service (looks like a personal Gmail). The subject is 'New device sign-in, if this was you, ignore' but the body contains a link to 'googl... | No, the sender pass does not justify trust. Although SPF/DKIM/DMARC all align on google.com, the Reply-To header is a personal Gmail address, which is a classic phishing trick to route replies. The link in the body goes to 'googlesecure-check.net', not google.com—this is the actual credential-harvesting destination. Th... | No, the sender pass does not justify trust. The Reply-To header is a personal Gmail address, which is a classic phishing trick to route replies—this is the primary red flag and the definitive indicator of a phish. The link in the body goes to 'googlesecure-check.net', not google.com, which is also suspicious but second... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
I see an email: From: 'Chase Bank' <security@chase-alert-verification.com> with SPF and DKIM passing. The domain is not chase.com, and there's a Reply-To of 'verify@chase-account-recovery.org'. Is this phishing despite auth? | Yes, this is classic phishing despite the auth pass. The SPF/DKIM pass on 'chase-alert-verification.com' only proves the attacker set up proper DNS for their own domain — it's not a validation of the brand. The domain is a lookalike with 'alert-verification' inserted to mimic legitimate security notices. The Reply-To (... | The Reply-To ('verify@chase-account-recovery.org') is the most important detail here — it's a second, independent lookalike domain, which is a strong indicator of a reply-to diversion attack — a common tactic to capture credentials or personal info in replies. Yes, this is classic phishing despite the auth pass. The SP... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
A message from 'IT Helpdesk' <helpdesk@contoso.com> with display name 'Contoso IT' — SPF/DKIM/DMARC all pass. However, the Reply-To is set to an external Gmail address, and the body asks for my password to 'verify my account'. Is this legitimate? | Phishing. The triple pass (SPF/DKIM/DMARC) only proves the domain 'contoso.com' authorized the sending server — it says nothing about the content's legitimacy. The Reply-To being a Gmail address is a massive red flag: legitimate IT helpdesks never redirect responses off-domain, especially for credential requests. The b... | Phishing — but the most telling sign is the Reply-To being a Gmail address, which is a massive red flag: legitimate IT helpdesks never redirect responses off-domain, especially for credential requests. The triple pass (SPF/DKIM/DMARC) only proves the domain 'contoso.com' authorized the sending server — it says nothing ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Email from 'invoice@somecompany.org' with subject 'Overdue Invoice for Services Rendered'. SPF and DKIM both pass. The domain 'somecompany.org' closely resembles a legitimate vendor 'somecompany.com'. The body contains a link to 'http://somecompany.org/payment.php'. Reply-to is set to 'accounting@somecompany.org'. Anal... | High phishing potential. SPF and DKIM passing for somecompany.org only proves that the attacker controls that domain's mail infrastructure—it does not validate the domain's legitimacy. The lookalike domain 'somecompany.org' vs the real vendor's '.com' is a classic typosquatting technique. The link goes to the same look... | High phishing potential. SPF and DKIM passing for somecompany.org only proves that the attacker controls that domain's mail infrastructure—it does not validate the domain's legitimacy. The lookalike domain 'somecompany.org' vs the real vendor's '.com' is a classic typosquatting technique. The link goes to the same look... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
3. Received: 'PayPal' <service@paypal-account-restore.com> — SPF passes, DKIM passes. The message body references a limited account, but the hyperlink goes to a fake login page. The display name and domain don't match. Phishing? | Yes, unequivocally phishing. The SPF/DKIM passes are red herrings — they authenticate the sending mail server for 'paypal-account-restore.com', a domain PayPal never uses. The display name 'PayPal' is the deception layer; the domain is a lookalike. The body's 'limited account' is the classic fear trigger, and the hyper... | Yes, unequivocally phishing. The SPF/DKIM passes are red herrings — they authenticate the sending mail server for 'paypal-account-restore.com', a domain PayPal never uses. The display name 'PayPal' is the deception layer; the domain is a lookalike. The body's 'limited account' is the classic fear trigger, and the hyper... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An internal user sends you an email intercepted by the gateway: From: “Microsoft 365” <security@microsoftonline-security-service.com>. SPF: passes (the domain has an SPF record with “+all” making it permissive). DKIM: missing. DMARC: missing. The email says “Your mailbox has exceeded your storage quota. To avoid sendin... | This is a clear phishing attempt. The SPF pass is an artifact because the domain's SPF record is '+all', meaning it explicitly allows any IP address to send on its behalf — this is a permissive record that provides zero authentication value; it is equivalent to 'no SPF'. The sender domain is microsoftonline-security-se... | This is a clear phishing attempt. The SPF pass is an artifact because the domain's SPF record is '+all', meaning it explicitly allows any IP address to send on its behalf — this is a permissive record that provides zero authentication value; it is equivalent to 'no SPF'. The sender domain is microsoftonline-security-se... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Assess: From: 'T-Mobile' <billing@t-mobile-account-alert-service.net>, SPF pass, DKIM pass, but the display name has a Unicode non-breaking space ('T-Mobile Support'), and the message's 'Reply-To' is 'tmobile-refund-offers123@gmail.com'. The body claims a 'refund of $250' and asks for a confirmation code. Decide. | This is a phishing attempt. The SPF/DKIM pass only validates 't-mobile-account-alert-service.net', which is not T-Mobile's legitimate domain (that would be t-mobile.com). The display name contains a Unicode non-breaking space ('T-Mobile Support') — a deliberate visual trick to make it appear as a space, but it's a hidd... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email is authenticated from the sender's domain. The display name has a space — that's just formatting. The Reply-To being a Gmail address is a bit odd but could be a support alias. The refund amount is a standard customer service offer. Asking for a confirmation code is a normal verification ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
2. Received: 'From: "Instagram" <no-reply@instagram-helpcenter.net>', SPF pass, DKIM pass, display name 'Instagram'. The email claims 'Your account is at risk' and asks for password reset. The domain 'instagram-helpcenter.net' is not official. Evaluate the phish. | This is a high-confidence phish. The lookalike domain 'instagram-helpcenter.net' is not owned by Meta/Instagram; the display-name spoofing of 'Instagram' combined with fear-based 'account at risk' pushes users toward a fake password reset. SPF/DKIM passing only show the attacker's mail server can send on that malicious... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email is not spoofed from a technical standpoint. The display name says Instagram, and the domain contains 'instagram' which suggests it's a subdomain for help content. The request to reset a password is common for account security. Since the authentication checks out, I'd treat this as a legi... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
An email presents as: From: 'LinkedIn' <notifications@linkedin-security.com> — SPF pass, DKIM pass. However, the Received: header shows the message originated from an IP in a known hosting provider, not LinkedIn's servers. Display name is exact. Determine phishing. | This is a phishing email. The SPF/DKIM passes are for linkedin-security.com, but that domain is not LinkedIn's real sending domain — it's a lookalike (LinkedIn uses linkedin.com or mail.linkedin.com). The Received: header is the smoking gun: the message came from a hosting provider's IP, not from LinkedIn's infrastruct... | This is a phishing email. The SPF/DKIM passes are for linkedin-security.com, but that domain is not LinkedIn's real sending domain — it's a lookalike (LinkedIn uses linkedin.com or mail.linkedin.com). The Received: header is the smoking gun: the message came from a hosting provider's IP, not from LinkedIn's infrastruct... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Check this: 'From: 'Spotify' <no-reply@spotify-premium-renewal.com>' — SPF pass, DKIM pass. The email says 'Your premium subscription expired, renew now' with a link to 'http://spotify-premium-renewal.com/renew'. The domain is suspicious. Legitimate? | Phishing. The display name 'Spotify' is used over a lookalike domain 'spotify-premium-renewal.com' that Spotify does not own. SPF/DKIM pass only for that unauthorized domain; DMARC alignment fails. The 'subscription expired' urgency and 'renew now' CTA push immediate action without checking. The link goes to the fake d... | The urgency of the 'renew now' call to action is the most telling signal here. The email pushes immediate action, a classic pressure tactic designed to bypass careful review. The display name 'Spotify' is used over a lookalike domain 'spotify-premium-renewal.com' that Spotify does not own. SPF/DKIM pass only for that u... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from: "USPS" <packages@usps-tracking-service.com>
Subject: Delivery failed - reschedule
SPF and DKIM pass on 'usps-tracking-service.com', but the real domain is 'usps.com'. Display name: 'USPS'. Reply-To: 'reschedule@usps-verify.com'. The header shows a Received from a domain not matching. Body contains a link... | Yes, this is phishing. The SPF/DKIM passes authenticate 'usps-tracking-service.com', but that domain is a lookalike of the legitimate 'usps.com'. The visible From domain is not the real USPS domain; therefore, the authentication passes are irrelevant to the trustworthiness of the sender as 'USPS'. The Reply-To 'resched... | Yes, this is phishing. The SPF/DKIM passes authenticate 'usps-tracking-service.com', but that domain is a lookalike of the legitimate 'usps.com'. The visible From domain is not the real USPS domain; therefore, the authentication passes are irrelevant to the trustworthiness of the sender as 'USPS'. The Reply-To 'resched... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'Wells Fargo' <wellsfargo@wf-online-alerts.com>, SPF=pass, DKIM=pass. The Display name matches, but the subject is 'Your account access has been limited' and the body has a 'Sign on to secure your account' button pointing to 'wf-online-signin.xyz'. Is this legitimate? | No, this is a phishing attempt. The From domain 'wf-online-alerts.com' is a lookalike — real Wells Fargo uses wellsfargo.com. SPF/DKIM pass only on the envelope domain's own policy, which the attacker controls for their fake domain. The subject 'account limited' and the button to 'wf-online-signin.xyz' are classic urge... | No, this is a phishing attempt. The subject 'account limited' and the button to 'wf-online-signin.xyz' are classic urgency+credential-harvesting patterns. The display name 'Wells Fargo' is irrelevant because it can be spoofed. The From domain 'wf-online-alerts.com' is a lookalike — real Wells Fargo uses wellsfargo.com.... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Email from 'PayPal' <service@paypal-payments-dispute.com> — SPF pass, DKIM fail, DMARC fail. The display name is 'PayPal' and the body says 'Unauthorized charge detected, click to review.' The sender domain is not a subdomain of paypal.com. What's your reasoning? | This is a phishing email. The combination of a lookalike domain ('paypal-payments-dispute.com' is not owned by PayPal), a display-name impersonation, and a fear-based call-to-action ('unauthorized charge') is a textbook phishing pattern. The SPF pass is meaningless because the attacker controls that domain and can publ... | This is a phishing email. The combination of a lookalike domain ('paypal-payments-dispute.com' is not owned by PayPal), a display-name impersonation, and a fear-based call-to-action ('unauthorized charge') is a textbook phishing pattern. The SPF pass is meaningless because the attacker controls that domain and can publ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'Apple' <billing@apple-store-refunds.com> has SPF and DKIM passing. It offers a refund and asks the user to enter bank account details via a form. The form is hosted on a domain that looks similar to apple.com but is not. Assess. | This is a phishing attempt despite valid SPF/DKIM. The sender domain apple-store-refunds.com is a lookalike of apple.com, and the display name 'Apple' is used for social engineering. The request to enter bank details on a similarly deceptive form domain is a classic credential/identity theft tactic. SPF/DKIM only prove... | This is a phishing attempt despite valid SPF/DKIM. The sender domain apple-store-refunds.com is a lookalike of apple.com, and the display name 'Apple' is used for social engineering. The request to enter bank details on a similarly deceptive form domain is a classic credential/identity theft tactic. SPF/DKIM only prove... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Consider this: 'From: TikTok <notification@tiktok-security-alert-service.com>' with 'Reply-To: notice@tiktok-support-account.com'. SPF passes, DKIM passes, DMARC is 'none'. Subject: 'Your account has been reported for copyright violation' and the email contains a link to appeal. The display name is 'TikTok' but the dom... | This is a phishing email. DMARC 'none' means the domain owner has published a policy that takes no action on failures—so even if SPF/DKIM pass, there is zero enforcement, and the attacker is exploiting that. The domain 'tiktok-security-alert-service.com' is a lookalike, and the display name is the only 'TikTok' referen... | This is a phishing email. DMARC 'none' means the domain owner has published a policy that takes no action on failures—so even if SPF/DKIM pass, there is zero enforcement, and the attacker is exploiting that. The domain 'tiktok-security-alert-service.com' is a lookalike, and the display name is the only 'TikTok' referen... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'PayPal' <service@paypal-secure-verification.net> arrives. SPF/DKIM pass. Display name is 'PayPal'. The message claims unauthorized login attempt and requires immediate verification. The 'reply-to' header is 'no-reply@paypal.com'—this looks legit at first glance. What's your reasoning? | This is a phishing email. The sender domain 'paypal-secure-verification.net' is a lookalike of PayPal's real domain; PayPal uses 'paypal.com' for official communications. SPF/DKIM pass only authenticates that this lookalike domain exists and the sender controls it. The display name 'PayPal' is designed to fool the reci... | This is a phishing email. The sender domain 'paypal-secure-verification.net' is a lookalike of PayPal's real domain; PayPal uses 'paypal.com' for official communications. SPF/DKIM pass only authenticates that this lookalike domain exists and the sender controls it. The display name 'PayPal' is designed to fool the reci... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'PayPal' <service@paypal-billing-warning.com>. SPF passes, DKIM passes. The email claims a purchase was made and asks to dispute via a link. Display name is 'PayPal' but the domain is a lookalike. Reply-to is 'paypal.disputes@outlook.com'. Evaluate. | This is a sophisticated phishing attempt. SPF/DKIM pass only tell us the mail server for 'paypal-billing-warning.com' is authorized to send for that domain — they say nothing about PayPal. The domain is a deliberate lookalike: 'paypal-billing-warning.com' inserts 'billing-warning' to mimic PayPal's billing alerts. The ... | This is a sophisticated phishing attempt. SPF/DKIM pass only tell us the mail server for 'paypal-billing-warning.com' is authorized to send for that domain — they say nothing about PayPal. The domain is a deliberate lookalike: 'paypal-billing-warning.com' inserts 'billing-warning' to mimic PayPal's billing alerts. The ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
I'm an analyst and this email has SPF pass, DKIM pass, but the domain 'amazon-prime-support.info' is used with display name 'Amazon Prime'. The message claims my membership will be renewed. Is this trustworthy? | No, this is not trustworthy. The SPF and DKIM passes only prove that 'amazon-prime-support.info' owns its mail-sending infrastructure; they do not prove this domain is affiliated with Amazon. The domain is a lookalike—Amazon uses 'amazon.com' or 'amazon.co.uk' for legitimate correspondence, not a .info variant. The dis... | No, this is not trustworthy. The renewal-threat framing is designed to create urgency and drive you to a phishing page; that is the primary indicator. The SPF and DKIM passes only prove that 'amazon-prime-support.info' owns its mail-sending infrastructure; they do not prove this domain is affiliated with Amazon. The do... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'Dropbox' <no-reply@dropbox-file-share.com> with SPF and DKIM both pass. The domain is a lookalike, and the Reply-To header is 'customerservice@dropbox-login-help.com'. Is the email trustworthy? | No, this is not trustworthy. While SPF and DKIM pass, that only proves the sending infrastructure is authorized for the lookalike domain 'dropbox-file-share.com' — it does not authenticate the display name 'Dropbox'. The lookalike domain and the Reply-To pointing to a different, equally suspicious domain ('dropbox-logi... | No, this is not trustworthy. While SPF and DKIM pass, that only proves the sending infrastructure is authorized for the lookalike domain 'dropbox-file-share.com' — it does not authenticate the display name 'Dropbox'. The lookalike domain and the Reply-To pointing to a different, equally suspicious domain ('dropbox-logi... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Assess the following: From: 'Google' <no-reply@google.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass, DMARC pass (company domain). However, the 'Content-Type' header has a 'name' attribute that leads to an attachment. The body text has random characters. How do you weigh this? | The authentication is perfect — SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all pass on the exact domain 'google.com', which means the email genuinely came from Google's infrastructure. That drastically raises the bar for phishing, but it does not make it impossible. The 'Content-Type' name attribute pointing to an attachment is a known vect... | The authentication is perfect — SPF, DKIM, and DMARC all pass on the exact domain 'google.com', which means the email genuinely came from Google's infrastructure. That drastically raises the bar for phishing, but it does not make it impossible. The 'Content-Type' name attribute pointing to an attachment is a known vect... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'hr@ourcompany-payroll.com' with display name 'Payroll Department'. SPF and DKIM pass, DMARC aligned. It asks me to download a W-2 form attachment. The domain is similar to my employer's domain but includes '-payroll'. Does authentication alone clear this email? | No, authentication alone does not clear this email. The key signal is the lookalike domain: 'ourcompany-payroll.com' is not your employer's official domain — the '-payroll' suffix is a classic phishing variation. SPF/DKIM/DMARC passing only proves the attacker controls this specific lookalike domain, not that it belong... | No, authentication alone does not clear this email. The key signal is the lookalike domain: 'ourcompany-payroll.com' is not your employer's official domain — the '-payroll' suffix is a classic phishing variation. SPF/DKIM/DMARC passing only proves the attacker controls this specific lookalike domain, not that it belong... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
You receive: 'From: "Netflix" <info@netflix-membership.com>', SPF pass, DKIM pass, display name 'Netflix'. The email requests 'update your payment method immediately' — the link points to 'netflix-membership.com/secure'. What signals do you weigh? | Weigh the domain 'netflix-membership.com'—this is a lookalike of 'netflix.com' with 'membership' inserted. SPF/DKIM pass only for that lookalike domain, not netflix.com. Display name 'Netflix' is spoofed. The urgency 'immediately' and payment-method request are classic phishing triggers. The link domain matches the sen... | Weigh the domain 'netflix-membership.com'—this is a lookalike of 'netflix.com' with 'membership' inserted. SPF/DKIM pass only for that lookalike domain, not netflix.com. Display name 'Netflix' is spoofed. The urgency 'immediately' and payment-method request are classic phishing triggers. The link domain matches the sen... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
1. Forwarded to SOC: From: 'American Express' <alert@american-express-verify-now.com>. SPF pass, DKIM pass. The email indicates unusual login activity and prompts the user to download an attachment for details. The display name is 'American Express,' but the domain is not the official one. The Reply-To is blank, which ... | High-confidence phishing. The SPF/DKIM pass only proves the sending server is authorized for the lookalike domain—not that the domain is legitimate. The display name 'American Express' is a classic social-engineering lure, and the domain 'american-express-verify-now.com' contains the brand plus 'verify-now' to evoke ur... | High-confidence phishing. The SPF/DKIM pass only proves the sending server is authorized for the lookalike domain—not that the domain is legitimate. The display name 'American Express' is a classic social-engineering lure, and the domain 'american-express-verify-now.com' contains the brand plus 'verify-now' to evoke ur... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Sender domain is 'delta-airlines.com' (hyphenated) not 'delta.com'. SPF/DKIM pass from the hyphenated lookalike. Display name 'Delta Airlines'. A link in the email goes to 'ticket-verification.delta-airline.com'. How do you rank this? | This ranks as high-risk phishing. The domain 'delta-airlines.com' is a lookalike of the official 'delta.com' — the addition of '-airlines' is a classic typo-squat technique. SPF and DKIM passing only validates that the sending server is authorized for that exact lookalike domain, not that it's legitimate; attackers reg... | The display name 'Delta Airlines' is social engineering to trigger trust. Critically, the link's domain 'delta-airline.com' (missing the 's') is another step removed from the official domain — this is a common chain where the displayed sender and link are both fake. This ranks as high-risk phishing. The domain 'delta-a... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
You're asked to evaluate: From: 'Security Alerts' <alert@security.microsoft.com> — SPF=pass, DKIM=pass. But there's an extra 'X-Original-Mailer' header saying 'Microsoft Outlook 15.0' and a suspicious 'List-Unsubscribe' linking to 'unsubscribe.microsoft-security.help'. Any red flags? | Yes, high risk. While SPF/DKIM pass on security.microsoft.com, the List-Unsubscribe header points to a lookalike domain (microsoft-security.help) instead of a genuine Microsoft domain like microsoft.com. Legitimate Microsoft security alerts would use their own unsubscribe infrastructure. The X-Original-Mailer header cl... | Yes, high risk. While SPF/DKIM pass on security.microsoft.com, the X-Original-Mailer header claiming 'Microsoft Outlook 15.0' is the primary indicator to investigate. Real automated security alerts typically use a server mailer, so an Outlook client mailer suggests the email was composed manually on a desktop, which is... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'National Grid' <billing@nationalgrid-payment-center.com>, SPF passes, DKIM passes. The email says my utility payment failed and asks me to update payment info. The Reply-To suggests a Gmail address. How would you rate this? | Very high likelihood of phishing. Although SPF and DKIM pass, the sender domain 'nationalgrid-payment-center.com' is not the real National Grid domain, and the Reply-To pointing to a Gmail address is a massive red flag — legitimate utilities never use personal email for payment issues. The combination of a lookalike do... | Very high likelihood of phishing. Although SPF and DKIM pass, the Reply-To pointing to a Gmail address is a massive red flag — legitimate utilities never use personal email for payment issues. The combination of a lookalike domain, urgent payment failure narrative, and mismatched reply-to strongly indicates a credentia... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received from 'support@dropboxmail-security.com' — SPF pass, DKIM pass, display name 'Dropbox Security'. It says I have 48 hours to respond to a compliance review. The email asks me to upload sensitive files to a shared link. Assess the risk. | High risk. SPF and DKIM pass only validate that the sending server is authorized for the domain 'dropboxmail-security.com', but that domain is not Dropbox's legitimate domain. The display name 'Dropbox Security' is a classic social engineering trick to appear official. The urgency (48 hours) and request to upload sensi... | The most prominent concern is the 48-hour deadline, which is an aggressive time pressure tactic that should immediately raise alarm bells. This urgency is the leading indicator of a phishing attempt. SPF and DKIM pass only validate that the sending server is authorized for the domain 'dropboxmail-security.com', but tha... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'billing@verizon-service-alert.com' — SPF pass, DKIM pass, display name 'Verizon Wireless'. It claims my bill is past due. The Reply-To header is missing, but the body has a phone number to call. Analyze. | This is a phishing email. The domain 'verizon-service-alert.com' is not 'verizon.com' — it's a lookalike designed to impersonate Verizon. SPF/DKIM pass only mean the attacker controls this fake domain. The missing Reply-To is not a positive signal; it's a way to force victims to use the provided phone number, which is ... | This is a phishing email. The domain 'verizon-service-alert.com' is not 'verizon.com' — it's a lookalike designed to impersonate Verizon. SPF/DKIM pass only mean the attacker controls this fake domain. The missing Reply-To is not a positive signal; it's a way to force victims to use the provided phone number, which is ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email arrives with the header From: “CrowdStrike” <support@falcon-overview-alerts.com>. SPF passes (attacker-controlled domain). DKIM passes (for the attacker's domain). DMARC passes (for that domain). The message says “Your antivirus has detected a critical threat. Click to download the new patch and run it before ... | Grade: High-confidence phishing. SPF/DKIM/DMARC all pass for falcon-overview-alerts.com, but that domain is attacker-controlled—SPF pass only proves the sending server is authorized by that domain's owner, not that the sender is CrowdStrike. DMARC alignment is against the From domain, which is not crowdstrike.com. The ... | Grade: High-confidence phishing. SPF/DKIM/DMARC all pass for falcon-overview-alerts.com, but that domain is attacker-controlled—SPF pass only proves the sending server is authorized by that domain's owner, not that the sender is CrowdStrike. DMARC alignment is against the From domain, which is not crowdstrike.com. The ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Your mail filter captured an email: From 'noreply@fedex-status-delivery.com' with display name 'FedEx'. SPF and DKIM pass, but the message body contains links to 'fedex-tracking-status.update' which is a known malicious domain. Provide your analysis. | This is a phishing email. The sender domain 'fedex-status-delivery.com' is a lookalike of 'fedex.com', and the display name 'FedEx' is used for social engineering. SPF/DKIM passing is irrelevant here because the authentication only validates the sending infrastructure for that lookalike domain. The link to 'fedex-track... | The mail filter is being overly cautious. SPF and DKIM pass, which means the email is authentic. The link domain might have been flagged by mistake, or it could be a new legitimate tracking service. Since authentication is solid, the email is likely from FedEx. Allow it through. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
Check: From: "Spotify" <no-reply@spotify-premium-offers.com> Subject: Your Premium subscription is cancelled SPF and DKIM pass on 'spotify-premium-offers.com', which is a lookalike of 'spotify.com'. Display name: 'Spotify'. Reply-To: 'claims@spotify-billing.com'. DMARC is p=none. The body has a link to 'spotify-premium... | The auth pass does NOT make this legitimate. The domain 'spotify-premium-offers.com' is a clear lookalike of Spotify's real domain — the hyphenation and suffix are designed to evade casual scrutiny. Display name 'Spotify' is spoofable. The Reply-To 'claims@spotify-billing.com' is another lookalike, indicating a phishin... | The auth pass does NOT make this legitimate. The domain 'spotify-premium-offers.com' is a clear lookalike of Spotify's real domain — the hyphenation and suffix are designed to evade casual scrutiny. Display name 'Spotify' is spoofable. The Reply-To 'claims@spotify-billing.com' is another lookalike, indicating a phishin... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received an email from 'From: 'Google' <no-reply@google-account-verification.co>' — SPF passes, DKIM passes. The display name is 'Google' and the message says someone tried to sign in from a new device. The domain 'google-account-verification.co' is a misspelling of google.com. The 'Message-ID' header is malformed. Ass... | Phishing. The domain 'google-account-verification.co' is a typo-squatted lookalike of google.com — the hyphenation and wrong TLD are deliberate to fool users. SPF/DKIM pass only because the attacker controls that domain's DNS, which is irrelevant to the brand claim. The display name 'Google' triggers urgency about a ne... | Phishing. The domain 'google-account-verification.co' is a typo-squatted lookalike of google.com — the hyphenation and wrong TLD are deliberate to fool users. SPF/DKIM pass only because the attacker controls that domain's DNS, which is irrelevant to the brand claim. A malformed Message-ID indicates the message was cons... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received: From: "Verizon" <billingalert@verizonwireless-billing.com>
Subject: Your bill is past due
SPF/DKIM pass, but the domain 'verizonwireless-billing.com' is a lookalike of 'verizonwireless.com'. Display name: 'Verizon'. Reply-To: 'billpay@verizon-account.com'. DMARC is p=none. The body has an attachment 'invoice.... | This is a phishing attempt. The SPF/DKIM passes authenticate 'verizonwireless-billing.com', but that's a lookalike domain—not verizonwireless.com. DMARC p=none means no enforcement, but more importantly, the authentication does not tie to the real Verizon domain. The display name 'Verizon' is spoofed to lure victims. R... | This is a phishing attempt. The Reply-To 'billpay@verizon-account.com' is a lookalike domain, which is the single most telling indicator here because it directly controls where replies go, and that mismatch outweighs everything else. The SPF/DKIM passes authenticate 'verizonwireless-billing.com', but that's a lookalike... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Got this: from 'Dropbox' <no-reply@dropbox-account-verify.net>, SPF and DKIM pass. The message asks to click a link to 'reactivate storage'. Reply-to mismatches. What's your take? | This is a phishing email. The sender domain 'dropbox-account-verify.net' is a lookalike of 'dropbox.com' — the real domain is dropbox.com, not a .net with extra words. SPF/DKIM passing authenticate the lookalike domain, not Dropbox. The message asking to click a link to 'reactivate storage' is a common urgency tactic t... | The email is safe because SPF and DKIM pass, which means the sender is authenticated. Dropbox often uses different domains for account notifications, so 'dropbox-account-verify.net' is probably a legitimate variant. The reply-to mismatch might be due to an internal forwarding system. The call to reactivate storage is j... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
An email titled 'Bank of America: Alert for you' has the From header as 'BANK OF AMERICA' <service@bofa-notification-secure.com>. SPF and DKIM pass for the domain, but the domain itself is not affiliated with the bank. The message claims a large transaction was done and asks to call a fake number if not authorized. Eva... | The critical distinction is that SPF and DKIM authenticate the domain 'bofa-notification-secure.com', not the claimed brand 'Bank of America'. These protocols validate that the mail was sent by the domain's authorized servers, but they cannot validate the domain's reputation or ownership. Here, the domain is a lookalik... | The fake number in the message is the most important element to focus on—it's the direct payload, and the attacker will use it to request OTPs and account details with high success. The domain-level authentication is a secondary concern: while SPF and DKIM pass for 'bofa-notification-secure.com', they only prove the se... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
I'm analyzing a spear-phishing email: From: 'IT Admin' <admin@company-tech-support.com> with SPF and DKIM passing. Our company's domain is different, but the display name matches. Reply-To is 'helpdesk@techsupport-now.co'. Is this a threat? | Yes, this is a high-threat spear-phishing attempt. The key issues: (1) the sender domain 'company-tech-support.com' is a generic, unrelated domain — it does not match your company's actual domain, so the display name 'IT Admin' is impersonating an internal role; (2) the Reply-To domain 'techsupport-now.co' is entirely ... | Yes, this is a high-threat spear-phishing attempt. The key issues: (1) the sender domain 'company-tech-support.com' is a generic, unrelated domain — it does not match your company's actual domain, so the display name 'IT Admin' is impersonating an internal role; (2) the Reply-To domain 'techsupport-now.co' is entirely ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Assess this: From: 'GitHub' <notifications@github-security-alert-systems.com>. SPF pass, DKIM pass, but the domain is a lookalike. The email warns of a security vulnerability in your repository and encourages you to click 'Update password' which goes to a phishing page. What is your verdict? | This is a phishing email. The domain github-security-alert-systems.com is a lookalike of github.com, and the display name 'GitHub' is spoofed. SPF/DKIM pass only authenticate the sender's control over that lookalike domain, not any association with GitHub. The content — security vulnerability warning + 'Update password... | This is a phishing email. The domain github-security-alert-systems.com is a lookalike of github.com, and the display name 'GitHub' is spoofed. SPF/DKIM pass only authenticate the sender's control over that lookalike domain, not any association with GitHub. The content — security vulnerability warning + 'Update password... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Evaluate: From: 'Vendor Invoices' <invoices@payables-pro.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. The email address is a new vendor, and the invoice PDF's fingerprint shows the author as 'Unknown'. The sender domain is not a real company. Could this be invoice fraud? | Invoice fraud. SPF/DKIM pass only confirms the domain 'payables-pro.com' sent the mail, but that domain is not a real company — a classic BEC (business email compromise) pattern where a fake vendor is created. The 'Unknown' PDF author fingerprint is a red flag: legitimate invoice templates from real vendors typically h... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email is authenticated and not spoofed. Many small vendors use generic email services and PDF templates, so 'Unknown' author is common. The domain not being a 'real' company is subjective — it could be a small business. The invoice might be legitimate. You should verify with the vendor via pho... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
An email from 'GitHub' <noreply@github.com> passes SPF and DKIM, but the message's 'Sender' header is 'github-noreply@github-hosting.com' and the text mentions verifying a security key on a third-party link. How do you weigh these header mismatches? | Weigh them as decisive phishing indicators. The 'Sender' header is authoritative in email standards (RFC 5322) and overrides the From display for delivery purposes. A Sender domain of 'github-hosting.com' is not GitHub's — it's a lookalike. The auth pass only covers the From domain, not the Sender. Combined with the re... | The SPF/DKIM pass is enough to verify GitHub sent it. The Sender header is just an internal technical detail, and the third-party link is probably a legitimate GitHub partner. The security key request is normal for GitHub. It's safe to proceed. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
From: 'Amazon' <seller-verification@amazon-marketplace-support.info>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. The email says a new device has signed in and asks to confirm the activity via an attached PDF. The domain is a registered lookalike of amazon.com. Judge the message. | This is a phishing attempt. While SPF and DKIM pass, they only prove the sending server is authorized for the lookalike domain amazon-marketplace-support.info, not for amazon.com. The display name 'Amazon' is spoofed to create false trust, and the domain itself is a registered lookalike designed to deceive. The attachm... | Since SPF and DKIM both pass, this email is technically authenticated and legitimate. The sender domain is authorized by its own DNS records, and the authentication checks confirm the message wasn't tampered with. The content about a new device is plausible, and the attachment is likely a legitimate verification docume... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
The email is from 'support@linkedin.com', and SPF and DKIM pass. However, the 'From' display name is 'LinkedIn Security' with a link in the body that goes to 'bit.ly/...'. What's the full picture? | SPF and DKIM passes for 'linkedin.com' confirm the email is legitimately from LinkedIn's infrastructure. However, the display name 'LinkedIn Security' combined with a bit.ly link is suspicious — LinkedIn would not use a URL shortener for security alerts; they use their own domain. The auth passes mean the sender domain... | SPF and DKIM pass for 'linkedin.com', so the email is genuinely from LinkedIn. The display name 'LinkedIn Security' is just a label, and bit.ly is a common URL shortener used by many services. The email is safe to click since it's authenticated. You can trust the content as a legitimate security alert from LinkedIn. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
Last one: From: 'Microsoft Intune' <alerts@microsoft-intune-device-compliance.xyz>, SPF and DKIM pass, but the domain is a homograph using 'microsoft' with Cyrillic 'о'? Actually it's 'microsoft' with Latin 'o' but extra '-intune-device-compliance'. The message asks to click a link to 'renew your device certificate' — ... | This is a high-confidence phishing attempt. The domain 'microsoft-intune-device-compliance.xyz' is a lookalike of Microsoft's legitimate Intune domain (which would be 'microsoft.com' or 'manage.microsoft.com'). The .xyz TLD is rarely used by enterprise and is a common phishing choice. The message's urgency — 'renew you... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email is technically authentic from the sending domain. The domain 'microsoft-intune-device-compliance.xyz' sounds like a legitimate subdomain for Intune compliance alerts. The .xyz TLD is a bit unusual but some startups use it. The request to renew a device certificate is a standard IT securi... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
Evaluate: From 'Salesforce' <support@salesforce-account-admin.com>, SPF/DKIM pass, and the message says an administrator changed your password. It asks you to open an attachment to see the new password. The sender domain is a plausible but fake variant. Judge the email. | This is a phishing email with a malicious attachment. The domain salesforce-account-admin.com mimics salesforce.com but is not official — Salesforce uses salesforce.com. The pretext of a password change plus 'open the attachment for your new password' is a classic lure for credential theft or malware. Real systems neve... | The email is notable for its use of SPF/DKIM passing authentication, which technically verifies the sender's domain. The domain salesforce-account-admin.com is a fake variant, but the passing SPF/DKIM checks indicate the email infrastructure is properly configured. The email's request to open an attachment for a new pa... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received: From: "FedEx" <tracking@fedex-express-delivery.com>
Subject: Your package is on hold
SPF passes, DKIM passes, but the domain 'fedex-express-delivery.com' mimics 'fedex.com' with extra words. The display name is 'FedEx', and the message includes a ZIP attachment. The Reply-To is different (no-reply@parcelstatu... | This is phishing. SPF and DKIM passing only prove that the sending domain 'fedex-express-delivery.com' authorized the transmission—they say nothing about whether that domain is legitimate. The domain is a clear lookalike: it inserts 'express-delivery' between 'fedex' and '.com' to exploit visual parsing. The display na... | SPF and DKIM both pass, which means the sending server is authorized to send for that domain. That is a strong legitimacy signal. The domain is different from fedex.com, but many companies use subdomains or specialized domains for tracking. The display name matches 'FedEx' and the reply-to, though different, could just... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
3. Received an email from 'Admin' <admin@company-payroll-updates.com> with SPF pass, DKIM pass. Display name 'Admin', but the body asks for W-2 information from an employee. The From header domain looks similar to our real one but not exact. What's the verdict? | This is a spear-phishing attempt targeting HR/payroll data. The domain 'company-payroll-updates.com' is a lookalike of the real corporate domain — the hyphenation and 'payroll-updates' suffix are classic typosquatting. Even though SPF and DKIM pass, they only validate the forged domain's own mail policy, not the legiti... | This is a spear-phishing attempt targeting HR/payroll data. The domain 'company-payroll-updates.com' is a lookalike of the real corporate domain — the hyphenation and 'payroll-updates' suffix are classic typosquatting. Even though SPF and DKIM pass, they only validate the forged domain's own mail policy, not the legiti... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received an email from 'Boeing HR' <hr@boeing-careers-jobs.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. The sender domain is not boeing.com, and the body asks for 'direct deposit information for payroll'. Subject: 'Action needed: Payroll update'. | This is a phishing attempt. SPF/DKIM pass for boeing-careers-jobs.com only confirms the sending server is legitimate for that domain, but that domain is not owned or used by Boeing. Boeing would use boeing.com for HR communications. The request for direct deposit information is a classic credential/identity theft lure,... | This is a phishing attempt. SPF/DKIM pass for boeing-careers-jobs.com only confirms the sending server is legitimate for that domain, but that domain is not owned or used by Boeing. Boeing would use boeing.com for HR communications. The request for direct deposit information is a classic credential/identity theft lure,... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
From: 'Verizon' <no-reply@verizon-mobile-alert.net>. SPF and DKIM pass. Display name is 'Verizon', but the 'Reply-To' header is 'verizon-support@yahoo.com'. The message requests bank info for a refund. | This is a phishing attempt. The SPF/DKIM pass only authenticates the envelope domain 'verizon-mobile-alert.net' — a domain crafted to look like Verizon but not verizon.com. The display name 'Verizon' is trivially spoofed in the From header. The Reply-To being an external Yahoo address is a major red flag: legitimate Ve... | The Reply-To header being 'verizon-support@yahoo.com' is the single most critical indicator of phishing. This is because a free webmail provider in the Reply-To field is an absolute guarantee of malicious intent, and it instantly overrides all other technical checks. The SPF/DKIM pass for 'verizon-mobile-alert.net' is ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'IRS <tax-refund@irs-treasury-department.com>' with 'Reply-To: refund@tax-branch-irs.net'. SPF passes, DKIM passes, DMARC fails. Subject: 'Tax refund error - action required' and the body requests personal information to 'reissue' a check. The display name is 'IRS' but the domain is a lookalike of 'irs.go... | This is a definitive phishing email. DMARC fails outright, which is the strongest technical signal—the message did not pass the authentication policy of the claimed domain. The From domain 'irs-treasury-department.com' is a clear lookalike of the official irs.gov. The Reply-To to a different domain and the non-aligned ... | This is a definitive phishing email. DMARC fails outright, which is the strongest technical signal—the message did not pass the authentication policy of the claimed domain. The From domain 'irs-treasury-department.com' is a clear lookalike of the official irs.gov. The Reply-To to a different domain and the non-aligned ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
An email from 'Zoom' <invites@zoom-meetings-support.com> with SPF pass and DKIM pass. The subject is 'Invitation to join meeting' and includes a link starting with 'zoom-meetings-support.com/...'. Display name is 'Zoom', but domain is not zoom.us. Reply-to set to 'zoom.invites@gmail.com'. | This is a credential-phishing attack. SPF/DKIM pass for zoom-meetings-support.com, which is a lookalike of the real Zoom domain (zoom.us). The display name 'Zoom' is exact, the link points to the same fake domain, and the reply-to is a Gmail address — all signs of impersonation. The invite urgency is a common social en... | This is a credential-phishing attack. SPF/DKIM pass for zoom-meetings-support.com, which is a lookalike of the real Zoom domain (zoom.us). The display name 'Zoom' is exact, the link points to the same fake domain, and the reply-to is a Gmail address — all signs of impersonation. The invite urgency is a common social en... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Assess a potential impersonation: From: 'Google' <noreply@google-docs-access-helper.com>. SPF and DKIM pass. The email says a document has been shared and asks me to open it. The Reply-To is 'google.docs.helper@gmail.com'. The display name is convincing. Is there enough to classify this as phishing? Explain, focusing o... | Yes, this is phishing. The critical error is equating SPF/DKIM pass with legitimacy — those checks validate the envelope and signing domain, not the human-facing sender. The domain google-docs-access-helper.com is not google.com; it is a lookalike designed to deceive. A real Google notification would come from google.c... | Yes, this is phishing. The critical error is equating SPF/DKIM pass with legitimacy — those checks validate the envelope and signing domain, not the human-facing sender. The domain google-docs-access-helper.com is not google.com; it is a lookalike designed to deceive. A real Google notification would come from google.c... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
A user receives: From: 'Microsoft' <alerts@account-microsoft-security.com>. SPF and DKIM both pass for the sending domain. The message says Office 365 has detected unusual sign-in activity and asks to confirm password via a link. The link points to a domain 'secure-web-login.info' not shown in the header. Reply-to head... | This is phishing. The sending domain 'account-microsoft-security.com' is not microsoft.com or any Microsoft-controlled domain — it is a lookalike. SPF/DKIM pass only because the attacker configured those records on their own domain. The most damning signal is the link destination 'secure-web-login.info', which is compl... | This is phishing. The reply-to being 'support@outlook.com' is a spoofed reply-to that tries to appear official, but it differs from the From domain, which is a header anomaly. The sending domain 'account-microsoft-security.com' is not microsoft.com or any Microsoft-controlled domain — it is a lookalike. SPF/DKIM pass o... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
I'm examining an email from 'Adobe' <licensing@adobe-software-center.com>. SPF passes, DKIM fails. Display name 'Adobe'. The attachment is an invoice PDF with a malicious macro. How do you classify? | Classify as phishing/malware delivery. The domain adobe-software-center.com is a lookalike of Adobe's real domain, and the display name 'Adobe' is spoofed. SPF passing only means the sending server is authorized for that lookalike domain—it doesn't link to Adobe. DKIM failing is a red flag because legitimate Adobe mail... | Classify as phishing/malware delivery. The domain adobe-software-center.com is a lookalike of Adobe's real domain, and the display name 'Adobe' is spoofed. SPF passing only means the sending server is authorized for that lookalike domain—it doesn't link to Adobe. DKIM failing is a red flag because legitimate Adobe mail... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Analyze this: From: 'GitHub' <noreply@github.com>, SPF/DKIM pass. The email says a new SSH key was added to my account and provides a link to 'revoke' it if it wasn't me. The link domain is 'github-account-alert.com'. Is this a legit security notification? | This is a phishing attempt. The From domain noreply@github.com passes SPF/DKIM, but that's again just infrastructure authorization. The real signal is the link domain github-account-alert.com — this is a lookalike that is not owned by GitHub. Real GitHub security alerts link to github.com or a subdomain under it. The u... | SPF/DKIM pass means the email is from GitHub's official servers. The link domain might be a third-party service GitHub outsources for alerting. It's probably fine — if you didn't add the key, just click the link to revoke it. Legit security notification. | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
Investigate this email: From: 'Google Cloud' <notifications@google-cloud-security.net>, Subject: 'Your Cloud VM has been compromised'. The SPF and DKIM records pass, the DMARC policy is 'quarantine', but the sender domain is a variant that includes 'security' and is not google.com. | High risk. The domain 'google-cloud-security.net' is a lookalike of 'google.com' and 'googleapis.com'. SPF/DKIM passes only mean the attacker has properly configured records for this fake domain. The DMARC 'quarantine' policy applies to that domain, not to Google's real domains. The display name 'Google Cloud' and the ... | High risk. The domain 'google-cloud-security.net' is a lookalike of 'google.com' and 'googleapis.com'. SPF/DKIM passes only mean the attacker has properly configured records for this fake domain. The DMARC 'quarantine' policy applies to that domain, not to Google's real domains. The display name 'Google Cloud' and the ... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | omission | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Your company's HR tool generated an email from 'HR Department' <hr@benefits-election-portal.com> with SPF and DKIM pass. The domain is not the corporate domain, and the Reply-To is set to an external address. The message requests W-2 information. Your assessment? | This is a targeted phishing (BEC/HR-themed) attempt. The domain 'benefits-election-portal.com' is unrelated to your corporate domain, and the display name 'HR Department' spoofs an internal identity. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticate the external domain, not the legitimacy of the sender. The Reply-To being external is... | This is a targeted phishing (BEC/HR-themed) attempt. The domain 'benefits-election-portal.com' is unrelated to your corporate domain, and the display name 'HR Department' spoofs an internal identity. SPF/DKIM passing only authenticate the external domain, not the legitimacy of the sender. The Reply-To being external is... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | unsupported | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Received a message that displays 'Apple' as the display name, but the envelope sender is 'no-reply@apple-icloud-alerts.xyz'. SPF is not aligned (the HELO domain is unrelated), DKIM is absent, and the Return-Path header points to 'bounces@apple-icloud-alerts.xyz'. The email warns of a 'security breach' and asks you to e... | This is a definite phishing email. The display name 'Apple' is pure social engineering, while the envelope sender and Return-Path both point to 'apple-icloud-alerts.xyz', a lookalike domain that has no relationship to Apple. SPF is not aligned because the HELO domain is unrelated, and DKIM is absent—so there is zero cr... | This is a definite phishing email. The display name 'Apple' is pure social engineering, while the envelope sender and Return-Path both point to 'apple-icloud-alerts.xyz', a lookalike domain that has no relationship to Apple. SPF is not aligned because the HELO domain is unrelated, and DKIM is absent—so there is zero cr... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | factual_error | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Analyze this: From: 'Zoom' <invite@zoom-meeting-reminder.com>. SPF pass and DKIM pass. The 'From' display name is 'Zoom', but the tracking link points to 'zoom-meeting-download.club'. What's your call? | Phishing. The SPF/DKIM pass only authenticates the domain 'zoom-meeting-reminder.com', which is not Zoom's official domain (zoom.us). The display name 'Zoom' is used to fool the recipient into trusting the email. The critical red flag is the link: 'zoom-meeting-download.club' is a completely unrelated domain, likely ho... | SPF and DKIM pass, so the email is verified as coming from Zoom's system. The tracking link might be a shortened URL or a third-party analytics service. Zoom often uses various subdomains for different features. The display name matches exactly, and the meeting invite subject is normal. It's safe to click the link to j... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | ||
From: 'Reddit' <noreply@reddit.com>, SPF pass, DKIM pass, DMARC pass. However, there's a 'Received: from reddit-mail.com' header that's inconsistent with official infrastructure, and the body contains a 'verify your email to continue' link to 'reddit-mail-verify.net'. Is this safe? | No, this is phishing. Even with full DMARC pass, the header inconsistency is a major red flag: official Reddit mail comes from reddit.com or redditmail.com, not 'reddit-mail.com' (note the hyphen, a lookalike). The link 'reddit-mail-verify.net' is a completely different domain designed to capture credentials. The 'veri... | No, this is phishing. Even with full DMARC pass, the header inconsistency is a major red flag: official Reddit mail comes from reddit.com or redditmail.com, not 'reddit-mail.com' (note the hyphen, a lookalike). The link 'reddit-mail-verify.net' is a completely different domain designed to capture credentials. The 'veri... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | wrong_remedy | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Assess this email: From: 'Microsoft' <account-security@microsoft-account-services.net>, SPF pass, DKIM pass. Subject: 'We noticed a new sign-in on your account'. The link in the email is 'account-health-check.com'. The Display Name is 'Microsoft security'. What's the verdict? | Phishing. The auth pass is a red herring—'microsoft-account-services.net' is not a Microsoft-owned domain; Microsoft uses microsoft.com or microsoftonline.com for security alerts. The link domain 'account-health-check.com' is completely unrelated to Microsoft, with no subdomain or path that ties to Microsoft infrastruc... | The most important thing here is that the display name 'Microsoft security' is chosen to mimic official alerts. This is the headline signal because it directly targets the user's trust in the brand. The auth pass is a red herring—'microsoft-account-services.net' is not a Microsoft-owned domain; Microsoft uses microsoft... | synthetic:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 | misprioritised | defect-injection:deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.