Slashdot Mirror


Windows/NetBIOS pop-up Spam:

bofus writes "This article from Wired News presents a new way to deliver unsolicited advertising content - the MS Windows Messenger service. It appears that the client software hasn't been widely distributed yet, but it's probably only a matter of time before a free clone is circulating. This method could become the delivery method of choice for all kinds of unsolicited junk, given the number of unsecured PCs out there. On the flip side, if you run a relatively secured machine and have some sort of firewall, this probably shouldn't concern you."

411 comments

  1. DMCA by grumwsmith · · Score: 0

    Would it be a DMCA if the alerts bypass a security device (Firewall)? Just an idea...

    1. Re:DMCA by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Not in this case, since they aren't doing it to get to copyrighted materials.

  2. ahh nuts! by Quasar1999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wasn't sure how to take this message...

    Hello, would you like to get laid? Call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx

    alas, now that I know it's spam.. my hopes have been crushed... :(

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:ahh nuts! by blonde+rser · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wasn't sure how to take this message...

      Hello, would you like to get laid? Call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx

      alas, now that I know it's spam.. my hopes have been crushed... :(


      Of course I meant it. But you never called :(

    2. Re:ahh nuts! by cioxx · · Score: 2

      I'm available!

      Do you like penguins?

    3. Re:ahh nuts! by Quasar1999 · · Score: 2

      Of course I meant it. But you never called :(

      Why don't you IM me on MSN again? :P

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    4. Re:ahh nuts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried the number. It's premium rate. After 5 minutes of being "on hold" and they tell you to crawl up a chicken's ass and wait.

    5. Re:ahh nuts! by ari_j · · Score: 2

      Was it 900-xxx-xxxx (or some other tolled variant), or not? If you didn't check, then you basically screwed your own chances.

    6. Re:ahh nuts! by tsa · · Score: 2

      I got one such a message as an SMS. It was more civilized ('I like you' instead of 'I wanna get laid') and I was very disappointed to find out it was spam.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  3. Concern me? by geekd · · Score: 1, Troll

    if you run a relatively secured machine and have some sort of firewall, this probably shouldn't concern you.

    Or, if you avoid MS products like the plague they are, this shouldn't concern you.

    Now MS is a spam enabler? too funny.

    1. Re:Concern me? by Xformer · · Score: 1

      It's only the next logical step after enabling viruses and worms.

      --
      All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
    2. Re:Concern me? by TheBrownShow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why don't you OS Zealots use it to spam all the MS users out there and inform them of how they're a plague upon humanity!?

    3. Re:Concern me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all are spammers
      click here and say I'm right
      http://rokf.ru/articles/8108.shtml?1621

    4. Re:Concern me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why don't you OS Zealots use it to spam all the MS users out there and inform them of how they're a plague upon humanity!?

      ....so many users, so little time...

    5. Re:Concern me? by geekd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I didn't saw MS *users* are a plague. They mostly just don't know any better.

      I love the little moderation war that's going on my original post:

      Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=2, Total=9.

    6. Re:Concern me? by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      You didn't saw them?

      Use the drill instead? ;)

    7. Re:Concern me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you knew better, you'd know all operating systems have a similar command.

      Guess you're too young and stupid to have ever known about the wall command in UNIX.

    8. Re:Concern me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're too busy inventing viri for Windows to bother.

    9. Re:Concern me? by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      The funny thing is, this will be the end of the "Messenger" service. I haven't used it for years, but it's history now. Why?

      The spam will be annoying enough. If more than a few spammers use it you will get pop-ups throughout the day. But I'm sure it's a matter of weeks or months until a virus comes out that does nothing more than infect a local machine and periodically query an "ad server" and then send that ad to other machines on the local network. Thus even if the spammer can't get through your firewall, if someone installs a virus then they'll be the local distributor of the spam.

      The end effect will be that everyone will end up disabling the messenger service.

      Doesn't matter to me. I'm currently migrating to Linux on all my machines. It'll be fun to watch incoming messenger spam being caught by my firewall, though.

    10. Re:Concern me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    11. Re:Concern me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually used this service to inform people they have the codered/nimda virus (as seen from my weblogs).

  4. is there an echo in the room by jon787 · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    1. Re:is there an echo in the room by jon787 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Let's see now, my serious comments get labled trolls and my stupid comments make 5. What is wrong with that?

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    2. Re:is there an echo in the room by jon787 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      well atleast that comment got modded down (along with the original post)

      Of course how can I be redundant if I pointed that out first? Overrated maybe, but redundant?

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  5. what client ?!?1 by Archfeld · · Score: 5, Informative

    try "net send IPADDR"

    it is a cli and batchable, this can be supremely irritating as the only info given with the popup is wins name which is useless unless you are in the same domain/ou.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:what client ?!?1 by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 2

      The client that will probe a network for port 135, then create the batchable list and do it itself.
      Any tool with minimal user thought is valuable to spammers. It beats the hell out of the other options (like thinking or learning how the internet works)

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    2. Re:what client ?!?1 by Charlton+Heston · · Score: 1

      net send is not a valid option on the Winders ME that I'm running under VMWare. Is this a special program?

      --
      Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
    3. Re:what client ?!?1 by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Can you do it more than once a second without severe wrist problems?

      Wait till some idiot decides to spam *.*.*.* ...

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    4. Re:what client ?!?1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only in NT/2k/XP. There's probably a way to do it in ME (shudder) also.

      We now return to your regularly scheduled damn dirty apes with automatic weapons...

    5. Re:what client ?!?1 by erpbridge · · Score: 3, Informative

      yes. Make a recursive batch file called a.bat:

      -----------------------
      net send 127.0.0.1 ILoveYou! Kindly read the attached popup from me to you.

      a.bat
      ----------------------

      It'll just run itself over and over again. Doing it from home (384k DSL) to here (typical college maxed out T1) got about 3 per second... your results may vary.

    6. Re:what client ?!?1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Can you do it more than once a second without severe wrist problems?

      My CMD (or BAT) file has no wrists. It works quite well.

    7. Re:what client ?!?1 by gottsman · · Score: 1

      Its been a while but I believe that you can use the WinPopUp application in Win 9X.

    8. Re:what client ?!?1 by zdzichu · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd prefer "nmblookup -A ip.of.vic.tim" and "smbclient -M" in some short shell script looping over some big DSL subnets :)

      --
      :wq
    9. Re:what client ?!?1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      NET SEND was suggested months ago in Code Red antidotes. Broadcasting to the attacker's entire domain through the worm's back door for notification.
      <?php
      $fp = fsockopen($REMOTE_ADDR, 80, $en, $es, 5); fputs($fp,
      "GET /scripts/root.exe?/c+net+send+%25USERDOMAIN%25+\"Y our+web+server+$REMOTE_ADDR+is+infected+with+Code+ Red+II.+See+www.incidents.org+for+instructions+on+ how+to+remove.\" HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n");
      fclose($fp);
      ?>

      There is no file here. I assume you are a Code Red worm. You have been warned.
      </html>
    10. Re:what client ?!?1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try "net send IPADDR"

      Or try "net send all <message>" or "net send * <message>". Sends to everyone on your network.

    11. Re:what client ?!?1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shit, now how can I re-enable NET SEND messages??

    12. Re:what client ?!?1 by arivanov · · Score: 2

      Took the words out of my mouth. Though cable is better because you have a valid broadcast address and you have to loop only across the broadcast addresses. The cablecos usually help you by assigning only /24s no matter what the actual need is. Yum... You can walk an entire cableco in several seconds while walking the DSLs IP by IP will take some time.

      Unfortunately some spoilsport ISPs filter the porst in question and have been doing this for up to 5 years now since the days of winnuke.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    13. Re:what client ?!?1 by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they do it more to stop people from using filesharing than to stop winnuke. Filesharing would mostly be done by people telecommuting to work, so they disable it unless you pay extra for the buisness account. (note: I know that file sharing has many other uses, but I dont run an isp. dont reply to me telling me otherwise, mail all the big cable isps)

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    14. Re:what client ?!?1 by MattCohn.com · · Score: 1

      On NT/2K/XP

      NET START MESSENGER from command line.

    15. Re:what client ?!?1 by Lozzer · · Score: 2

      Do batch files do tail recursion? Or will that overflow a stack eventually? I know which my money is on, albeit from a position of zero knowledge.

      --
      Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
    16. Re:what client ?!?1 by Edgewize · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't do tail recursion - they do replacement. Running a second batch file will never return control to the first, even if there are more commands left. You have to explicitly say "call xyz.bat" if you want it to return, in which case it uses a stack which runs out *very* quickly.

    17. Re:what client ?!?1 by penguinboy · · Score: 2
      No need to recurse. Just make an infinite loop, like this:

      :top
      net send w.x.y.z "message to send"
      goto top
    18. Re:what client ?!?1 by Lozzer · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks for the explanation. Thats the kind of (relatively) obscure fact thats bound to come in useful one day.

      --
      Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
    19. Re:what client ?!?1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISP's blocking the NetBIOS ports have nothing to do with a grand conspiracy to get more money.

      It's to prevent people from opening up Network Neighborhood and browsing all their neighbors' shares, thus making the ISP appear "insecure" (when in fact it's Windows that's configured out-of-box for office rather than home usage).

      Now an ISP may or may not block VPN access, but that's an entirely different set of ports.

    20. Re:what client ?!?1 by Robert+The+Coward · · Score: 1

      Actully it is done more to block those users who don't know what file and Print sharing does and let people all over the world see there info. PS if you aren't running some form of VPN to tunnel access to you server then you should get rooted.

    21. Re:what client ?!?1 by shogun · · Score: 2

      A net send to 127.0.0.1 goes through a DSL and a T1 link? You must have one VERY large personal computer there...

    22. Re:what client ?!?1 by erpbridge · · Score: 2

      Like I'm really gonna post my real IP so all the anon cowards can get it... It's bad enough that if you know what you're doing, you can get the IP I submitted this from (which is a PPPoE pool IP, so I can change it if I have to, so don't get any smart ideas...)

  6. Netsend by DRnetman86 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it just be a bit simpler to just type into the dos prompt "net send * BUY OUR PRODUCT!!!!"

    1. Re:Netsend by name_already_in_use · · Score: 1

      That's probably what it does, only in a script, hence the fact it has admins everywhere scratching their heads and others spending $700!

      --


      Rake Free + Mac Poker: CardCrusade
  7. Secret Weapon by PaddyM · · Score: 4, Funny

    When my friends and I would play Starcraft, the winpopup was my secret weapon ;)

  8. Good article, real funny by LittleBigScript · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I have customers who call me back and tell me they love it and it generates hundreds of calls right away," said Kovacs, who noted blah...blah...blah..

    That sure is a funny way to say "death threats."

    "The girls of the internet. Ooh, I'd go online with them anyday!"
    -Homer Simpson

    1. Re:Good article, real funny by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would it help me with my plan to insult every intelligent being in the universe?

      And will it let me do it in alphabetical order?

    2. Re:Good article, real funny by Dimensio · · Score: 2

      Rule #1: Spammers lie.

      Also, Rule #3 is that spammers are stupid. As a result, spammers lies are always stupid.

  9. It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Everyone should be running one. A good software for Windows one is Kerio Personal Firewall (Formerly Tiny).

    It'll block everything you don't want if you set it up correctly.

    1. Re:It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm running windows XP... what is this firewall you speak of?

    2. Re:It's called a firewall... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Get zonealarm. It's free for personal use and blocks this shit streight from the zip file.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    3. Re:It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Tiny is still Tiny. One of the programmers went off on his own to form Kerio. Tiny is better though.

    4. Re:It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newer versions of Tiny seemed... less Tiny.

    5. Re:It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't leave out that it leaks memory when run concurrently with gnucleous.

    6. Re:It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, it's called a logging service. the things of which you speak are NOT firewalls.

    7. Re:It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you define firewall exactly? KPF blocks some packets, allows others, based on rules that I define. It doesn't just log things.

    8. Re:It's called a firewall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, lets not leave out that you are a stupid little fuck with a small dick and a ugly faggot boyfriend.

      and your mama dresses you funny

  10. Funny... by sloshr · · Score: 1

    I was just noticing the other day why you should put your windows servers behind a firewall. http://www.1138.net/cs/moms.jpg

    1. Re:Funny... by Qrlx · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You might want to read this KB article. It tells you how to make that annoying "You're running low on disk space" message go away.

      In brief, you need to regedit and add this:
      HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\P ol icies\Explorer NoLowDiskSpaceChecks
      REG_DWORD 1

    2. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how the machine at that address (204.214.30.104) still looks pretty open.

      Browse list
      C1237947-B - Messenger Service
      SERVER - Messenger Service

      TCP ports - 5 open ports
      80 [ Http => World Wide Web, HTTP ]
      HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request
      Server: Squid/2.3.STABLE4
      Mime-Version: 1.0
      Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:15:37 GMT
      Content-Type: text/html
      Content-Length: 898
      Expires: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:15:37 GMT
      X-Squid-Error: ERR_INVALID_REQ 0
      X-Cache: MISS from daniela.italianredtape.mine.nu
      Proxy-Connection: close

      135 [ epmap => DCE endpoint resolution ]

      139 [ Netbios-ssn => NETBIOS Session Service ]

      5000 [ UPnP => Universal Plug and Play ]

      5800 [ VNC => Remote Control Software ]

      UDP ports - 7 open ports
      123 [ NTP => Network Time Protocol ]
      135 [ epmap => DCE endpoint resolution ]
      137 [ Netbios-NS => Netbios Name Service ]
      138 [ Netbios-DGM => Netbios Datagram Service ]
      520 [ router => Router routed RIPv.1, RIPv.2 ]
      1900 [ ssdp => Simple Service Discovery Protocol ]
      2049 [ nfsd => Network File System daemon ]

  11. Wonderful... by Dark-One · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I first saw this on my cable modem(before I started using IPTables to share my connection) Then I noticed it on my network on campus. And as I am the administrator I simply blocked the ports on our firewalls. However I can not imagine what students thought when they saw these messages. As a mater of course we disable NT messaging on our servers and all of our faculty/admin machines because its not needed. However I never tought I would need to block it from the internet. But apparently its become a big problem. I have heard from a number of students that they have received these messages, all in one day. I suppose that it just means I have to make our firewall all that more restrictive; which I hate to do.

    1. Re:Wonderful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just tell your students to shut off Windows Messenging service. It is easier than pie to do and it takes mere seconds. Ironically, you could spam them with the instructions!

      I haven't had a problem(probly because I disabled Messenger since I heard about this on the ScreenSavers about a month after XP shipped). Just tell your friends... if you need instructions, they're posted a hundred times over else where on these boards. No need for me to repeat.

    2. Re:Wonderful... by ep32g79 · · Score: 1

      I actualy have a screen shot of these type of advertisments

  12. The Solution by KingAdrock · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is to go into the services panel, and turn off Windows Messenging Service.

    Or we could just bitch about it on /.

    1. Re:The Solution by tlovie · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the best solution is:

      FORMAT C:

    2. Re:The Solution by TheGreenLantern · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clearly you do not see the wisom in HAHAHAAHA!!!1! WINDOZE SUXORS!

      --

      It hurts when I pee.
    3. Re:The Solution by spongman · · Score: 4, Informative
      Alternatively, just unbind 'File and Printer sharing' and 'Client for Microsoft Networks' on the dial-up networking item that connects you to the internet. There are still a few legitimate uses of the messenger service that you might still want enabled across your internal network.

      Of course, if you're one of those poor souls running some bastard custom dialer (eg, SBC/EnterNet) then you're SOL.

    4. Re:The Solution by indiigo · · Score: 2

      this is standard first thing, along with alerter and telnet services, that most NT admins do when they build a new box.

      --
      fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-86 8650 3-985-fdsg8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-9
    5. Re:The Solution by ameoba · · Score: 2

      That would be a -really- good idea...

      IF IT WORKED.

      They're not enabled on my 2K box, yet I got a popup spam.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    6. Re:The Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Score -1, Redundant

      Everybody's telling me to Format C:, and yet they don't even realize that most well-put together Operating Systems don't even need to be installed on a formatted drive. Hell, any OS worth its salt will fdisk & format for me.

      This includes Windows, by the way.

    7. Re:The Solution by volve · · Score: 1

      NETBIOS does not have to be enabled to receive these messages, so 'File and Printer Sharing' being disabled has no effect.

      Disabling the Messenger Service is a good idea, but if you still need that for LAN use, you can of course block port 139 on your Internet-connected network adapter.

      Routing and Remote Access lets you forward inbound ports to a separate IP and port... just forward 139 to an IP that you know doesn't exist! Voila! LAN use still working, no whacky girls of the internet trying to get you to call all of their strangley-familiar 900 numbers...

      -VolVE

  13. net send by mrgrey · · Score: 5, Funny
    I get really bored in my NT4 Server class one day and wrote a small stupid batch file that utilized the net send command.

    :one
    net send %1 "crapflood of info"
    goto one


    It was kind of amusing to watch. People would click the OK button on the message and as soon as it went away another popped up. The best thing is the beep that accompanies the message. Oh the assinine joy....

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
  14. The Register... by sczimme · · Score: 2, Informative

    ran a story on this yesterday morning:

    El Reg

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:The Register... by TurdFurgeson · · Score: 0

      yea, slashdot doesn't actually offer anything but links and forums. all the content is created elsewhere... nice...

  15. Re:SPAM by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 5, Funny
    This is so much more up close and personal than e-mail spam.

    All it will take is a few pr0n campaigns through this thing, and backlash will be quick to follow.

    You might be able to increase the intensity and speed of the backlash by sending a pr0n ad to a machine conennected to a WiFi network during a powerpoint presentation to stockholders or upper management. (teehee!)

  16. Well... by Lobo · · Score: 1

    This is done by the "net send" command from a CLI. There is also a free product that will give you a Windows GUI for using this command. It can be found HERE. Of course the best thing to do is just disable the Windows Messege Service.

    --

    -------
    Bite Me Fanboy!!
    1. Re:Well... by SirDaShadow · · Score: 1

      This is odd...I MADE a GUI for my little home LAN that uses netsend.
      About a month ago I had to "lift" the firewall to try some odd program that needed a range of ports open...
      One minute later, the "spam popup" came up. I knew exactly what this was so I proceeded to shut port 135 down.

  17. How to do it by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 3, Informative

    Real easy to do this stuff... find a win2k or XP box connected directly to the 'net with port 139 open ...

    c:\> net send \\ip_address "message"

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    1. Re:How to do it by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 2

      oops... no double backslashes before the IP address.. sorry

      --
      Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    2. Re:How to do it by ep32g79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I discovered the joy's of "net send" back in the eighth grade. I thought it was fun to be able to message my friends at school while they were loged on, admins had disabled the novel send client.

      I soon began to use a batch file to repetedly spam them with messages, a little while later I build a Visual C++ program to allow a user to input the user they wished to spam along with their message and how many times to spam them. It was amazing to watch how fast the program I made spread through the junior high.

      After about a week and a half I was called into the office and suspended for 3 days because roughly 56 people in my class used my program to harass their classmates.

  18. Surprised? by TheOste · · Score: 1

    I have to hand it to who thought of this one. It is a good simple idea!

    I am not a spamer and hate spam, but I think that who ever developed this should get a pat on the back, it is a good idea.

    I am glad that I don't have to worry about it here, XWindows baby.

    1. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running samba? Be worried...

    2. Re:Surprised? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 2

      William H. Gates thought this one up. Somebody just exploited it. More reason to believe that Windows was developed for corporate networks, not the Internet.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    3. Re:Surprised? by bsharitt · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt Mr. Gates is the one who thought it up, although he would probably be willing to take the credit.

    4. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and all those people who xhost + in pure laziness with their remote xservers deserve pop-ups.

  19. Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways. by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    While you're at it disable Remote Registry while you are at it. It truly amazes what services Microsoft deems the average user needs running. I find the whole concept of Remote Registry particularly disturbing.

    "Cool this service allows people to modify my registry remotely, sweet!"

    While I know there are some legitimate and possibly useful reasons to have these services enabled, why on earth are they enabled by default?

    --
    "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
  20. It's already happening... by mrhandstand · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm an admin for one of the larger university's in the south, XXXXXXXXXX.edu (name changed to protect the clueless) that doesn't have a firewall. This is due to the fact it's part of a teaching hospital, and has a historical policy of openness. Last week we recieved a windows popup message across most of the campus containing preformatted SPAM text. I don't know how the formatting was done...but some one else has already started this crap.

    --
    Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    1. Re:It's already happening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like virginia.edu to me.

  21. its almost as if... by diesel_jackass · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...we just talked about this :-)

    There were many helpful suggestions in those posts.

  22. Re:MSN Messanger Alternative by Pop+n'+Fresh · · Score: 1
    The pop-up spam doesn't use MSN Messenger (the IM client), it uses the Windows Messenger *service*, which is installed and turned on by default on Win2k and XP machines.

    Trillian is nice, though.

    --
    *This page intentionally left pointless*
  23. System Alert! by name_already_in_use · · Score: 0

    Is your PC insecure?

    You could be in danger right now of unauthorised attack!

    Use Linux/Unix instead

    --


    Rake Free + Mac Poker: CardCrusade
  24. Simple fix... by _bug_ · · Score: 4, Informative

    C:\> net stop messenger
    The Messenger service is stopping.
    The Messenger service was stopped successfully.


    Then when you're up for it, just disable the service entirely from the services administration tool. It won't break any workstation functionality.

    So what's next? Spam on my HP Printer?

    1. Re:Simple fix... by Nintendork · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it's not set to manual or disabled, it'll start on the next reboot. On my workstations, I just set it to manual in case I decide to start it momentarily for the purpose of spamming...err, sending cute messages to co-workers.

    2. Re:Simple fix... by TheTomcat · · Score: 5, Funny

      So what's next? Spam on my HP Printer [digitaltrust.it]?

      I've sent messages to random printers before. Back in the days before Napster, there was a P2Pish search engine that scoured the net for open SMB shares. People would often share their whole C drive (retardedly), but the most fun was to send messages like "I'm running out of ink. I'm running out of ink. I'm running out of ink. I'm running out of ink. (etc)" or "You should reall secure your machine.." to remote printers shared to the world over SMB.

      S

    3. Re:Simple fix... by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 3, Funny
      for the purpose of spamming...err, sending cute messages to co-workers.
      Don't you mean 'sending messages to cute co-workers?'

      -- Cheers,
      -- RLJ

    4. Re:Simple fix... by spyder913 · · Score: 1

      I did a similar thing to someone's autoexec.bat who had their c: shared fully on my dorm network back in the day.. I inserted a comment telling them that, to get someone to help them fix it, and a pause, so they'd have to see it =)

    5. Re:Simple fix... by |<amikaze · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sadly, I sent goatse to a friend of mine who had his printer shared up globally. He later called me, asked me if I had printed a giant gaping ass on his printer, and then asked me to help him fix it.

    6. Re:Simple fix... by loraksus · · Score: 2

      methinks you're missing the point, you can actually change the "ready" and other messages on the printer itself. "79 Service" seems to be a fun one.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  25. Re:MSN Messanger Alternative by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 5, Informative
    It has nothing to do with MSN Messenger, but the "Messenger" service in Win2k and XP. As in from a cli "Net send..."

    Much worse in my opinion. MSN Messenger could be uninstalled.

    --
    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
  26. Just to point out the obvious... by Dankling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What kind of person would read and post on /. without having a secure computer with a firewall. it pretty much comes with the title of nerd to have a secure computer.

    --
    Slash-for-Thought
    1. Re:Just to point out the obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      someone browsing from WORK!!!

    2. Re:Just to point out the obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except the poor. At least hardware wise.

  27. blocking the Message? by blu3b3rry · · Score: 1

    If anyone know how to filter the message without turning messanger off and without using a firewall please let me know.

    1. Re:blocking the Message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very easy. Open up your registry with regedit. Search for the key NB_WMS_RSV, and set its boolean value to "0.5". If it's not there, you need to add it in HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT somewhere. I don't remember where, unfortunately.

  28. Much easier... :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    smbclient -M OEM_COMPUTER -I 123.123.123.123 -M "Hello, It's time you switch over to Linux!!"

    1. Re:Much easier... :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's just

      foreach(ip in ipv4)
      echo "Time to switch to linux" | smbclient -M DEFAULT -I IP

    2. Re:Much easier... :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir art 31337. That actually pops up a msg on my XP box!! EHHEHE. Now I can fool my gf. Only problem it puts my username on the box too, time to create a funky username!!

  29. net send slashdot "First post!" by Nintendork · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't tell the spammers that there's already a utility that can abuse the messenger service. There is no such thing as the net.exe command line utility.

  30. Least of your problems. by XorNand · · Score: 4, Informative


    If your NETBIOS ports are open, getting spam should be the least of your worries. You'll be too busy dodging winnuke attacks and fileshare scans/cracking. Close off ports 137 and 138 on any WAN connections. Of course, any competent windows network admin already knows this.

    --
    Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    1. Re:Least of your problems. by mrhandstand · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean 139...or am i getting my port number mixed again? Regardless...Closing the ports is only an option if you can get around the whole federal openness policy crap. Although the new Hipaa laws should help with clue-batting a policy maker into seeing it your way.

      --
      Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
    2. Re:Least of your problems. by zulux · · Score: 5, Funny

      Close off ports 137 and 138 on any WAN connections. Of course, any competent windows network admin already knows this.

      I can't find a port setting on my NT Lan Manager - what are you talking about?

      Are you useing that TCP/IP thing? That's for hackers on the internet.

      You should be useing NetBEUI - now that's a stable protocall, made by the fine folks at Microsoft. Not one of those "Internet" (read: hacker) protocalls made by one of those unwashed UNIX people.

      I've heard the MSN is going to move to NetBEUI - so I know it's the network protocall of the future!

      If you can't use NetBEUI - at least give Banyan Vines a try. Works great with our Windows for Workgroups!

      Stay away from OS/2 - thats bad Mojo. Amiga people like OS/2 so I know it's bad.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    3. Re:Least of your problems. by nuxx · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, if you really want to keep people out of your file & printer sharing stuff on a home network, using NetBEUI is a good idea. It's lightweight, fast, and it works just fine. Use IP for your internet stuff, NetBEUI for file & printer sharing.

      Works like a charm and doesn't require any extra software. Hell, you could have the cable modem company's favorate version of multiple machines on a cable modem (modem with multiple IP service plus the client machines all plugged into one hub) using this and you'll still be safe.

    4. Re:Least of your problems. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Until someone breaks into one machine and takes you to the cleaners.

      Until NetBIOS gets confused about what protocol to use and you rlocal network goes to hell.

      Until you realize that netbios won't cooperate with tcp/ip for bandwidth.
      'n stuff.

    5. Re:Least of your problems. by Nintendork · · Score: 2
      "You'll be too busy dodging winnuke attacks and fileshare scans/cracking."

      Winnuke??? Oh my god, what era are you living in?? I don't think winnuke has even been effective in several years.

      How about bugbear which has recently caused a lot of activity on TCP port 139 as netbios sessions are attempted.

    6. Re:Least of your problems. by nuxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't break into a box remotely as NetBEUI is non-routable. You can't even talk to the box. And if you properly set up NetBEUI (eg: removing the NetBIOS binding to TCP/IP), NetBIOS can't have a problem. I'm assuming for the third point you mean NetBEUI won't cooperate with TCP/IP for bandwidth. Nope, but I doubt that the speed you get off your cable modem will be impacted much by whatever is going around your local network with NetBEUI.

    7. Re:Least of your problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest SMB nukes have been referred to as Winnukes in the past couple months. The whole BSOD and everything.

    8. Re:Least of your problems. by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2

      Close off ports 137 and 138 on any WAN connections.

      Have you actually tested this? The messenger service can also be reached via the portmapper-like service on port 135/UDP and some service-specific dynamic UDP port.

    9. Re:Least of your problems. by flowerp · · Score: 1

      > And if you properly set up NetBEUI (eg: removing
      > the NetBIOS binding to TCP/IP), NetBIOS can't have
      > a problem.

      How to remove that binding on Windows XP Professional?

      IANASAYIUXPP (I am not a Sys Admin yet I use XP Pro)

      Some quick instructions would be appreciated.

      --
      --- Eat my sig.
    10. Re:Least of your problems. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      If you have more than one or two computers on your network, NetBEUI really sucks. It's broadcast only, so that nifty switch you bought just became a hub. I'd really only recommend it if you have a network using a crossover cable, or something very simple like that. To a Slashdotter, "home network" often means 5 to 10 or more nodes.

      One or two computers with NetBEUI enabled can turn a $100,000 cisco catalyst switch into a bandwidth choked hub also, totally negating that huge bankplane bandwidth. I'm afraid that some people will misinterpert your message and go trying to use NetBEUI on a real LAN of some sort. That would be a big mistake.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:Least of your problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you could just write that you use xp pro and we will know that you are not a sys admin yet...

    12. Re:Least of your problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit -- NetBEUI scales just fine to 5-10 nodes (although not much more!).

      Unless you are moving some serious data around, you'd never ever ever notice the difference. And even then, NetBEUI file transfers are 40-50% faster than SMB over TCP/IP*, so it's still a huge win.

      NetBEUI was designed for auto-configuration on very small non-routed LANs, and that's exactly what 99.8% of home networks are. It's a good enough protocol for what it is. And yes, any place with a $100,000 piece of network equipment should not be using NetBEUI. Duh.

      * benchmarked on NT4, assume later versions are similar.

  31. Legality? by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Couldn't law enforcement nail them for using this kind of method? Assuming the spammers in question could be found, of course? This isn't a case where you visit a website, and an affiliate's popup ad appears. The argument could be made that if you visit a site voluntarily, you can't hold them accountable for popups. And while mail spam is annoying, it's legal if certain procedures are followed (but that's another rant entirely). It seems to me that THIS method is so intrusive as to warrant prosecution. Unfortunately, even if I'm right, it's pissing in the wind to hope for any legal redress. If the internet ever dies, it won't be because of government tyranny or the RIAA. It'll die because people will become so fed up with the spam and porn shoveled at them, they'll just turn it off.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Legality? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      What exactly is illegal on the internet? I think port-scanning is a bit dodgy, but then no one would follow it up. But is it legal?

      Next, is it legal to scan TCP ports 135-139 (or whatever they are)? If it is illegal, could you prosecute if the source address was (say) from an ISP in the US and therefore the user could likely be traced?

      Not sure exactly where you draw the line though between genuine communications and hacking... I guess port numbers don't count for much given that more and more things will be hanging off of port 80 via SOAP.

    2. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already spoke to some folks on this exact behavior...they are intrigued, but their initial response is not being sure if delivering a message to a service that the user (although unknowingly) has enabled is probably NOT illegal.

      Lawrence Baldwin
      http://www.mynetwatchman.com

  32. Re:MSN Messanger Alternative by Xformer · · Score: 1

    Apples and oranges, man...

    MSN Messenger != Windows Messenger

    --
    All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
  33. Hello Friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I send you this popup in order to ask your advice...

    1. Re:Hello Friend by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Do not give them any ideas. Some dumb broad fell to the tune of a couple of million in Michigan, now I get 20 damned 419's a day! They must think that stupidity is geographically contained.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  34. Probably won't become the prevalent form of spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This method could become the delivery method of choice for all kinds of unsolicited junk, given the number of unsecured PCs out there.

    Method of choice? I really don't think so. Instant messaging spam (the reason I don't use ICQ) happens quite often and I don't think it's had an effect on e-mail spam. And besides, all you need to do is properly set up a firewall to block it: something you should do for security reasons anyway. So I'd say e-mail and IM spam will be most prevalent, along with snail-spam (traditional junk mail.)

  35. *NOT* MSN Messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is talking about Windows Messaging Service, which is part of Win NT/2K/XP, not the MSN Messenger program.

    Honest mistake though. Oh yeah, and if you're in windows trillian does seem better overall.

  36. Spin... by Lysol · · Score: 1

    Yet another tool in the m$ security arsenal.

    "Oh well, if you use Winodws [insert >XP version here], then this won't be an issue because the new uber protocol solves this. Unfortunately, you're only entitled to an upgrade and not a service pack."

    This will of course break Samba, but hey, all in the name of the freedom to innovate.

    1. Re:Spin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, everyone cares about Windows and absolutely no one cares about Samba, so your snarky comments are even more worthless.

  37. Re:MSN Messanger Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    MSN Messenger and Windows Messaging are two seperate things.

  38. Only "positive" feedback? by gpinzone · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I have customers who call me back and tell me they love it and it generates hundreds of calls right away," said Kovacs.

    What about the thousands of calls that go something like, "YOU MOTHER F*CKER!!! STOP MAKING THESE F*CKING POPUPS COME UP WHEN I'M PLAYING COUNTERSTRIKE OR I'LL F*CKING RIP OFF YOUR F*CKING HEAD AND F*CKING SH*T DOWN YOUR F*CKING NECK!!!!!"

    Sorry, I don't have anything else to say. The stupid lameness filter is censoring my post for yelling.

    1. Re:Only "positive" feedback? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know...if you were using Linux, you wouldn't have this problem in the first place. 'Cause, you know, you wouldn't be playing Counterstrike.

  39. I've seen this before by Allaria · · Score: 1

    On ICQ. That was the main reason why I stopped using the service. It doesn't surprise me that spammers are looking for new mediums to spam people on. Messaging is the newest one. At least AIM still has the 'only let people on my buddy list contact me.'

    --
    If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
    1. Re:I've seen this before by ibennetch · · Score: 1

      The other advantage to AIM is that the usernames are letters - ICQ UINs are just that - Numbers (get it? UIN=Number....never mind me - long day, easily amused, etc...) Anyway; with ICQ all that needs to be done is this:

      for (i=0; i99999999; i++)
      {
      spam(i);
      }

      whereas the permutations and combinations of AIM Screen Names causes there to be much more difficulty finding one that is an actual user. Plus ICQ has (had?) the email gateway; email to 56389563489@icq.net or something went directly to that user's ICQ popup. Cool feature...but useful for spammers, too :-/

    2. Re:I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderators need to have the ability to perm ban people for making stupid comments.

    3. Re:I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with messenger programs like ICQ, AIM, Yahoo!, etc. This is a windows service called "Windows messenger" designed to let people on LANs send each other message, admin notices, etc. Get a fucking clue.

    4. Re:I've seen this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      correction:

      for( i = 0; i = 99999999; i++ )
      {
      spam( i );
      }

  40. I actually got one of these the other day.... by john+barleycorn · · Score: 1

    ...on a laptop of mine i just plugged into the hub for a few seconds to grab some files. Actually took me a few minutes to figure out WTF had occured, until i realized i'd never bothered to turn the messenger service off.

  41. already alive and well at ASU by Innoruuk · · Score: 1

    I attend Arizona State University in Tempe and got a couple of these while I had my laptop connected to their WiFi network. Then I wised up and just turned the useless messaging service off. I also have a relative that works at the west satallite campus and says she has gotten them while at work.
    They're all running under the domain account 'Administrator' and are advertising cheap degree programs online or something.

  42. How Can We Disable? by Greenisus · · Score: 1

    I've been receiving a few of these over the last couple of months on my Win2k box, and I try to send messages back to them, which of course doesn't work.

    If anyone knows how to disable receiving the messages, I'd be very thankful, because from what searching I did I couldn't figure out how to do it. Thanks.

    1. Re:How Can We Disable? by Usefull+Idiot · · Score: 1

      If anyone knows how to disable receiving the messages, I'd be very thankful, because from what searching I did I couldn't figure out how to do it. Thanks.

      In Windows 2000 you have to disable the "Messenger" Service and change it to Disabled starting. You have to be under the admin account: Control Panel, Administrative Tools, Services. There it a service called "Messenger". Right Click, Click Properties. Under Service Status: Click "Stop" and at the "Startup Type" scroll box go down to "Disabled." You won't have to worry about it again.

    2. Re:How Can We Disable? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Hmm sending them back... couldn't you use a Linux box and ipchains and mirror all the commands on the messenger service ports back? That would be mildly amusing.

      --
      Why not fork?
    3. Re:How Can We Disable? by Lozzer · · Score: 1

      It would be mildly amusing until the perp used the same mechanism on his end of the attack.

      --
      Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
    4. Re:How Can We Disable? by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      That would be a lot of wasted bandwidth.

      --
      Why not fork?
  43. a clone of messenger ? by overlord · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There are clones of messenger even for linux.
    Try for example gaim, or Amsn.
    Both of them work great.

    Overlord

  44. One experience by crc32 · · Score: 1

    I had this happen to me. I have a pretty strong mandrake-linux system that I use for a broadband NAT/firewall at home. While it was down for maintanence, my roommate (who runs windows XP) needed to be online. So I hooked him up, and within 5 minutes, he had been WinPOPup spammed. It is actually frightening to know that they had noticed us that quickly.

    --
    "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
  45. How to disable it in windows 2000 by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here are my homebrew instructions on how to turn off the Messaging service that's used to receive the spam on Windows 2000. (Of course you will miss legit messages from your admin if your corporate IT people use that feature.)

    1. Log on as administrator or at least with an account that has admin access.

    2. Enter control panel

    3. Enter "Administrative Tools"

    4. Enter "Services"

    5. Scroll down and find "Messenger"

    6. Right click > properties > startup type > Disabled.

    Scroll through the list and see if there's anything else you might want to disable. (You know, like remote registry editing and all that stuff that Microsoft enabled so you wouldn't have to be troubled to do it yourself :-)

    1. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by NexusTw1n · · Score: 5, Informative

      Go here for a full list of what is good and bad to disable in the windows services screen.

      --
      It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
    2. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by murat · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can start and stop services from the command line fast.

      open a cmd [ (leftwindows)r(/leftwindows) cmd (enter) ]

      Type "net stop messenger" without the quotes.

      You can start it back by typing "net start messenger".

      Say, you need to send a message to someone in your LAN, you open it, then close it back.

    3. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by HughsOnFirst · · Score: 2

      or just type

      net stop messenger

      at the command line.
      Of course there is a command that will turn it back on remotely. SC in the resource kit can remotely run the net commands on a victim - I mean remote - computer

      sc \\computer net start messenger

    4. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by cioxx · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Wow. Einstein.

      Even AOL users know that you can't format Windows 2000/XP from the "Dos Window".

      Moron.

    5. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by murat · · Score: 1

      In fact you type "sc \\otherwindows start messenger"... (Without "net".)

      And probably get an "Access is denied." response.

    6. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Go ahead kill the messager. ;)

    7. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by xswl0931 · · Score: 1

      To permanently disable the service with XP from the command line: sc config messenger start= disabled

    8. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by roddefig · · Score: 1

      It is also possible to disable it in 95,98, or 3.1 (I think) using zonealarm, a freely available firewall on the web (www.zonealarm.com) which allows you to control which applications have access to the internet or your local network.

    9. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by HughsOnFirst · · Score: 2

      Woops, cut and past error there.

      And you need administrator privileges as well.

    10. Re:How to disable it in windows 2000 by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      Good idea! that way you have no hope of getting a reply back! Man, you should give business advice too.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
  46. Re:MSN Messanger Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Disable the Messenger service in services.msc, or just "net stop Messenger".

  47. If you READ the article by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... youll see that the messager service uses port 135, not 137 or 139.

  48. Re:MSN Messanger Alternative by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

    OK. I made a dumb error and jumped the gun before my brain processed the meat of the article.

    Sorry...

  49. To stop this on WindowsXP: by M-2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Start -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management

    When that comes up, expand 'Services and Applications', and click on Services.

    Scroll down to find "Messenger". Right-click and go to Properties. Set 'Startup Type' to 'Disabled'. Hit 'STop' to stop the service. Click OK. Close Computer Management.

    Done. You're now clear.

    (Many people won't need this. But I'm sure at least one person will.)

    1. Re:To stop this on WindowsXP: by Erik_Kahl · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thanks man, as a Linux user stuck on a windows2000 machine for web development, I didn't know how to kill this. I stopped even trying to admin windows systems years ago...there's no point. But this was getting annoying.

      You win a star.

    2. Re:To stop this on WindowsXP: by Dwedit · · Score: 4, Informative

      you can also set it to Manual, you don't have to disable it completely.

  50. i've been getting these by cortez · · Score: 1

    I just installed a cable modem the other day and haven't put a firewall up yet (no time, stupid grad school!@#) ... within an hour of connecting to winmx, i got like 3 of these. they suck!!@#

    --
    Paizurishitetai desu ka?
  51. Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by PhysicsScholar · · Score: 2, Troll

    NET STOP MESSENGER

    That's all we did here in the lab and it took care of things quite nicely.

    It's not very Newtonian to be running services that you just simply do not need! Newton was a very smart man who took advantage of several areas that he was able to, but I doubt he would ever have wastefully ran services that he didn't ever use.

    Please be smart and think/act like a physicist. Just don't stop brushing your teeth/hair or start wearing Spandex(TM) pants and bicycle helmets to work -- that's just plain weird!

    Ah well, back to the lab...

    --

    Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada, B3H 3J5
    1. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by H310iSe · · Score: 2

      see the problem is who knows what other services the messenger provides? I mean, every time I turn around I find something that I'd love to shut off but something in our outside our network depends on it. Messenger service, for all I know, is also involved in SQL authentication or will fark up the queue messenger because it relies on Messenger to initialize.

      OK I know check the dependencies but it's still a dice roll. I decided it's easier to just install Tiny firewall on all the boxes, let 'em talk to eachother all they want but not allow 'lsa services' to chat w/ the internet.

      --
      closed minded is as closed minded does
    2. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      not everyone needs it but it sure can be usefull. Our netapps have the ability to send a message before they are taken offline for maintenance (like we did recently when moving from a couple single filers to a f880 cluster). We also use it with our Samba server to notify the users when their print jobs have cleared the queue (great for plotters or very high traffic lasers).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      if you have no messenger then you don't see printer messages, or disk full messages. The alerter service would fail but I think thats about it.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    4. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by cscx · · Score: 4, Informative

      What I did when I first became aware of the problem (yes I'm on a college LAN but we have a class A) is configured Tiny Personal Firewall to only allow UDP/TCP traffic on 137-139 and UDP on 135 (messenger service) to the samba servers and campus netblocks that I might use to access my computer (e.g., resnet, labs, etc), then add a filter rule to deny all other traffic on those ports - works like a charm =)

    5. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by blakestah · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think this may be more useful for most users (verified for 2000 and XP).

      Right Click the icon for This Computer on the desktop. Click on manage.

      Doubleclick Sessions and Services.

      Doubleclick Services.

      Scroll down to Messenger, doubleclick it.

      Click on Stop. Change pull-down menu from Automatic to Manual.

      Click on Apply.

      You are done.

    6. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by Ramadog · · Score: 1
      The uni that I last worked at had popup messages being sent to people machines when print jobs had completed. I do the same on the network that I currently administer.

      With large print jobs it saves having to guess how long they might take. Especially when the printer is in a different room.

      As far as using this message service for spam I put it up there with using sms to send spam to my mobile phone.

    7. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by Permission+Denied · · Score: 4, Informative
      Correct me if I'm wrong:

      Port 135 is not messenger. Messenger is an RPC service and port 135 is the RPC port locator on Windows (like portmap on unix). Messenger can use any port at all - blocking port 135 works because client machines connect to port 135 to locate the port that the messenger rpc service is running on. Blocking port 135 may stop a bunch of other things from working, but net stop messenger stops just messenger.

      Not that I really care - I would just cut off the port and then worry about only if someone complains.

    8. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by cscx · · Score: 2

      Correct, messsenger works through RPC.

    9. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by ustawas · · Score: 1

      Easier than "net stop Messenger"?

    10. Re:Instructions for Windows NT/2000/XP Users by blakestah · · Score: 2

      Easier than "net stop Messenger"?

      1) It will still startup at the next boot (which is
      like 20 minutes later)

      2) Most users have no clue on how to get a command.com shell window.

  52. Next /. poll: by techwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Windows Messaging is...

    ( ) An Instant Message client
    ( ) A method of sending popups
    ( ) An Email Client
    ( ) My own worst enemy
    ( ) Cowboy Neal's Little Secret

    --
    I don't do this for karma, I do it for cash. It's much better.
  53. Re:net send by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    almost as amusing as watching you try to spell asinine. ;)

  54. Even if you have a firewall... by jeffasselin · · Score: 2, Informative
    It doesn't solve the problem for large organisations, or for a university campus, where various people may have access to different computers with little logging done, and anyone from the inside could do the job.

    A local university ehre is having some serious issues with that. Of course, people using Macs or Linux are once again quite exuberant about the fact that they aren't affected.

    And closing the port or disabling the service on individual systems may not be possible, because different applications need to use the service for other uses. Printer servers for example use it for notification of print job status.

    --
    If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
  55. want to try one out? by billwie · · Score: 1

    Just try out this link:
    http://www.fast-rewind.com/heathers.htm

    Remember: NT/2000/XP with messaging service on only.

    You should see it before the java popup, and it should say something about comming at their site from outside their menu.

    1. Re:want to try one out? by sharph · · Score: 1

      This is a JavaScript (or maybe a VBScript.)

      The window says its coming from Internet Explorer.

  56. already out there by htmlboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    two weeks ago, we had a big hulabaloo here at uiuc.edu because of this. all the win2k/xp machines on all of campus still running the messenger service got a popup describing how great our lives would be if only we had a diploma from a non-accredited university. most of the "administrative" users assumed it was a virus and panicked. then three more of the same came in this morning.

    i just wish windows would log things like the origin of said messages so the abuse could be addressed at its source.

    1. Re:already out there by belloc · · Score: 2

      two weeks ago, we had a big hulabaloo here at uiuc.edu because of this. all the win2k/xp machines on all of campus still running the messenger service...

      I'm confused: does this mean that UIUC has a firewall with incoming port(s) 13x open? Or was the spammer doing it from on campus?

      Belloc

      --
      I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
    2. Re:already out there by sbillard · · Score: 0
      You can view the System Log in the Event Viewer to enumerate the popup instances. Just filter for Source: Application Popup, Event ID :26

      There are tools available to help you dump and parse these event logs too. Winternals is a good site.

      HTH
  57. Your Sig by diesel_jackass · · Score: 2

    Your signature gave me horrible flashbacks to CS at RIT.

    !!aaahhh.make

    thanks a lot!

    1. Re:Your Sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually now it is:

      create aaahhh.make

      And Eiffel is sooo much better than it used to be, but most people don't see that because they only have bad experiences of getting F grades at college with it ;-)

  58. This is old hat... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you've got a machine out on the internet and you've windows networking turned on, you've probably got bigger problems.

    A couple years ago, a co-worker of mine were at his house when he turned on windows networking and set his domain to "WORKGROUP" did the obligatory reboot suffle and started surfing all the shares in the area. It was hilarious, people had their entire C:\ drives shared, etc. Needless to say, after we got him setup with a firewall (linux/maq box) sure enough the logs just rolled with people trying to connect to ports 137/138/139. In one regard may ISP's block the netbios ports on their ingress and egress gateways.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  59. netsend spam by IVI4573R · · Score: 1

    I already got this. Thought it would be a one time thing like alot of stuff untill I got it 4 days in a row. So needless to say I disabled the messenger service. Not like I ever use it for anything important anyway.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  60. Do many people even use MS messenger? by Uttles · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I use trillian, and most people I know use AOL. A few use Yahoo. I've not met many people who use MS messenger. This seems like a non-issue

    --

    ~ now you know
    1. Re:Do many people even use MS messenger? by that_guy · · Score: 1

      Its not MSN Messenger, its the NetBIOS popup service that runs on NT, 2000, and XP. If you don't know what that is, it pops up a little message box on the center of your screen with the text. You can use the "net send username message" command to use it

      --

      Driving backwards on the highway of life
    2. Re:Do many people even use MS messenger? by niola · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      This is NOT MSN Messenger. It is MS messenger - a service built into windows. It basically is like the wall daemon in UNIX. Someone can send a broadcast message on the network and all other hosts get it. What has happened here is that some lowlife spammer has discovered that they can use this feature to annoy people. To make matters worse, they are doing it over port 135 as opposed to the standard 139 NetBIOS port which most people have blocked.

    3. Re:Do many people even use MS messenger? by Mithrander · · Score: 1

      I may be off here, but I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not you actually use the blasted thing. In XP, at least, it's a core protocol AFAIK. You have the OS, you're using messenger for your protocols. I've tried manually shutting it down before, only to be informed that Outlook required that it be running. I'm sure lots of you know more about this than I do however, so correct me if I'm wrong.

      --
      -- This Sig is currently under construction
    4. Re:Do many people even use MS messenger? by Osty · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I use trillian, and most people I know use AOL. A few use Yahoo. I've not met many people who use MS messenger. This seems like a non-issue

      Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger are completely different from the Messenger service this is exploiting. The first are IM clients, like AIM, Yahoo, ICQ, etc (Windows Messenger is the version that comes with XP and doesn't include things like checking your hotmail e-mail account. MSN Messenger is the version you can download, or can get an add-on for Windows Messenger, and has more MSN-related functions. They're the same protocol and application, otherwise). The second is the old winpopup-type stuff. Great for system alerts on a network ("Hey, the network's going down! Don't go crazy nuts when it happens!"), though my company is using Exchange Messenger for that now (which is another version of Windows/MSN Messenger, this time with support for Exchange, so you log in with your Exchange server credentials, and not a Passport -- it coexists with Windows/MSN Messenger, so you can be logged in via Exchange and Passport, and get messages in one place from either account).


      As for nobody using MSN/Windows Messenger, that's the only IM client I will use (and I've tried them all). All of my friends that I care to talk with online are on Messenger, and those that aren't can either switch, get something like Trillian, or not IM me.


      Anyway, as many others have said, you really don't ever need ports 135-139 open to the internet. Firewall those puppies from the outside world, and leave them open on your LAN for filesharing and such.

    5. Re:Do many people even use MS messenger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also use trillian and never installed MS messenger. My win2k setup is the default with all updates (SP3) from the MS site. Yet I still get this from time to time. So it appears that it comes with the default installation of win2k or one of the updates. I've already disabled messenger so no more spam.

  61. NET SEND spam by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

    I already get this in the computer lab at school.

    A net message popped up telling us how to get college degrees for only $20, and PhDs for something like $50.

    Its only a matter of time before we start getting spammed on our cell phone SMS services. (they do that, and I'll go to their office and personally demand they pay me the $.02 it costs me to recieve their messages)

    1. Re:NET SEND spam by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      A net message popped up telling us how to get college degrees for only $20, and PhDs for something like $50.

      Are you serious? I spent years in grad school!

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    2. Re:NET SEND spam by insomaniac · · Score: 1

      Its only a matter of time before we start getting spammed on our cell phone SMS services. (they do that, and I'll go to their office and personally demand they pay me the $.02 it costs me to recieve their messages)

      They allready have done that here in the netherlands through the numerous SMS gateways.

      P.S. Do you pay money for receiving SMS messages?? Thats rediculous...

      --
      The way to corrupt a youth is to teach him to hold in higher value them who think alike than those who think differently
    3. Re:NET SEND spam by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

      Yup.

      Good ol' Verizon.

      I don't mind, I don't use it.

  62. TechTv Article: Spam Takes New Form by ProtoStar · · Score: 1, Informative
    Spam Takes New Form

    This new form of spam is called messenger spam. Messenger (not to be confused with MSN messenger) is a service that is loaded by default upon the startup of Windows XP/2000/NT. Microsoft has used the messenger service for a number of years to send messages between its servers and clients. Here is Microsoft's official description of the messenger service....

    The article was posted in March.

    1. Re:TechTv Article: Spam Takes New Form by NeuroManson · · Score: 2

      Thanks for reposting the link, I erroneously confused messenger for MSN messenger (which is disabled from startup anyway) in the last post, only to get such a popup for some crap porn site with a bazillion popup screens called http://angry.at/freebies (I checked it out out of curiousity)... Wired is apparently getting nuked by the slashdot effect, so I couldn't navigate it properly (claims that my browser isn't standard)...

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  63. Even better fix.. by gatekeep · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firewall your damned machine! Allow in only what you need to allow in, or responses to requests sent outbound. Not only will it protect against this, but all the other crap people will figure out in the future as well.

    1. Re:Even better fix.. by merky1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think the scary part is that corps would have a default firewall rule to allow all to pass...

      Isn't the idea of a firewall to drop all unknown communication, and allow only needed coms?

      --
      --WooooHoooo--
  64. Re:How not to be bothered by this problem by lamp77 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gong!

    read the post big guy.
    'the messenger service, not to be confused with microsofts instant messaging product'

  65. DUH... it's Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of person would read and post on /. without having a secure computer with a firewall. it pretty much comes with the title of nerd to have a secure computer.

    Well, it wouldn't be Slashdot if there weren't stories to make a bunch of poorly-socialized jerks feel superior.

    You run a firewall and for you, EVERYTHING is a file. Congrats! You're an egotist and even less useful to society!

  66. Heh, we've been getting this.. by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of our gateway boxes is terribly insecure, and gets these pretty much every day now.

    It's usually selling "diplomas from prestigious non-accredited Universities, based on work experience. No testing or coursework required"

    I guess not locking down the box, they just assume we'd be stupid enough to fall for it.

    Every once in awhile I'll do a
    "NET SEND * ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US"

    Noone here has a clue what it means or where it came from.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Heh, we've been getting this.. by sharkey · · Score: 2

      One of our gateway boxes is terribly insecure

      Maybe you should try IBM, or HP.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    2. Re:Heh, we've been getting this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take off 'ZIG'

      LOL Zero Wing's translation abilities kick @$$

  67. Samba? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1

    How will this affect Samba-enabled hosts? IRC you can deselect this in the .conf, and of course ports 137/138/139 should be closed on a WAN.

    --
    This is not my sandwich.
  68. Re:Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    b/c originally, Windowas development wasn't focused on security.

    Duh.

  69. More Info - another article by Dareth · · Score: 1

    http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/answerstips/sto ry/0,24330,3374542,00.htm
    A better article.

    Also note that Windows 2000 server, mine at least : ) only displays the first 26 messages it receives. I tried flooding the server, but no real problem there.

    A funny side note is that this net send protocol used to be able to transfer files... now that would have been a bit more interesting.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  70. Dammit! by futuresheep · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now that this is out, my NET SEND pranks in IRC won't be as much fun anymore!

  71. Re:Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry but I use remote registry service daily. If you want to do performance monitoring on a remote pc you need remote registry right because the perfdata is a section of the registry. It's also nice when you have a busted uninstaller and need to cleanup the registry before a reboot for a remote client, it's saved me a couple days worth of travel time this year alone! Whether it should have the default permissions that MS sets is another matter, but that is true for just about any MS default.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  72. WM for Dummies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    net send (user name / machine name / ip address) "your message here"

    20 goto 10 if you want to batch it.

    In 9x, "winpopup" in the windows directory must be open.

    Easier still, (NT/2K/XP) right-click My Computer, select manage. Action -> All Tasks -> Send Console Message. Now you've got your GUI.

  73. This is low by Crockerboy · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this be considered some sort of hack attempt by some group of lawmakers? Their "service" is basically hiding itself by tunneling though a port its not supposed to go though to get to the target machine,circumventing security measures on the firewall. That should sound like hacking to non-technical savvy group of judges. Well...atleast my teachers and vice principal back in High School thought I was hacking the school computers when I sent out a message using netsend proclaiming my love/lust for one of the cheerleaders...

  74. Anyone remember Code Red? by ncc74656 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I configured Apache to pop up a window on an infected machine every time my server received an attempt at compromising it. It exploited the hole created by Code Red to pop up a message on the infected server. /default.ida used a server-side include to call Lynx with a URL that caused this command to execute on the infected server:

    net send localhost "Your webserver has been infected with the CodeRed2 worm. You have a security hole so big that you can drive a Mack truck through it. You should fix it before some script kiddie comes along and takes advantage of it. Remove root.exe and shell.exe from c:\inetpub\scripts (or wherever your CGI scripts live, though c:\inetpub\scripts is the default location)."

    Damn...if I had thought of it (and if I didn't think Internet advertising is evil), I could've made a mint off all of the lusers who let their servers get infected with Code Red! If I had figured out how to do something similar with Nimda, I could've made an even bigger killing!

    (Details of my adventures with Code Red are up here. The live counter is gone now because my rusty SQL skillz resulted in MySQL thrashing away for more than a minute to generate four numbers.)

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    1. Re:Anyone remember Code Red? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did something else.... I did this to the remote machine

      cmd.exe /c del c:\*.??? /s

      I say fuck them. While under 2000 it only runs under a crappy security context, it still deletes lots of files... I dont care, as far as I see it, there attacking me and I will retaliate in means to stop it continuing. The worms have been around long enough and have had enough publicity to know they should have patched servers...

    2. Re:Anyone remember Code Red? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not simply delete root.exe if you want to stop the worm (I realize that it may not be easily locatable, but...)

    3. Re:Anyone remember Code Red? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the server will just get re-infected within minutes.

      When you kill the server to the point it can't load, then you've fixed the problem.

  75. Slap em! :P by Palos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Saw this a while ago, looks like it could be fun:
    Slap:If your like me you run firewall software that tells you when someone tries to access your system. Sometimes I respond with a few packets of my own just to let them know that I am paying attention. I wrote Slap to make responding to these access attempts easier and more entertaining. Just enter the IP address of the person you wish to slap and click on the Slap button. The program will attempt to access all the ports in the list and send them a packet with a personal message. (The default message is 'Leave Me Alone!') Slap integrates with Black Ice and Zone Alarm and can use information received from these software firewalls to "Auto Slap" intruders and add their attacks to your list of responses. --Here is a cool Wav file to use with this.

    1. Re:Slap em! :P by NewbieV · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a nice concept, but...

      Slap doesn't pop up a window on the other machine (which would be mildly satisfying), it just sends your message in a packet to the other machine's originating port...

      Read the Slap message thread for more info... nice concept, but has some issues.

      --


      "For every right, an equal responsibility..."
  76. Why would anyone pay for this? by daveman_1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $700? You've got to be kidding me. I'm not going to waste the time, but it wouldn't be to difficult to make a perl script that increments an IP address range and calls smbclient -M... In fact, it would be really easy for someone to do this one time and send a link to the tone of "Tired of annoying messages like this? Go to www.xxx.net to find out how to eliminate messages like this forever." And that would be the end of this problem. Unfortunately, if you did this as a regular citizen, you'd have the FBI crashing through your window in no time for "hacking"...

    Sad really.

    --
    Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
    1. Re:Why would anyone pay for this? by prisonernumber7 · · Score: 1

      This ain't perl, but I felt deeply intrigued to write this little C++ method. I guess I just wasted my time. =)

      On the other hand, if people pay $700 for just that thing down below, I guess it should be posted.

      And wow, the junk filter is not easily circumvented. C style cast because of just that.

      void annoyPeople(unsigned long number = 0)
      {
      if(number == 4228250624)
      return;

      string s = (unsigned int) (number >> 24) + '.' + (unsigned int) (number >> 16) + '.' + (unsigned int) (number >> 8) + (unsigned int) (number % 256); // (...) malicious calling of system, popen, ... omitted.

      delete[] s;

      annoyPeople(++number);
      }

      --
      && aemula C. ab stirpe interiit
    2. Re:Why would anyone pay for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the words of Weird Al, they "Dare to be stoopid!"

  77. Re:net send by mrgrey · · Score: 1

    note the sig my friend...note the sig....

    spelling nazi... = )

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
  78. how about a linux port? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now, I know that the debian stable tree has had a client for these
    messages forever, but what about a linux port or something that runs on alpha processors?

  79. The degree they're offering by mail ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is probably worth more than the one I have from JMU, that's why they're all pissed off about it.

  80. Freeware version and I'm suprised.... by sharph · · Score: 1

    There's already a freeware version called smbclient. You can get it from samba.org. Why pay $700? Knowing this, you can see that spammers can get a hold of a tool like this for little money.

    I'm also suprised somebody hasn't thought of this yet... With all those spammers trying to get by all the filters and everything...

  81. Good. by forged · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every exploit eventually produces a patch (or make people aware) to make the default OS settings a bit less brain-dead stupid open. People actually connect to the Internet these days.

    1. Re:Good. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you would think so, but this sure doesn't look like that's happening... (gee.. winnuke anyone..).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Good. by forged · · Score: 1

      MS eventually fixed that OOB flaw with their TCP/IP stack after winnuke became a real embarassement to everyone... So that was my point exactly !

  82. Reverse SPAM them??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since these things are going out over 135, wouldn't someone be able to just fire one back at them?
    Assuming that
    1) they run windows
    2) they are not to smart about their firewall rules?

  83. I wonder.... by futuresheep · · Score: 1, Troll

    If the slashdot effect would work on the following fax number? Fax: Toll Free:1-800-323-2145

  84. smbclient by dazdaz · · Score: 1

    smbclient and a quick script can achieve this rapidly too.

  85. Nothing by exhilaration · · Score: 3, Informative
    It doesn't provide -any- service or do anything besides displaying a message on your screen that your network admin wanted to broadcast.

    Frankly, the only time I've seen it used is when I annoy the hell out of my co-workers by sending them anonymous popus using this lovely piece of Windows software.

    1. Re:Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't provide -any- service or do anything besides displaying a message on your screen that your network admin wanted to broadcast.

      So if the only person who can use it is the network admin, why do we need to disable it now?

    2. Re:Nothing by kgasso · · Score: 1

      It could be a useful service used locally (i.e. private side) - notification when power is lost at a server, system-wide notices, etc.

      I'm honestly amazed that spammers are _just now_ discovering this though. The net messenger service was quite a fun toy back in school computer labs to harass the, uhm... less technically inclined students... and that was several years ago.

  86. better, just drop em -- Re:Slap em! :P by zrodney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    that's cute, but often the ip you have is not the origin, but a hapless victim
    which is being used to launch the attack and/or hide the tracks of the real blackhat

    by sending data back to that ip, you may be unwittingly being used to help the intruder hide
    and you may appear to be the intruder in the logs of the machine which the blackhat is using as a stepping stone

    that's probably not what you are trying to do
    and that's why I just add those ips to a droplist instead of sending data back

  87. not that I don't agree with you but... by buswolley · · Score: 1
    The ""I have customers who call me back and tell me they love it and it generates hundreds of calls right away," said Kovacs, who noted blah...blah...blah.."

    was referring to the customers who bought the spam-ware in order to spam people. Of course these customers loved it, they inserted commercials on sombody's screen.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  88. Legalese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice: Please do not use this software for spamming. If you do so, you will take full responsibility for your actions. This software is made to send advertising or system messages to your own network.

    Yeah, I can really see my system admin spending $700 on this to send "completely anonymous and virtually untraceable" notices about system events. It would definitely "mean more business to" him.

    1. Re:Legalese? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This software is made to send advertising or system messages to your own network.

      BS. You can use directed broadcasts and sending to workgroup names if you want to do that -- e.g. net send * "Message"

  89. Too bad this hole is getting closed by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3

    I used to use it to message people that weren't running ICQ and ask them to start it up so that I could talk to them.

  90. Re:The Solution on WinXP by jjohn · · Score: 1

    Is to go into the services panel, and turn off Windows Messenging Service.

    For the record on WinXP, go Control Panel > Adminstrative Tools > Services. Find and highlight the service call 'Messenger'. Right click and select the menu option 'Stop'. This will stop the service until you reboot. To prevent the service from starting on boot, on the menu that has 'Stop', instead select 'Properties'. On the window the appears, find the section (with a dropdown menu) called 'Startup type:' and change this setting from 'Automatic' to 'Manual' (or 'Disable' if you're certain you never ever want this Windows for Workgroups feature).

    Or we could just bitch about it on /.

    Why choose? We can do both. I'm a multitasking fool.

  91. death... by GravySkin · · Score: 0

    by rimba!

    --
    "never met a Microsoft zealot"
  92. We've been getting a lot of these... by Jouster · · Score: 4, Informative

    I tried quite a few nbtstat tricks before I gave up reverse-mapping by NetBIOS name and determined they were external and not from a zombie host inside the firewall.

    The tricky part is that they use UDP, since many firewalls "forget" to filter it unless you remind them with a CLI, sledgehammer, and repeated threats to use an etherkiller.

    There's no reason to let UDP ports below 1024 in from outside your network, except for the specific services you're running, to the specific servers you're running them on.

    Jouster

  93. spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't knock it, it's got it's own key!

  94. It's already out there... by SaturnTim · · Score: 2

    I just saw this for the first time the other day. A coworker got hit with a message, and sent me a screen capture. At first I thought it was a browser pop-up made to look like NetBIOS message...

    Anyway, another reason to be glad I run a Mac OSX box at home.

    --ST

    --
    http://www.theMediaBunker.com
  95. A few points by yar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, this was talked about earlier. Some of the comments provided then were helpful, others less than so. There was a lot of FUD about how using any form of share or NetBIOS at all meant that you were "already hacked." If an administrator knows what they're doing, that's not true.

    I work at a large university. The obvious solutions don't quite work for us. We'd like to be able to block 135-139. However, some of us are required to use Outlook. *pause* On an Exchange server. *pause* And, we've been told that some of the Outlook functionality depends on the Messenger service being available.

    I block it. But not everyone (particularly some administrative staff and some professors) has the technical knowledge to do so, and some people actually use it.

  96. no biggie by boola-boola · · Score: 1

    ....I don't see how this is a problem for me (I use GNU/Linux =P )

    1. Re:no biggie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just too bad no one cares about you.

    2. Re:no biggie by boola-boola · · Score: 1

      Coward!

  97. For those of us who have control of our routers... by phiber_optick · · Score: 1

    For anyone that has control of your external router, just block port 139 from entering your network. For cisco devices setup an extended access list that block UDP/TCP on 139 and apply it to inbound packets on your external interface. Just remember to make your last line of the access list "allow ip any any" or you will suddenly notice that you have no connectivity as cisco's access lists default to deny unless specified. :)

  98. Not difficult to do... by larien · · Score: 4, Informative
    I was thinking about this earlier, and it's nothing I couldn't do with Samba (smbclient) and a short perl script (heck, even ksh could do it).

    As for people saying "turn off the messenger service", there are actually valid uses for winpopups. At my last work, I set up a few perl scripts that would use smbclient to warn Samba users when they were over quota. Before that, users would go over quota and wouldn't know about it until things broke after the grace period.

    Obviously, you should be filter Netbios ports at the firewall unless you have a damn good reason to have internet access to them. If someone in your network is using this program to spam, the LART them appropriately.

  99. New 'switch' ad idea.. by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Funny

    "... and then my computer was like beep beep beep and I was waist deep in a Nigerian money-laundering scheme!"

    (Ellen Feiss parodies are destined to replace underpants gnome business plans.. Do not resist)

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  100. XWindows? by Vic · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am glad that I don't have to worry about it here, XWindows baby.

    If anything, a poorly configured X server would be even MORE annoying. If you let anyone attach to your X session remotely, they could display pretty much anything on your screen, not just annoying pop-up messages.

    I love X, but you have to be careful with it too.

    Cheers,
    Vic

    1. Re:XWindows? by niff · · Score: 1

      popping up xeyes on someone else's screen can make your day :)

    2. Re:XWindows? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 2
      If anything, a poorly configured X server would be even MORE annoying. If you let anyone attach to your X session remotely, they could display pretty much anything on your screen, not just annoying pop-up messages.

      Ahhh, the fun we used to have at University with this. Hundred odd HPUX machines which allowed you to freely send stuff to another display.

      We used to have hours of fun running 50 copies of xeyes, firing up netscape with dodgy URL's, changing their background to the godaweful picture that we registered with and the like.

      My favourite was using XV to grab a picture of their desktop, and then setting it as the background. When they closed a window, it looked like it was still there.

      Unfortunately one day, my mate scott xlocked someone elses screen right in the middle of a tutorial and the tutor went ballistic. That "feature" was revoked pretty quickly and they set something up where you have to give someone authentication before they could send stuff to your desktop.

      So one day we lured one of the guys out of the lab (Zog was his nickname) and whilst he was out, I edited his .profile to write out the auth key to a file .xsession_conf_id (one of those file names that sounds important) and then chmod a+r. Anyone who knew about it, could read the file, authenticate themselves and then run 50 copies of xeyes again.

      He put up with it for about a month before roping in a Phd student to help him work out what was going on. I think the phd'er found it in the end and so our fun vanished :o(

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  101. BOHICA! by SphynxSR · · Score: 1

    Microsoft should change it's name to BOHICA. Bend Over Here It Comes Again.

    --

    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
  102. Ad-aware? by SamMichaels · · Score: 2

    I had 2 or 3 of these things popup before...so I ran Ad-aware and it came up empty handed. Perhaps this would be a good thing to include in ad-aware...just a little reminder that windows messaging is enabled, explain why it can lead to spam, and that disabling it is harmless.

    I'll say one thing tho...I must have disabled about 10 or 12 things in the Services menu including a LOT of "remote" stuff to remotely control the PC and the windows update feature that I specifically told windows NOT to do.

  103. What's worse than this is by esac17 · · Score: 0

    We used to do this in our company:
    for /l %i in (0 1 1000000) do net send victimip HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

    Because the focus is not automatically redirected to the popup message (so that you don't get annoyed by it stealing it while you are typing) this makes it a HUGE annoyance to the victim. They have to manually click all 1 million popups (no holding down the enter key). Or reboot.

    I had to download a GUI automation tool that would just send the enter key to a specific window title, just to stop it. Our company didn't allow control of services and they used net send for administrative alerts :(

  104. owned by Alpha_Nerd · · Score: 0

    A few days ago I made a batch file that flooded every computer in the room in my (lame)computer programming class... The teachers computer is set up with a projector, and he was trying to do somthing but couldn't because he was recieving so many messages. Needless to say, they didn't find it very funny, and they said that anyone who uses net send will lose their internet privlige, lol, our network admin is a fucking fat epsilon semi-moron =/

    1. Re:owned by FueledByRamen · · Score: 1

      Hey, sounds like what I did. My last school had 2 labs, one downstairs and one upstairs. The downstairs lab ("business lab") was run by an incompetent moron. Well, I did NET SEND * (insert inside joke here) and the results were interesting, seeing as how that was the first time I used it. All 30-odd computers beeped simultaneously, then silence... and the phone rang. Oops, forgot that it goes upstairs to the more-comptetent-administrator's lab, too. Good thing it was like 5 days from the end of that school year!

      --
      Every cloud has a silver lining (except for the mushroom shaped ones, which have a lining of Iridium & Strontium 90)
  105. Here it is again... by Da+VinMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is from my previous post at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=42016&cid=4432 394

    Note, I'm not karma whoring, I could care less.

    --

    (You will have to graduate from newbie status in order to take advantage of my advice. This means that you will have to climb the learning curve and actually go read some stuff. You can spend a chunk of cash on products to avoid doing just that, but that's much less fun.)

    If you're doing things like turning on file sharing or sharing printers, it's (supposedly) very easy to hack you. I say supposedly only because I haven't actually tried this. It's such an infamous hole though that I do believe it. To turn this off, unbind the NetBIOS protocol from the modem/network card that connects you to the Internet. In Windows 2000, that you means you go to the Properties for your network connection (in the Control Panel) and uncheck the 'File and Printer Sharing for Microsoft Networks' option. (It's very easy to fix this in Win9x too using roughly the same technique.) You may have to reboot, I don't recall. That problem will then be solved.

    Now to protect yourself from other intrusions and threats.

    If you're just running a dial-up connection and don't leave your machine on the network for extended periods of time, then a product like ZoneAlarm (www.zonelabs.com - look for the free version) will serve you well. Actually, it serves you well in two ways: 1) it protects your machine from the outside world coming into your machine in an unauthorized fashion and 2) it protects adware on your machine from phoning home without your permission (actually it prevents everything from using the Internet until you grant permission, not just adware). This is sufficient for dialup.

    For broadband users and users who want to leave their machine on the Internet for extended periods of time (more than a couple hours at a time), I recommend using an honest to goodness separate firewall. There is a lot that can be said about this, far more than I know really, but I well give you a couple pointers.

    First of all, one of your options is to use a second PC as the firewall. It will need to have 2 network cards, you will need a router or hub for your home LAN, and you will have to get the cable modem (or DSL for that matter; with which I have no experience - shouldn't be too hard) working with that extra PC (via Windows would be easiest to start with). Once that's setup, go grab a Linux distribution like IPCop (or SmoothWall - they're very similar, in fact they were the same product at one time), and install it on that PC. It will require that you reformat the hard drive, so don't plan on storing any files on it. A small hard drive is sufficient. There are FAQs and forums on the IPCop and SmoothWall sites that will help get you setup.

    Your second option in the category of 'real protection' (for home users anyway) is to just go buy a hardware firewall. So instead of a second PC, you just go buy a device that does essentially the same thing. I won't go into detail on these as I have no experience with them. I just thought you should know about them.

    Two last points:
    -PLEASE keep a current anti-virus product actively running on your machine and keep it up to date. If you need a free one, go to http://www.grisoft.com to get the free personal version of the AVG anti-virus product. This one has saved my butt several times from several infections. It may or may not be the best product out there, but it works for me.

    -To protect yourself from browser window popups and other shenanigans, go grab WebWasher at http://www.webwasher.com/en/products/wwash/downloa d_license.htm. You will occasionally find that it interferese with pages that make heavy use of Javascript, but you can turn it off when needed. The added protection from annoying web sites is worth the small inconvenience it may sometimes cause.

    As always, this advice is just a starting point. Today's perfect security solution may be an open door tomorrow. It's up to you to keep yourself informed and to take action when problems arise.

    Good luck and have fun!

    --
    Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
  106. Poor Mans IM by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    Back in my last place, a dot-com that failed miserably, we used it as a poor mans IM. Not sure why, because we could download anything we wanted and get real IM clients, but it was a geek thing, so we did it anyway. He used the DOS "net send" stuff, and i used the samba equivalent. It was goofy, mostly we talked shit about management. I'm just surprised it took spammers this long to use it.

  107. Net Stop Messenger in San Francisco by billstewart · · Score: 4, Funny
    Here in San Francisco, messengers not only do the Spandex pants and bicycle helmets, but also usually have tattoos and metal rings on their faces. I hadn't heard of anybody using nets to stop them, though....

    The only time it's really a problem is Critical Mass.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  108. ... am I missing something ? by Raiford · · Score: 2
    The way this article posting on the front pages reads it leads you to believe that the spammers haven't figured this out yet. I get at least 3 or 4 of these every few days.

    --
    "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
  109. Protection on Linux box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could use something like:

    smb.conf:
    message command = csh -c '/etc/winpopup-script %s %t %f' &

    winpopup-script:
    #!/bin/sh
    test -f "$1" && rm -f "$1"
    nmap "$3" | mail root -s "winpopup luser : $3 (`date`)"

    (to be improved a lot, of course)

  110. Re:Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways by spectecjr · · Score: 2, Informative

    While you're at it disable Remote Registry while you are at it. It truly amazes what services Microsoft deems the average user needs running. I find the whole concept of Remote Registry particularly disturbing.

    "Cool this service allows people to modify my registry remotely, sweet!"


    You do realize that you have to provide authentication (ie. username/pwd) for this to work, don't you? You can't just wander around networks checking out others' systems.

    Simon

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  111. Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Nintendork · · Score: 5, Informative
    You can't just close off a port. You have to close off the correct port number for the correct protocol.

    A lot of "Paper MCSEs" understand this because the networking exam covers the OSI model. The same thing goes for those "Paper CCNAs".

    Here's how it works. When I do a net send "Message", the following occurs. Once the data portion of the net send information is formatted by the appropriate layers, it's handed down to the protocol layer and wrapped in a UDP header with a port number. UDP is the protocol responsible for maintaining a communication session between hosts. The port number is like an apartment number in a street address. A lot of services have to talk using the UDP protocol, so it's divided into port numbers (As an FYI, the same is done for TCP). This in turn is handed down to the network layer where it will get a source and destination address stamp (The IP addresses). That in turn is handed down to the data link layer which stamps on the source and destination MAC addresses (Your computer and the default gateway). From there, it hits the physical layer and is on the wire. Along the way, the data link layer changes every hop that is made because the MAC addresses involved change at each router hop. Once it gets to the destination IP address, the recipient strips off the layers to reveal the data. It knows to hand that data up to the NetBIOS services because they're the ones listening on UDP port 138. Finally, you get a little window trying to sell pr0n. Here's a picture that shows the different layers of a TCP packet and their function.

    Here's a rundown on NetBIOS port usage.

    UDP port 137 is used for NetBIOS name resolution.

    UDP port 138 is used for browsing, domain authentication, and datagrams (This is what the messenger service uses).

    TCP port 139 is used for the actual session. This is what you transfer files through.

    TCP port 135 is the RPC service. Some people often confuse it with the NetBIOS ports. I don't know why.

    So, technically, you'll want to block UDP ports 137 and 138 and TCP port 139. Unfortunately, a lot of home equipment is geared towards the novice and they don't separate the UDP and TCP protocols. You are forced to block both TCP and UDP for any given port number. Because of this, you end up blocking more than is required.

    For those interested in this brief tutorial, I highly encourage you to get a CCNA study guide even if you're not going to get the certification. Lots of valuable networking info.

    Lucas
    MCSE, CCNA, Ex-Microsoft NT Networking and Security Support Rep

    1. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You are forced to block both TCP and UDP for any given port number. Because of this, you end up blocking more than is required.

      And the problem with this is what exactly? Your firewall should block everything unless you specifically exempt it. Only people living in 1994 are still trying to play the "I'll just block dangerous ports" whack-a-mole game with their firewalls. Any el-cheapo home Linksys box will block all inbound connections by default. There isn't any reason to be using NetBIOS across the Internet period. It's a horribly insecure protocol that was never designed to be used across a WAN. Keep it on the intranet where it is meant to be used.

    2. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Nintendork · · Score: 3, Informative
      You are talking of a related, but different technology. Dynamic Access Filtering or Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI) can be used to block all ports while opening up tiny holes to allow sessions you initiate to go through. This way, you can get out, but nobody can try and establish a session to you. If you're running a service like http, ftp, gnutella, IRC, AIM file transfer, etc., you have to create permanent holes in the service ports to allow incoming connections. Some devices allow you to specify the protocol, others do not.

      From a security standpoint, you're right. At home, I use SPI. Sometimes though, I turn it off and just block the commonly attacked NetBIOS ports since most scanning activity is for NetBIOS and SQL(I don't run SQL at home). From a control freak standpoint, it's just plain rediculous to specify a port without specifying a protocol. I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine.

    3. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      Ignore my other message. As anyone with any security experience whatsoever should be telling people, you should be blocking everything you do not explicitly need anyway. Don't tell people to just block UDP on port 137 and 138, and TCP on port 139. They should be blocking everything to begin with, and they should be aware that this type of spam can come in through the standard messenger front-door on UDP/138 as well as through RPC on 135, in case they think about opening up these ports to the public in the future.

    4. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by ajorge · · Score: 1

      So, technically, you'll want to block UDP ports 137 and 138 and TCP port 139

      Wait, did anyone actually read the article? The app exploits the RPC port (tcp 135) NOT the NetBIOS ports!

    5. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Very frequently, ISPs and core traffic folks filter these nuisance ports at their routers, so it's not as widespread of a problem anymore (e.g., you're not very likely to be exploited via NetBIOS from some kid in Romania).

      However, this does not mitigate or even lessen the need for a firewall, especially on a cable network. All of your neighbours, who are presumably behind the same router as you, have unfettered access to each other's nodes, as well as yours, and it only takes one motivated chap to ruin your day through an exploit or an insecure service.

    6. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Chester+K · · Score: 2

      There isn't any reason to be using NetBIOS across the Internet period.

      Please suggest a better way for me to map a drive letter on my Windows XP machine to my Linux web server in a colocation center.

      Samba works pretty good, but if there's no reason to be using NetBIOS across the Internet, there must be a better solution, so lay it on me; I'm all ears.

      --

      NO CARRIER
    7. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Mister "Paper genius":

      A lot of "Paper MCSEs" understand this because the networking exam covers the OSI model. The same thing goes for those "Paper CCNAs".

      If you are so smart then you should know that TCP/IP does not follow the OSI 7-layer model, in fact, it predates it.

      diagram of OSI vs TCP/IP (not entirely accurate, but the best I could find in 2 minutes of searching)
      a better but smaller diagram

      Because of this, you end up blocking more than is required.

      Any network admin worth his weight in salt should know that the default firewalling policy should be to DROP/REJECT and only allow on a need basis. You lament that home appliances firewall "too much." I would venture to say that home users should have every port blocked inbound at the ISP level -- the internet would be a much nicer place, as we wouldn't have nimda and code red flying around.

    8. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by civik · · Score: 1

      If you are going to run NETBIOS across the Internet at least tunnel it. Pickup FreeSWAN and a copy of SSH Sentinel.

      --
      Make it a malt liquor. I want to be as clever and handsome as possible.
    9. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Nintendork · · Score: 2

      How did I not see this coming? I thought I covered all my bases, but I should have realized that people might think I was suggesting to only block NetBIOS ports. In my response to the first response I got, I gave my opinion that it's a good idea to have some kind of dynamic packet filtering/stateful packet inspection. There are, however some cases where you might need to block certain ports while leaving the rest open (Such as a test environment or for troubleshooting connection errors).

    10. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Nintendork · · Score: 2

      I don't think the article was correct. I've done plenty of searching on the newsgroups and the security focus mailing lists. The only thing that claims that it uses TCP 135 is that Wired article. Even the manufacturer of the software says that it just uses the net send command. Even if they were trying to get it to come in on TCP 135, I don't see how the RPC service would know to pass the data off to the Messenger service. The two aren't related.

    11. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Nintendork · · Score: 2
    12. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, You can use it, but then if I were you I'd at least tunnel it via IPSEC.

    13. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Oink.NET · · Score: 2
      You are forced to block both TCP and UDP for any given port number.

      Not on a Windows machine... Use IPSec to lock down the exact protocols and ports you want. This is kernel-level port blocking, so is better than the TCP/IP Filtering capabilities Windows provides. IPSec can also be used to secure your communications via Kerberos.

    14. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 2

      >Please suggest a better way for me to map a drive
      >letter on my Windows XP machine to my Linux web
      >server in a colocation center.

      Use scp to copy the files.

      Putty is a nice SSH client, and includes a Win32 version of scp called PSCP.EXE.

    15. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Otto · · Score: 2

      You are talking of a related, but different technology. Dynamic Access Filtering or Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI) can be used to block all ports while opening up tiny holes to allow sessions you initiate to go through. This way, you can get out, but nobody can try and establish a session to you. If you're running a service like http, ftp, gnutella, IRC, AIM file transfer, etc., you have to create permanent holes in the service ports to allow incoming connections. Some devices allow you to specify the protocol, others do not.

      Who the heck was talking about SPI?

      BLOCK ALL PORTS. It's just that simple. If you want to open specific ports, like 80 or 443 for a web server, then you open those ports specifically.

      But the default should be "deny". It's that simple.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    16. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Nintendork · · Score: 2

      If you block all ports, you'll never get anywhere on the internet. When you block all ports at your little Linksys gateway, you also use a type of packet filtering that opens up temporary holes to allow the return traffic. You do know that when your computer talks to another computer on the internet, the data has to come back in, right? For example. When you telnet to a box on the internet, you send a packet from your IP using a random TCP port in the dynamic port range to the destination IP TCP port 23. When the computer sends data back, it sends it to your IP on that random port that you picked. During the entire telnet session, the router has a temporary hole in it that allows traffic from the shell server to come in on that port. Once you're done with the telnet session, the hole is closed up. That's SPI and that's what your router does when you configure it to "Block all ports."

    17. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      You apparently do not frequent some of the mailing lists I do. Be aware that this particular brand of software may not be the only kind out there. This form of spam has been directly observed being delivered through an RPC connection.

    18. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

      Please see this post and other related posts in this mailing list for details about what exactly is being observed.

    19. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by AnnaBlack · · Score: 1
      UDP is the protocol responsible for maintaining a communication session between hosts

      Erm, just to be pedantic, UDP doesn't maintain any session. It's a datagram protocol which delivers single messages. TCP is a transport protocol which does maintain a session between hosts. Both of them run over IP, and it's at the IP layer that ports are significant.

      It's a minor point, but worth clarifying.

      Anna, who understands TCP/IP pretty well.

    20. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by rastos1 · · Score: 1
      Only people living in 1994 are still trying to play the "I'll just block dangerous ports" whack-a-mole game with their firewalls.

      Right, IMO.
      But why I have yet to see a Firewall-HOWTO using --policy DROP?

    21. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to block port 135 as well in order to block RPC delivered Messenger popups.
      Here's why:

      http://www.mynetwatchman.com/kb/security/article s/ popupspam/netsend.htm

      "As popups are traditionally sent using Netbios and SMB, some have assumed that the recent SPAM popups are being delivered in the same way. Our analysis of the DirectAdvertiser (DA) application shows that this assumption is incorrect. DA is delivering popups utilizing Microsoft RPC (remote procedure call) to udp/135. "

      Lawrence Baldwin
      http://www.mynetwatchman.com

    22. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Nintendork · · Score: 2

      I couldn't get that page to come up, but I noticed it's in the incidents mailing list. I jumped into my email folder for the incidents mailing list and found the thread, Source of Windows PopUp SPAM. Thanks. Good info. I'm still curious how it uses RPC to initiate messenger windows.

    23. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Please suggest a better way for me to map a drive letter on my Windows XP machine to my Linux web server in a colocation center.

      Honestly? Try WebDAV over SSL. Under recent versions of Windows (since win98se?) this is known as Web Folders. Unfortunately I don't know if it associates an actual legacy DOS drive letter to it but for all intents and purposes it looks like any other drive share to the user. Mac users are familiar with this technology since I believe the iDisk is based around it. Anyway, for more info go to the WebDAV page. We've been working with it in the lab testing interoperability and it seems to work nicely. Apache supports it well through a module. The alternative as other users have suggested is to establish an IPSEC tunnel to the server and use NetBIOS over that but it's probably more complex than you want to deal with. Putty (windows ssh client) also has some nice GUI frontends linked from their web page that use scp but hide all the complex bits from the user. Search for Putty on google and it should be the first result.

    24. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anna, who understands TCP/IP pretty well.

      Of course you do, you're a guy like the rest of us... :P

      But why do you obfuscate your homepage URL? Are you ashamed of the freak that you are?

    25. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Uncle+Kracker · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I think you assume you know it all.

      cat /etc/services | grep "[Nn]et[Bb]ios"

      netbios-ns 137/tcp
      -NETBIOS Name Service
      netbios-ns 137/udp
      netbios-dgm 138/tcp
      -NETBIOS Datagram Service
      netbios-dgm 138/udp
      netbios-ssn 139/tcp
      -NETBIOS session service
      netbios-ssn 139/udp

      Anyone with half a brain can figure out what the hell those ports do. Don't get so religious about it.

      Also, who says I can't just close off a port?
      I know the service running on it, I don't like it, I close it.

      Man, you should really learn to think before you write shit down. Hitting the preview button and reading your own rant before you make a fool of yourself is a good idea.

      -- Cheez

    26. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by AnnaBlack · · Score: 1

      Anyone with any sense obfuscates their URLs. And tell me, why do you like to stay anonymous when insulting people? Ashamed of something? Anna

    27. Re:Does anyone here actually understand TCP/IP? by Otto · · Score: 2

      No, that's not SPI, that's just what NAT does (stateful packet inspection vs packet inspection).

      SPI can be enabled or disabled for the little Linksys router. Enabling it effectively closes all inbound ports unless the packet passes the stateful packet inspection. But it disables port forwarding. Which is why disabling it, if you need to forward inbound ports, is required. But regardless of whether it's on or not, if you're not forwarding any ports, nothing gets inbound without a matching outbound connection to do the temporary port forwarding.

      NAT uses packet inspection based simply on the destination and source IP addresses, along with port munging to get stuff to go to the right place.

      SPI (stateful packet inspection) does a more thorough job of it, examining the entire packet up to the application layer. The important difference is that SPI is harder to fool. Whereas normally we only care about source and destinations, SPI builds a state table using info in the packet and uses that info from previous packets to determine if new packets are valid or not. It's more secure, but like I said, the little Linksys gateways can't arbitrarily forward ports with SPI turned on.

      --
      - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  112. Mod Parent Up, Please! by billstewart · · Score: 3, Informative

    In a business intranet, there may be uses for this service. But for a machine connected to the public internet (i.e. a spam target), there's simply no excuse for letting packets in unless they're running on a protocol you know you want to support across the net. For most couch potatoes at home, that means responses to outgoing queries, plus incoming packets on any Instant Messenger, Games, and P2P File Sharing type application you are running. If you're also running a web server, then there's that too. For couch potatoes at work, there may be all sorts of stuff, but there's no reason the business firewall should be letting them in from unknown sources.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  113. Those people don't call him. by billstewart · · Score: 2

    Kovacs sells the spamware. His customers are spammers. Most of the spam victims don't know to call Kovacs and yell at him, so all he gets is positive feedback, plus the occasional customer who's disappointed about not getting lots of calls. The spammers are spamming for 1-900-fone-sex, and really don't care if the spam victim calls to talk dirty to them or calls to yell at them, because its $3.99/minute either way.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  114. GOATSE ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WARNING: above instructions will cause GOATSE to appear inside your computer.

  115. Saw this the other day by program21 · · Score: 1
    At my college (Stevens Inst. of Tech.), we have a new Events system, flat panel LCDs in a couple of places around the campus, showing the same thing you'd see on the events site. I walked by one the other day with a nice NetBIOS spam message on it, had a good laugh, recorded the IP of the computer (for solely reference purposes, of couse :-) ).

    Never happened to me though, but then I run a firewall (and just disabled the Messenger service).

    --
    This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
  116. Client software by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2

    'The client software hasn't been widely distributed' - what about Samba? I've used the smbclient program to send messages to Windows PCs.

    Fortunately this annoyance is easy to fix - just turn off the useless Messenger service in Windows. In fact, turn off all the Windows services except for OLE and Spooler.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:Client software by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > turn off all the Windows service

      Then turn off Windows and you'll be all set!

  117. Not to be a shithead, but... by ZxCv · · Score: 2

    ...spam and porn MADE the internet!

    Who wouldn't want to check their email everyday containing promises for bigger penises and hot nasty teen bitches???

    Seriously, though, spam and porn seem to be the only two business aspects of the Internet that consistently turn profits, and it's been that way for the last 5 or 6 years, at least. And if these two areas are the ones turning a profit for so long, I am hard-pressed to see the circumstances that would cause people to immediately stop spending their money on such shit and just "turn it off".

    While a nice thought for the idealist, for the realist, it doesn't make much sense at all.

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  118. Re:For those of us who have control of our routers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot the rest. 135,137,138,139 & 445. UDP and TCP to be sure.

  119. Probably not the case here by billstewart · · Score: 4, Funny

    In this case, it doesn't sound like the spamware lets the spammer relay their traffic through another machine - it's probably coming directly from them. Slapping them may actually be fun - here you are, some poor slob who bought a package telling you how you can M8ke Munny Fast! by promoting your 1-900-sex-spam line, you start this thing up on your PC, and now you've got 500 popup windows on your screen telling you to stop bothering people, plus one more saying that all your base are belong to them.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Probably not the case here by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      actually, based on the (little) i know about this protocol, i believe it could be easily spoofed. The originator could make it look like 127.0.0.1 if he wanted to.

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
  120. We did this to a couple script kiddies by naarok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the last place I worked, we had a number of IPs assigned. This made it painfully obvious in the logs when some script kiddie was port scanning us. On a couple occaisions we found that the machine scanning us had netsend active and availble, so we net sended them telling them to stop port scanning or we would take action. We could just picture the 13 year-old kid at the other end freakin out at this message popping up on their monitor.

  121. Re:For those of us who have control of our routers by phiber_optick · · Score: 1

    True. I stand corrected. :)

  122. Mod parent up, please by billstewart · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    It's a good article.

    One nitpick is that you don't need products like WebWasher if you're running Mozilla - you can set it not to "Open Unrequested Windows", and 95% of that stuff just vanishes.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Mod parent up, please by Da+VinMan · · Score: 2

      I suppose Mozilla might cover some of the WebWasher functionality, but WebWasher also rids your of web bugs and other annoyances. Furthermore, WebWasher also runs on Linux. I haven't used it, but I'm betting it works just fine.

      --
      Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
    2. Re:Mod parent up, please by billstewart · · Score: 2

      You're right, killing web bugs is a very good thing. I'd only been thinking about the pop-ups in that context.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  123. another way to stop this spam by Jeriki · · Score: 5, Informative

    open up the advanced tab of you TCP/IP settings and goto the WINS tab and click 'disable NetBIOS over TCP/IP' and then 'OK'.

    --
    -witty .sig
  124. I'm not a victim! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I first noticed this about a month ago on my roomates PC (he shares the DSL connection). I disabled the service, thought it was pretty clever though.

  125. University vs. Business Firewall Needs by billstewart · · Score: 2
    Universities really do have different network security needs than businesses.
    • The traditional thing that business sysadmins worry about is some college kid cracking into their network, so they build firewalls to prevent that.
    • That's not as useful if the kids are already inside. On the other hand, I know some university administrators who've had to try to configure their systems to keep insiders from cracking outsiders' machines.
    • Businesses normally set their firewalls to allow insiders to initiate most outgoing connections, but only allow incoming connections for the few applications that the business is *trying* to run for outsiders, such as email, web/ftp, etc.
    • Universities are more likely to allow everything, because their users may be doing all kinds of new and interesting applications.

    Is there much consensus out there about best practices for university network and firewall administration, or things to watch out for that they didn't teach you in business-related training?
    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  126. Port 135 by rakerman · · Score: 2
    I just wanted to mention again that port 135 is an issue with some of the new tools, so just blocking standard NetBIOS 137-139 and 445 won't solve the problem.

    There's more information on my broadband security page in the NET SEND section.

  127. Absolutely by psaxton · · Score: 1

    I know my corp would flame the hell out of the source if we were to receive that stuff.

  128. This company made an icq spam engine by Mdog · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you read the wired article and follow the link to the "dispute," AOL sued this company over their icq spam engine. It's important to notice, however, that they sued them over the *trademark* icq (which they infringed upon,) not the underlying spam problem.

  129. smbclient from Samba by decep · · Score: 1

    We have been able to do this for years with smbclient from samba. This is not news.

    smbclient -n nowhere -U God -M

    It's not like this is hard folks.

  130. Let me tell you an idea I had.... by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Presumably, the messenger service exists because it is perceived as useful. So simply stopping the service may not be seen as particularly constructive.

    What about altering the service so that instead of just popping up a window that you can do nothing with but close, there would exist an additional button [REPLY] on the pop up message window, which would then allow you to respond to the alert message as you see fit? (Sending a message back to the source via the same net send facility that they used to send data to you).

    Now I presume, of course, that an authorized administrator would have a large say in what services are going to be running on the computers in his domain, so if he wasn't interested in fielding replies to his authorized alert messages, he could simply have the requirement that the normal "one-way" messenger is the one that gets installed on the domain machines. Meanwhile, unauthorized sends would find themselves the target of maybe hundreds or thousands of replies, potentially causing a D.O.S. for them, even if they weren't actually running the messenger service themselves.

    Of course, the new messenger service would also log the time, date, and originating IP of the sender, so that it can be confirmed later -- even if the sender does not happen to be running the messenger service himself.

    Now I realize that this doesn't do a thing for handling people who fake their IP address, but I'd bet it go some distance to making this virtually unusable by most of the people who would just use such tools to spam.

    1. Re:Let me tell you an idea I had.... by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      who says the sender is going to listen for these replies?

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
  131. Why Windows users use firewalls by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    I decided it's easier to just install Tiny firewall on all the boxes

    Well, there you have it, folks. The administrative interface to manage services on Windows sucks bollocks, which is why Windows boxes run personal firewalls. I could never figure out the point of personal firewalls...it turns out they *don't* have a point, as long as you're on Linux.

    1. Re:Why Windows users use firewalls by cscx · · Score: 2

      Eh?

      The administrative interface to manage services on Windows sucks bollocks

      Maybe you just don't know how to use it.

      I could never figure out the point of personal firewalls...it turns out they *don't* have a point, as long as you're on Linux.

      That's cause you guys don't call it a "personal firewall" -- you call it "ipchains/iptables." ANY machine -- Windows, Linux, Solaris, ANYTHING, is Swiss cheese on the Internet w/o a firewall.

      It's this complacent thinking ("my 1337 Linux box is the most-est secure-est!! -- hah, who needs a firewall!?!") that causes security vulnerabilities in the first place.

      Tell me personal firewalls don't have a place on Linux and tell me you're running X11 and I'll tell you that you're full of shit.

    2. Re:Why Windows users use firewalls by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      ANY machine -- Windows, Linux, Solaris, ANYTHING, is Swiss cheese on the Internet w/o a firewall.

      What the hell are you talking about? The only point of a personal firewall is to prevent outside users from contacting servers on the computer. If your servers don't have holes, you don't have any problem.

      I'd say that someone relying on a firewall for his security is a lot fucking worse off than someone with solid servers and no firewall in place, because all a firewall is going to let you do is filter the packets based on IP. Spoof an IP and hit something that can be affected with a small amount of data or manage to take control of a machine on the local network, and your "high security" system is toast. It's like the r-services with IP-based trust all over again.

      It's this complacent thinking ("my 1337 Linux box is the most-est secure-est!! -- hah, who needs a firewall!?!") that causes security vulnerabilities in the first place.

      Nope. Though said people not keeping up with patches to their servers could be a problem.

      Tell me personal firewalls don't have a place on Linux and tell me you're running X11 and I'll tell you that you're full of shit.

      Oh, I'm running X11 at the moment. It's just fine. X11 has no fundamental security issues.

      First, if I cared about disallowing network access, I wouldn't go screwing around with a firewall -- I'd just tell XFree86 to only use Unix socket connections, not TCP.

      Second, some of us *don't* use xhost and host-based authentication. Xauth all the way.

      Third, some of us *ssl tunnel* our remote X11 connections so that no one can wait for keystrokes.

      Now, feel free to post your stunning X11 hole that would let you through all this (and into most Slashdotters' computers).

    3. Re:Why Windows users use firewalls by radish · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the hell are you talking about? The only point of a personal firewall is to prevent outside users from contacting servers on the computer. If your servers don't have holes, you don't have any problem.


      OK a few points here. (1) personal firealls are good for lots of things, personally I use one to stop applications connecting OUT not IN (i.e. stopping apps "phoning home". Show me how to do that without a firewall please. Sure if you're running only O/S apps and have personally inspected the code of all of them to look for ring backs then you're fine. I run windows on several boxes, and that isn't possible. (2) It's better to be safe than sorry. My linux router/server does have a firewall, but it's services are also tightened up nicely. Why not use both? We've seen issues recently where trojanised apps open sockets during the install process, or later on, without people expecting it. With my firewall in place I really don't have to worry about that, sure my weekly scans will find any unexpected open sockets but the firewall will have blocked hem long before that.

      I'd say that someone relying on a firewall for his security is a lot fucking worse off than someone with solid servers and no firewall in place, because all a firewall is going to let you do is filter the packets based on IP. Spoof an IP and hit something that can be affected with a small amount of data or manage to take control of a machine on the local network, and your "high security" system is toast. It's like the r-services with IP-based trust all over again.


      And a fundamental misunderstanding of firewalls like that doesn't make you look smart. My firewall (for instance) will allow ftp access to the server from the internal net, but not from the external one. Is it IP based? partly. Could you spoof it? Of course not. Sure you can make your packet look like it's coming from 192.168.0.5 but how the hell do you make it look like it's coming from eth1 not eth0? Routers use IP based stuff, a secure firewall does as much as possible based purely on interface.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:Why Windows users use firewalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, kind of, but I should note that X11, like many socket-based UNIXy services, doesn't have to run on TCP. That's why we have PF_UNIX, or UNIX domain sockets, which are only accessable to localhost, and subject to filesystem permissions.

      Also... IMHO a UNIX box configured as a workstation should only have the ssh port open. Though there have been a couple OpenSSH exploits in the last 6 months, it's not a very hole-prone port.

  132. Happened to me already... by CZroe · · Score: 3, Informative

    The same spam I get in my Hotmail hit me last week through Windows messenger:
    "U N I V E R S I T Y D I P L O M A S"
    Notice the spacing designed to avoid word filtering? It looks like these guys are thinking ahead!

  133. Not to mention sniffing keystrokes by upper · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If someone can throw windows up on your X server, they can do worse than that. They can grab a screenshot (with xwd -root) or sniff keystrokes with xkey or xspy. Nothing shows up on your screen at all.

    Anyone running with xhost access control is asking for trouble. If you're security conscious, tunnel your X session over ssh.

  134. TUSD insecurity by nonweasel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My school has recently had a big problem with this. Students used a lameass program called NetHail. I remember doing the same thing with smbclient, and a perl script though...

  135. I just got spammed by one of these the other day.. by MontyP · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I come home one night to find one of these on my desktops... I thought it was funny and just happen to have taken a screen shot

    Messenger_Service_Spam.gif

    --


    There is no .sig
  136. Re:net send by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    note the sig my friend...note the sig....

    Seems if you go to a tech school you should be smart enough to figure out how to install a spell checker.

  137. Insufficient by Fastolfe · · Score: 2

    Much of the Messenger spam is coming in through the RPC service on port 135. You'll want to block that or turn it off as well.

  138. It must be an on campus thing by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    We just got this at the University of Arizona. Well we do block NetBIOS at the border AND one of the systems that got the popup has a firewall on it that only allows access from certian networks. So it was an on campus thing.

    1. Re:It must be an on campus thing by Crypt0pimP · · Score: 1

      We just saw the same thing at the UAB (Birmingham, AL)

      great, another frickin method of sending me ways to enlarge my schwanz or get a university diploma

      --
      Striving to achieve a lower state of conciousness
  139. Everyone's Internet, where nobody's home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone's Internet, aka EV1.net -- parent company of the somewhat fly-by-night colocation service rackshack.net -- is cited in this article as being the source or host of the source of some of these messages. They'd be a good target for a wider investigation. EV1.net is one of companies where the pretty website belies what is a very scamlike service.

    In the early days of rackshack.net, they were cited across the board as not delivering Sun Cobalt RAQ servers people had ordered months ahead of time. The company was revealed to be the equivalent of one bright kid in his basement. And yet somehow they survived the complaints and stay online. How? Through bogus "testimonials" on independent web hosting forums and tons of somewhat flashy advertising. EV1 is everywhere where the poor web host would look (sponsoring web host directories, ads in free hosting magazines, on google under keywords like "CHEAP ASP HOST MONITORER"), so they appear to be reputable. Their record tells another story. For every small business who enjoys the service they get with EV1, there is another with huge overbandwidth charges, billing issues, misdelivered software or no response at all. Their "set up fees" cover the entire cost of buying the read-to-wear servers they "lease" without any ownership documents changing hands.

    The images of "their" server housing feature some logos that are fairly obviously photoshopped on. Clip art's one thing, but inferring it's your property is just disingenuine (sp).

    I wouldn't be surprised if nothing ever comes of complaints to EV1, nor would I be surprised if EV1 was doing the spamming itself. Just look at its Better Business Bureau records and you'll see...these guys are at the very bottom of the internet food chain, giving all the local datacenters and colocation services a bad name. I'm posting this anonymously, because last time I posted a comment about them I was threatened with -- but not served with -- legal reprecussions. Barratry's more than just a dyslexic spelling of "Battery."

    http://worf.usshurdman.com/~hous/common.html?locat ion=/home/common/www/mis67/report.php&bureau=hous& compid=23000212

  140. Tried and True Solution: Troll errr...Ask Slashdot by Alethes · · Score: 1

    http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/10/19 45240&mode=thread&tid=111

    Stopping NetBIOS Spam?
    [ Spam ]Posted by Cliff on Friday October 11, @02:45AM
    from the nothing-is-sacred dept.
    MoonFacedAssassin asks: "I woke up this morning to find that my computer had a Windows messaging pop-up window with an advertisement about getting diplomas and degrees. I was quite shocked to find that my Bellsouth DSL IP address had been spammed. Has this happened to anyone else? Other than closing off the port which this can come through, are there any other ways to block this spam? And, how responsible is Bellsouth (or any ISP for that matter) in handling issues like this?"

  141. Re:net send by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He probably dosen't use OS X and can't spellcheck his slashdot entry boxes.

    (rimshot)

  142. Misuse aside.... by AtariDatacenter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm glad to see this feature. When I was managing a very large multiuser application, from time to time, I would have to close some sessions were causing problems. Or I would see a problem going on, and would like to know more about what they see on their end. But armed with only an IP address and a vauge hostname, I could only track them reliably as far as what building they were in. "If only I could hit their walld", I said.

    BTW, at the same time, UNIX users are in for a treat if their syslogd can accept outside messages. (Default behavior on many OSs, but has been changing.)

    Think "kernel.crit".

  143. Already getting them by SrlKlr · · Score: 2

    I have AT&T cable modem and have gotten a few of these. I am behind a NAT router, but do not have my firewall turned on. The interesting thing is that I tried messenging the spammer back to tell him what I thought of getting this message and it was blocked. So apparently he has a firewall setup correctly.

  144. People are reading part of the article wrong... by michrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've seen several posts now where the following text is read wrong (either by reading to fast, or skimming, or something). Figgered I'd clear up the confusion...

    Zoltan Kovacs, founder of DirectAdvertiser.com, said the company has sold about 200 copies of the program since launching two months ago. According to Kovacs, the software is ideal for advertising 900-number and other telephone services.

    "I have customers who call me back and tell me they love it and it generates hundreds of calls right away," said Kovacs, who noted that Direct Advertiser is a good alternative to bulk e-mail because its messages are not regulated by spam laws.


    The above doesn't mean that Joe User, sitting at his desk receiving all the spam via this new method, is calling and saying how they love it -- as several posts have noted. It means that Joe Spammer, the lowest form of life on earth, is calling and saying how they love the 'product' that directadvertiser.com is selling. World of difference there.

    --
    bork bork bork!
  145. Windows machine on directly routable internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody who places a Windows machine on a directly-routable-to-the-Internet network segment is a FREAKIN' MORON who deserves what they get.

    Always put yer Widows boxen on an RFC1918 private segment behind some sort of NAT/PAT firewall device and prohibit all inbound netbios traffic.

  146. There is an easy fix to this by redog · · Score: 1

    http://www.slackware.org

  147. But what about the small penised people? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 3, Funny

    There is someone, somewhere, who is sitting in front of their computer thinking...
    Their mind has wandered...
    SEX...
    Sex with the (wo)man of their dreams...

    oh, how wonderful life could be... but alas no, not for this poor soul. For they only have a tiny small penis.
    And right then, at that very moment just as their dream is being crushed by their own insecurities, up pops Windows Messaging Service:

    ++ INCREASE THE SIZE OF YOUR PENIS!!!! ++

    ++ New pill adds 3 inches to your cock! ++

    How right it would be for them at that moment, to give this poor poor person some hope in life?

    So my question is "Who are we to judge the rights and wrongs of this 'Mass advertising/marketing/spamming' product; a product that might give hope to just one or two of the thousands of millions spammed?"

    That said, personally I couldn't give a rats-arse about some spotty virgin geeks' lack of sex - but hey, SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE must actually buy these products. Find that person, kill them, and the whole spamming problem is solved! Surely?!!
    ---
    Lots of love, Zaiffy baby!

  148. Firewall people by neoThoth · · Score: 1

    I've seen a lot of comments here that say "block the ports". I couldn't agree more. I work at (undisclosed security software vendor) and our vulnerability assessment tool tells administrators to disable this service unless it's absolutely needed. Some applications still use this medium as a way to message certain information (like system wide outages etc) in the same way that the unix 'wall' command does. Anyone who leaves the netBIOS ports open to the world though is just asking for trouble. Earlier the explaination on which ports (135-139 tcp/udp) to block was highly informative but I would say just block all of them from outside connections. I can't think of any examples where it is healthy to keep these open and available. Beyond annoying pop up messages it is possible to enumerate user information via the IPC$ null session bug which is STILL present in default installations of windows machines.

  149. I've been using that trick for a while by archnerd · · Score: 1

    At my old school, there were about 150 computers, all on one subnet, all running NT 4. So one day I discovered NET SEND *. I couldn't stop laughing for a week.

  150. Removing messanger from XP by hiro_takahama · · Score: 1

    For all you unfortunate XP users out there, you can use the following command to uninstall windows messanger completely, if you so choose..

    RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove

    Copy and paste into your run box, click yes to uninstall and your done. Hope this helps..

    1. Re:Removing messanger from XP by Tim+Browse · · Score: 2

      That removes Windows Messenger (nee MSN Messenger) though, doesn't it?

      What's being discussed here is the 'Messenger' service on Windows NT/2000/XP, which has been around since the NT3.1 days, IIRC, and is a quite different thing.

      Tim

  151. Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just use starcrafts built in chat engine. You can say things out loud, team message, as well as individual message to someone.

    1. Re:Moron by Nerull · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he was refering to the fact that a new window would (i havn't tried, but most other programs do it, so....) send SC to the background, and generally annoy the hell out of other players, as well as distracting them while you march in and rush their base(s).

    2. Re:Moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to add "moron" to the end of your post.. It helps to be condescending to get your point across (even if you don't know what you're talking about, parent post)

  152. Spam these guys.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, the company that makes that ad spamming software has toll free phone and fax numbers... anyone want to add them to some junk fax lists or just fax them couple reams of black paper?

    http://www.directadvertiser.com/contact.html

    Contact Us

    Please email us at support@directadvertiser.com with any questions, comments, or suggestions that you may have. This is the quickest and most efficient way to communicate with us. We will respond to you as soon as possible with a reply, sometimes within the hour but never longer than 24 hours.

    Phone:
    Toll Free: 1-800-323-2146
    Toll Free:1-866-691-7978

    Fax:
    Toll Free:1-800-323-2145

  153. Closing ports 137-8 is not sufficient by Huusker · · Score: 2

    Closing ports 137 and 138 is not sufficient to block Microsoft file sharing.

    • UDP 137 - NETBIOS Name Service
    • UDP 138 - NETBIOS Datagram Service
    • TCP 139 - NETBIOS Session Service
    • >
    • TCP 445 - Microsoft CIFS Session
    • UDP 445 - Microsoft CIFS Datagram

    In addition TCP 137 is WINS, TCP/UDP 389 is LDAP (Active Directory), UDP 1443 and TCP 1444 are MSDE and SQL Server, and TCP/UDP 1801 is Microsoft Message Queue Server (MSMQ).

    Windows 2000 clients will use port 445 for file sharing when talking to Windows 2000 servers, not 139.

    You didn't know all that? The bottom line is unless you know every port that your computer might use, you are better off blocking all of them and only open up the ports you know you need.

    1. Re:Closing ports 137-8 is not sufficient by Nintendork · · Score: 2

      Thanks, forgot all about the added ports from W2K. Regarding UDP 137, I said that it's a name query. This can be in the form of broadcast or a WINS lookup. Again, I didn't realize that it sounded like I was suggesting that blocking certain ports is safe enough. dynamic packet filtering/stateful packet inspection is the best thing to use along with applying patches and keeping up to date anti-virus software. :)

  154. Hell, one person, hit the whole work group... by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 2, Interesting
    running 2k or XP
    <script language="VBScript">
    Dim WSHShell
    Set WSHShell = CreateObject("WScript.Shell")
    WSHShell.Run "command /k net send * Hi!!! Why Dont you Buy our Latest product today", 2, False
    Set WSHShell = Nothing
    WScript.Quit(0)
    </script>

    Imagine it in a perpetual loop, eveyone in the workgroup would get barraged with popups until the fool who clicked yes to the active x warning was found. Pretty annoying reason to have shut down a network.

    Is this a new security flaw in Windows?

    --
    ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
  155. Re:net send by mrgrey · · Score: 1

    seems to me I should have more time and guts, like an anonymous coward, to make sure I don't spell things incorrectly and insult the being that you are.

    --
    -Tolerate my intolerance
  156. Behold The Power to Annoy! by slothbait · · Score: 2

    Late last month I got an tech susport question about this, the dude even provided a picture of the pop up (which showed his ip) A quick google search, a request in an irc channel, and about 200 popups later. I finally replied with this.

    Control Panel
    (Preformance and Maintenance) -> Administrative tools
    services
    Scroll to Messanger
    Right click - Stop
    Right click - Properties - Startup type = Disabled

    I swear I could hear a scream somewhere on campus ^_^

  157. Netpopups at Washington State University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi all. I am a student computer technician for Washington State University (www.wsu.edu). We have been seeing these damn popups for a little over a week now both in the Business (I'm a MIS major) labs and at machines in the Student Union Building. We have been mostly accosted by the "Earn a prestegious non-accreditated degree" POS message. Though you might like to know, that yes, this is in the open and spreading.

  158. Re:Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways by 1010011010 · · Score: 2


    VNC!

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  159. NetMessageBufferSend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote myself a little proggie to do this a little over six months ago. I'm a University student and had I known people would pay $700 a shot, I could have made a shitload of money :).

    The code for it is really simple, it's a Windows API call called "NetMessageBufferSend". You will be able to find it on the MSDN site. I use this function to send messages to my friends every now and then when I desperately need their attention. I think it's a neat feature, but there are problems.

    The problem is, this function trusts that you call it with an identifiable name. Nothing stops you from saying it's from "WEBPOPUP" or anything else for that matter. I have been hit with a single spam to date (enough to annoy me). And what's worse is, when you check your events log, it will only log "WEBPOPUP" and not the IP.

    I think Microsoft needs to get on this very soon and make sure when the Window pops up that it will report the IP instead of the specified name. This way we will be able to tell the IP of the message, instead of whatever the sender wants us to see.

    On a related note, since when is this legal? I seem to remember getting in trouble for say, connecting to an ftp with "unauthorized" access. I see this as just another form of packet flooding, to a lesser extent. Why is this any different? Or more importantly, who's going to stick up for us?

  160. Free client? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Actually, there already exists a free client for this... It`s called smbclient and comes as standard with samba.
    Using smbclient -M host you are prompted to enter a message and end with ^D, it`s also trivial to:
    echo message |smbclient -M host
    so mass spamming with smbclient is very possible.
    As for people recieveing the msgs, If your running NT.. the message will come up interrupting whatever else your doing, if your on 9x or 3.x then you wont see it unless your running the winpopup program.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  161. Easy... just get rid of MS Messenger by Fissure_FS2 · · Score: 1

    copy/paste the following into a run box:

    RunDll32 advpack.dll,LaunchINFSection %windir%\INF\msmsgs.inf,BLC.Remove

    there, it's gone!

    --
    My life's goal is to get a score of +3!
    1. Re:Easy... just get rid of MS Messenger by Gambit253 · · Score: 0

      This will not stop this spam.... the spam is comming from the windows messaging service, something that is found on any NT based windows system. A better alternative would be to stop the service under control panel>administrative tools>services and set the startup to manual or to get a good firewall that blocks everything that you don't need. I suggest kerio or smoothwall.

  162. Very Easy by jalilv · · Score: 1

    This is so easy to do that it is getting unnecessary attention. Apart from Net Send command that other have mentioned, there is a single API call which does this programatically. The API is NetMessageBufferSend. You provide either the machine name or the login name to this API and it will send the message popup to the machine or all the machines that the user has logged in from. I wrote a utility long time back which will send message to multiple people. We used this utility when the email system (Exchange servers ofcourse) will go down and we need to send messages to more than one person. It was very useful and effective way of communication at such times.
    The only thing that is bad about this is that the messenger service is running by default which is prone to abuse. But isn't that the way Windows works (everything running by default) ?

    - Jalil Vaidya

  163. Remember that name, people! by jcr · · Score: 2

    Kovacs needs to get the shit kicked out of him.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  164. You're half right. by jcr · · Score: 2

    ...spam and porn MADE the internet!

    Right about the porn, wrong about the spam. Porn brings customers to the net, spam just irritates them.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  165. Messenger and NAT? by wedding · · Score: 1

    Forgive the dumb question, but someone tell a newbie how messenger service reacts to NAT?

  166. Re: why now? by freaq · · Score: 1

    i had one of these pop up on my screen yesterday just after the admins had gone home. no explanation, i thought i was going to get reamed for letting some virus into the system, only later did i realize everyone in the labs got one. we need to disable it now because our network admins are first and foremost _windows_ admins, which means that they may or may not own the machines they oversee. they get to deal with a bad^Wbotched^borken^W seriously fucked up pathetic excuse for an operating system from a company that couldn't care two whits for the security of their customer's data, and has, tp my knowlecge, nevfr admiuted amy conplicjty hn tge ptolkfeuatlon!of#cnmourep tipuqcsLINE DISCONNETED REASON LOST

    --
    united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
  167. Re:Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 2

    Of course. However, given the number of nasty exploits coming out of the Windows world lately, would you want to take the chance?

    --
    "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
  168. Re:Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 2

    Exactly! We do registry edits all the time on remote systems at work. We are simply smart enough to do them via VNC, or at the very least Terminal Services over private vlans.

    --
    "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
  169. Use Group Policies in Active Directory by Mr.+Objectivity · · Score: 1

    If you Windows 2K and XP boxes are in a Windows 2K domain, you never have to worry about this. Just set the default domain group policy to set this service to Manual.

    I haven't let this service run on any box for well over 2 years.

  170. Re:The Solution (mod this up please) by sambo99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Moderators, dont mod +5 unless you know it works

    The method described above does not disable netbios over tcp/ip - so it has no chance of stopping the popups.

    If you firewall off or disable the netbios traffic you should be fine according to microsoft.

    I just tested this at home and was unable to disable the popup messages on my win2k box. however firewalling the messanger port or disabling or messanger is a guranteed method of stopping this nonsense.

    --
    - Sam
  171. yeah.. its stupid.. here is more info maybe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ive been getting spammed for a couple weeks now.. here is the company

    http://www.directadvertiser.com/

  172. I've already been nailed.. by euxneks · · Score: 1

    I have already been nailed by this spam and believe me it was very frustrating not being able to find the sender! Can any of you guys tell me how I could find the IP of the sender? Although, I don't know what I would do with it...

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  173. Block inbound traffic on privileged ports by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    Block all inbound TCP and UDP traffic on ports 0..1023 to desktop machines at the firewall. The average desktop/home-user has no business whatsoever listening to the internet on those ports. ftpd / sshd / telnetd / smtpd / NETBIOS, etc, etc. Only servers need to listen to the outside world on those ports. Of course, if you're an advanced hobbyist running a web server, or mailserver, or sshd on your home machine, you'll need to poke a hole in the filters.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  174. Humm by KinkyClown · · Score: 1

    Funny how everybody seems to know how to stop the messages from comming in, but no one really seems to stop the problem from emerging in the first place. Let's focus on stopping people from sending then... it would make the world a lot more nicer than it is now...

  175. Free alternative already available by seudafed · · Score: 1

    There is already a free version available

    http://www.computec.ch/software/denial_of_servic e/ winpopup-flooder/winpopup-flooder.zip

  176. just got this? What to do, have to switch off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Messenger Service [x]

    Message from MICROSOFT to xxxx on xxx

    Unlicensed software found in remote audit
    Please turn off this machine immediately
    and contact local law enforcement.
    "Where do you want to go today is a
    registered trademark of Microsoft, all
    rights reserved.
    damn mumble about junk characters filter..
  177. Re:Do yourself a favor - kill this service anyways by epsalon · · Score: 2

    Too many windows NT/2K/XP users have one administrator user called "administrator" with no password. Very very easy to guess...

  178. New outlet for firewall advertisers by ader · · Score: 1
    Let's hope the personal firewall vendors use this to flog their wares, then maybe we'll all be spared the pain of unsecured Windoze desktops.

    Other fun messages:
    • "License expired, please reinstall XP."
    • "You are viewing porn. Notifying your mother..."
    • "Please continue to click OK until you have successfully installed Linux."


    Ade_
    /
    --
    Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
  179. Damnit by SamiousHaze · · Score: 1

    I submitted this story based on First Hand events ...

    2002-09-30 02:10:48 New and more annoying advertising (articles,news) (rejected)

    whats the deal with that?

  180. Terrifying people.... by Sam+the+Nemesis · · Score: 1
    In our organization, we use an application which keeps running on all the machines so that users can know how much time they are spending on each task. But, what this stupid application does is that if you don't click on it for 1 hour, it sends a NetBIOS messenger message that you have not used it for last 1 hour.

    Now comes the fun part. I used to send messages to colleagues going something like this: "You have not used the application for 1 hour. This incident will be reported to your top manager."

    The terrified guys suddenly will start using it. Then again I'll send a message - "You still are not using the application !!! This incident will be reported to your CEO !"

    This was a fun way to make people go crazy. ;-)

  181. Innovation by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 2

    I have an idea for Microsoft innovation.

    Imagine how useful a capability it would be if the popup messages could contain HTML, JavaScript and Flash. Even better, what if you couldn't turn it off.

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  182. The address for the dumb company who did this by airtim1 · · Score: 1

    This may have already been posted but here is the email address for the directadvertising company support@directadvertiser.com lets all send them are comments

  183. Sending message FROM printers by nicestepauthor · · Score: 1

    Way back at the start of my computer career (1979) we used the VM operating system on our mainframe. For some reason there was a login id for each printer. We also had the ability to send messages to one another; if you knew somebody's login you could send him a message that would pop up on his screen.

    Eventually somebody figured out how to log in as our printer and send messsages to various users that they had used up their allotment of paper for the month and would not be allowed to print anything else. Those messages caused a certain amount of confusion in the office!

  184. UUCP by macdaddy · · Score: 2

    NetBEUI? What the hell is that? I use UUCP here. It makes my mud run like gravy.

  185. Can you say... by macdaddy · · Score: 2

    ...rwall? I don't know how many times I've seen it running on newbies machines. At least real *nix admins are smart enough to turn it off. Some PeeCee admins that I know think that no M$ ports should ever be blocked.

  186. Spoofing this protocol vs the client by billstewart · · Score: 2
    I'd decided not to write the rant about Microsoft not having a clue about networking or about working with existing standards (or at least about only rejecting them on purpose rather than through ignorance), and you go handing me this straight line... Sigh....


    You could dredge through RFC1001 and 1002 to read lots about the NETBIOS-over-TCP protocols (which use a lot of UDP, and therefore might be spoofable), or read the source code if you're one of those miscreants who snarfed it, or spend a couple of minutes with a sniffer to see what information is passed on the wire in what packets. But you don't really need to, because the way people see the spam is that their system responds to the packet using the default popup application, which displays the sender's NETBIOS name, not their DNS name or IP address, so unless they're running a sniffer, they won't see the IP address (and if they're the type of people who are always running a sniffer in the background, they're probably also the type of people who have port 135 blocked and aren't going to receive the spam...) NETBIOS names are essentially user-settable. That's not always true, if you're on a corporate LAN with Microsoft file/print/wins servers, but if you're not trying to do that, you can set it to whatever you want. Maybe not 127.0.0.1, since that has dots and no alphabetics, but LOCALHOST would work, or you could set it to ADMINISTRATOR if you're trying to social-engineer the recipients, or WORKGROUP if you want a generic built-in Microsoft name.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  187. Broadcast version? by karlm · · Score: 2
    Anyone have any documetation for the service at the TCP/IP level?

    A guy at my fraernity once decided to test his new UPS by unplugging it from the wall... so his Win2K box started smb message-spamming the entire house every 2 minutes until I hunted him down and had him turn off the power failure warning over smb braodcast feature in the software that came with the UPS. (I was the Residnt Computer Consultant at the time, so people came to me when they got anoyed.)

    A group of n MIT students acts if they have an average IQ of 30 + 120/(1+e^(0.3(n-20))), ... and there were about 30 of us...

    • "Hey, who left broken glass in the garbage disposal?"
    • "Who's been repeatedly running the garbage disposal with glass in it?"
    • "Who plugged the fridge (aka surge generator) into my surge protector? See my monitor blink? Hear my speakers pop?"
    • "What's this shiny ring on this tarnished wire? Did you just try and strip this bare ground wire?"
    --
    Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  188. Microsoft's worst enemy... the spammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hip hip hooray!!! let the spammers work for us (opensource users) by annoying the hell out of microsoft users

    GO yonder and spam microsoft's customers to kingdom come...

    Downloads
    http://downloads-zdnet.com.com/3000-2 085-10122374. html

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/pr od uctdoc/en/default.asp?url=/windowsxp/home/using/pr oductdoc/en/net_send.asp

  189. Re:net send by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1


    :one
    net send %1 "File not found: c:\WINNT\kernel32\NTKERNEL.EXE in EXPLORER.EXE at 0xDEADBEEF. The program will be terminated."
    goto one

  190. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    The feeling persists that no one can simultaneously be a respectable writer
    and understand how a refrigerator works, just as no gentleman wears a brown
    suit in the city. Colleges may be to blame. English majors are encouraged,
    I know, to hate chemistry and physics, and to be proud because they are not
    dull and creepy and humorless and war-oriented like the engineers across the
    quad. And our most impressive critics have commonly been such English majors,
    and they are squeamish about technology to this very day. So it is natural
    for them to despise science fiction.
    -- Kurt Vonnegut Jr., "Science Fiction"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...