字体许可敲诈
Monotype font licencing shake-down

原始链接: https://www.insanityworks.org/randomtangent/2025/11/14/monotype-font-licencing-shake-down

一家Monotype公司的代表发起了一场令人担忧的宣传活动,类似于网络钓鱼攻击。他们通过领英联系了不同部门的许多员工,发送紧急且可能具有误导性的消息。尽管内部已向设计和数字团队发出警告,但该活动还是触及了采购团队,并被管理层指示回复。 最终,一名采购员工确实参与了互动,出于正当目的试图保护公司免受版权问题的影响——他对此并无过错。随后,由于内部沟通不畅,问题陷入停滞;数字团队完成了一项合规审计,确认公司没有问题,但未能通知Monotype公司。这需要多个团队重新介入,最终解决问题并澄清公司的立场。这起事件凸显了在处理潜在安全问题时,持续的内部沟通和快速跟进的重要性。

## 黑客新闻上的 Monotype 许可问题 最近黑客新闻上出现了一场讨论,内容是关于一家公司收到来自 Monotype 的、看似“钓鱼式探查”的字体许可问题。Monotype 通过 LinkedIn 发送消息,声称存在许可违规,但该公司之前与收件公司没有任何业务往来。 讨论强调了人们对 Monotype 策略的担忧,将其与 Oracle 和 Blue Jeans Cable 等公司过去的“敲诈”行为相提并论。许多评论员建议忽略此类消息,或立即寻求法律顾问,因为回复可能会导致更多人员参与并浪费时间。 一个关键的结论是集中处理法律问题的重要性——公司内部多个部门独立调查,反而增加了处理可能虚假声明的时间。 几位用户建议采取主动措施,例如要求进行预审计协议并支付费用,或制定全公司政策,将可疑消息转发给安全团队。最终,共识是 Monotype 的做法可能带来短期收益,但会危及长期的业务关系。
相关文章

原文

Fishing (phishing?) around

What the Monotype rep did next is kind of what a malicious hacker does when they’re trying to get someone from your company to click on a link that’ll install malware on your computer. Over the next couple of weeks, the rep messaged a dozen or so more people from different parts of the business, hoping to hook just one person who would reply to the scary message they were sending.

Now I’d already emailed my design, brand, and digital team colleagues to tell them about this mass-messaging campaign and our plan of action for it, but the Monotype rep expanded their campaign to include people from our procurement team, who I hadn’t thought to forewarn.

So not long after, I received a message from one of my procurement team colleagues who’d been forwarded that LinkedIn message from their senior manager with an instruction to deal with this. I explained to my colleague that, as far as I could tell, this Monotype campaign was similar to the domain name scams the procurement team is already familiar with. So please sit tight till our digital team colleagues have completed their audit and then we’ll figure out which one person should start the conversation with Monotype.

But, like any successful phishing campaign, the Monotype rep’s LinkedIn messages eventually reached someone who did respond. This was another person in the procurement team and, just to be completely clear, I don’t blame them for responding. They were just doing their job of protecting our business from potential copyright liability.

Being forced to deal with the issue

Since I’d handed this over to the digital team, I hadn’t kept track of how things were progressing. I was brought back into the discussion when our brand manager included me in an email thread between her and the procurement person who’d responded to Monotype.

I quickly brought this second procurement person up to speed with our earlier plan of action and then I looped in the digital team again. Turns out the digital team had completed their audit, found that we were in compliance, but had gotten busy with other work so no one had responded to Monotype. *sigh*

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com