Slashdot Mirror


Spamholes Fighting Spammers

mike9010 writes "A person named I)ruid has come up with an ingenious way to combat those spammers. His program, spamhole, creates a false 'open relay' that the spammer thinks he/she can send messages through. The messages then get sent nowhere, and the spammer has no idea. "spamhole is an open project. Hopefully, through user's and developer's contributions, we will amass a collection of spamhole implementations spanning all commonly used platforms, programming languages, etc. Ease of configuration and use are the primary objectives, for the easier to use by the non-techical layperson the implementations are, the more widely adopted and used spamhole will become.""

18 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. I don't think this will work.. by bonez_net11 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds like a pretty interesting project. One question though, what happens when the spammers themselves get word of this? They will just relay a message through each open relay they find to an account they can check, to see if the message went through. If the message doesn't go through then its a 'blackhole' relay and they will find another one. I just don't see something like this working. Maybe it should save all of the spam and use the messages to update spamassassin filters or something like that. Otherwise it'll be useless. Just my thoughts.

    1. Re:I don't think this will work.. by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      reducing the value of spam to spammers. This can be done by reducing click-through, reducing traffic and filtering that traffic which is out there.

      That points to an interesting idea. What if you left your relay open, but modified the messages slightly? Munge the URLs, kill the scripts and web-bug images, change all the phone numbers to 800-876-7060. You could even try to de-l33t the subject lines (turn V*1*A*3*R*A back into "viagra"), if possible.

      Of course, you'd be violating any number of standards, plus you'd still get blackholed. So take it a step further... create a trojan that looks for open relays and turns them into spam-breaking open relays. Maybe you could then get someone to turn you in to Microsoft and split the reward.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  2. Watch out for your ISP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I ran a very similar program to see what I would catch.. I caught my ISP, or rather they caught me - they thought I was running a deliberate open relay and sent an email warning me to shut it down. I was pretty surprised they were on to it so quickly (less than 24 hours).

  3. HoneyPots by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is basically a honeypot. Various other forms of this exist [like TCP keepalives for as long as possible]. The basic idea is you want to make sure the user thinks its working while wasting their time.

    The trick is much like the polution on P2P. People often complain that the stuff they download off P2P is either renamed [e.g. no the thing they were looking for] or of very low quality. This dissuades people from using P2P.

    Likewise if lots of people setup fake SMTP servers that don't do anything it will polute the "scene". Possibly make it less attractive for spammers.

    Of course what would be nicer is just to snipe the spammers and auction off their property for Quiznos money ;-) [this last comment is aimed at the jerk who is sending the same spam twice to me about all sorts of increased sex crap. It's bad enough you send it once but twice in under 5 mins? In the ban list you go!]

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  4. Not going to work by heironymouscoward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spam is moving off open relays and onto pirated home computers. Spammers and virus writers together have already designed a distributed architecture in which they can send emails from hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of 'owned' personal computers.

    The solution is to accept that email will become 99.9(n) junk, and that the challenge then becomes to extract the signal, not filter the noise.

    One solution I foresee is "data clearing houses" which store-and-forward email, using a reputation management system to rank and score email (and other data, for the problem is general).

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  5. Re:How can this work? by B1ackDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're been relying more and more on trojan'd XP machines as well, they'll probably just stick to this method because they can have more machines than they ever wanted, and they can be sure it works (for some time at least.)

    It makes me sort of sad. I'm in a unix sysadmin class, and we had a guest speaker in from a major ISP the other day, and to quote him "we've seen our email traffic quadruple over the last year, all spam" "spam is killing the internet."

    Doubt if its as bad as all that, but again, the internet would be a heck of a lot better without it.

    --
    The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
  6. Hmm.... by Alphix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...has anyone been the target of a spammers affection?

    I guess that as soon as they decide that your mail server is open to relaying they will pump their mails as quickly as possible trough to the server...

    Wouldn't the bandwidth consumed while pumping all those pr0n mails trough to your server slow your xDSL (or whichever connection you have) to a grinding halt and thus make the project more suited towards those with a fat connection and something to prove?

  7. Been there done that... by SlightOverdose · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We had a spammer exploiting an incorrectly configured formmail.pl on one of our servers. We didnt actually use it, so I replaced it with a fake version that accepted pretended to accept the mail and return 100mb of data as a reply.

    Our provider gives us unlimited upstream bandwidth, so it had no real effect on us- however here would have been at least 50gb worth of data used by the time the spammer caught on, so hopefully that cost them some cash. (Although in all likelyhood it was only a minor inconvenience).

  8. Strange way to combat Spam by fruey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While the concept is somewhat interesting at first glance, the people who run spamholes might end up with it costing them a lot of bandwidth and system resources.

    • While they are not relaying mail outbound, they are targeting their IP for blacklisting by allowing tests through
    • The spammers that do think their relay is valid will then proceed to send thousands of emails via this spamhole, leading to incoming connections peaking very high and a lot of incoming bandwidth being saturated. Outgoing bandwidth will be used in all the ACK packets.
    • Most spammers will have some kind of bounce statistics processing, and the really good ones might even seed bad addresses deliberately. So they'll know quite quickly when they get no bounces back at all
    • The machines are going to be targetted not just on port 25, as they likely get port scanned, and so be very very vulnerable to other attacks. Running a half-baked spamhole on port 25 is one thing (see above reasons why I disagree with the idea) but then all your other ports had better be locked down... unless of course you're running a honeypot.
    • But then, once a honeypot has been attacked once or twice, you better have some time to do serious forensics on it before leaving it open to more and more exploits, you'll find that it's been hacked to run a REAL open relay on some other port!!!

    In short, this idea might only work if somehow you could get more spamholes on the net than open relays, and even then it would have to be coordinated by real sysadmins who know their stuff. Clueless admins are (probably) in the majority and whether or not you agree with that little flippant comment, they will surely outnumber the people who have enough time, a spare machine, and bandwidth to run a spamhole.

    This guy says that he has 'holed' over 50,000 spam messages. Well, not really. They will be retransmitted. Spending the energy on blocking spam from your users completely is a better bet, I think. Educating people and advocacy is a better bet. Spamholes will be just another 5 minute net curio.

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
  9. Proxy Honeypots been doing this for ages by gorbachev · · Score: 5, Interesting

    monkeys.com used to have one, until the spammers DDOSed him.

    Several other people are still running proxy honeypots with great success. They are a great resource for finding out which ISPs harbor proxy hijacking criminals.

    For all of you, who think spammers will check whether the proxy works first, spammers do no such thing. They actively scan for open proxies and immediately start blasting away. That's just like with spamming. You really think spammers check every Email address on their lists is real?

    Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. The more painful and slower, the better.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  10. Re:How can this work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sophisticated spamware sends periodically control messages to a dropbox in hotmail/yahoo/whatever and alerts user if the open proxy appears not really working.

    Open relay isn't the problem of net anymore, sophisticated spamware uses open proxies.

    Open relays are these days hard to find as most smpt software ave sane defaults these days. OTOH With idiots like analogX proxy authors creating proxies with "default open world wide, not even dangerous ports closed" configuration, there is no sortage of open proxies.

    If you really want to blackhole/track open proxy/relay abusers, look at BuggleGum proxypot instead. And prepare to hack it as as spamware tries to adapt the traps setup by people.

  11. Plan for Spam Prevention by dcocos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since it seems that a lot spam I get comes from my e-mail address being on my homepage, I've toyed with the idea of putting two address up on the page
    like dan@example.com and danc@example.com since danc only exists as a harvestable address any messages that show up at danc are compared to the messages in the spool for dan and a 95% or more match pushes them both to the trash. Has anyone else tried this or something similar?

  12. Fed up reading such non-working stuff by c.herwig · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everybody is complaining about spam. And at the same time almost everybody comes up with yet another brand-new-weired-looking workaround. Why the hell?

    May I suggest just doing a few basic things:
    1) Make a law (if your country doesn't have one already) which makes it illegal to send emails with forged FROM fields (= email addresses you don't own)
    2) Slightly improve RFC2821 (smtp): Convert the optional ssl layer to a mandatory one. An smtp sender should only allowed to send mail to a server if
    a) it uses an ssl encrypted connection and the Hostname in Reverse-DNS matches the name provided with the ssl certificate OR
    b) it uses username and password to login into some kind of mailaccount
    3) Sue spammers violating law 1) to hell. If you want to find them, you only have to look at the ssl certificate used for the connection.

    Yes, I know this prevents everybody from having his own pretty little smtp server. No, I'm perfectly well with that. Use a provider.
    Yes, ssl certificates are expensive for now. But any serious provider should be able to afford one.

  13. Bad-Address Reporting by waldoj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I'm sure many of us that run our own mail servers have found, I've got a good dozen addresses that have never existed to which spammers attempt to send mail. I get hundreds of attempts to send spam to these addresses each day. For a while, I was forwarding these messages to an RBL, but my mail queue just got too huge.

    What I would like is a tool that hooks into Postfix (or whatever MTA; I use Postfix) that not only blacklists the sending IPs on my machine, but even reports the sending IP to an RBL. At a bare minimum, this would be a useful tool for me, since it would keep these spammers from proceeding to send spam to any other addresses on my server. At best, this simple method of confirming that a spammer is a spammer could help to reduce spam on the whole.

    -Waldo Jaquith

  14. Make it costly for spammers by lamename · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me the reason people spam is because it is cheap to do. Sending out hundreds of thousands of emails for next to nothing.

    What if everyone who got spam took 5 minutes a day and replied to a few? I am not saying they need to actually be interested in the pitch, but just send a nice polite letter saying you are. Could you send me some info by postal mail? Do you have an 800 number I can call? Could you contact me with greater detail to this question? Now, the spammer has to invest some time and possibly some money.

    Millions of people get spam. If a small percentage would do this, would it deter spammers?

  15. Re:How can this work? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doubt if its as bad as all that...

    I don't. Spam eats up bandwidth just being delivered, even if it gets filtered at the end anyway. Then, you have the idiots that sit and open it and wait for images to load in their HTML-enabled mail clients. Despite this, from a technological standpoint, although it chews up and wastes valuable resources, it won't bring the Internet to a complete screeching halt.

    However, look at all the time and money AOL puts out trying to block incoming spam. People always talk about making spam unprofitable for the spammers and someone invariably bitches about the ideas put forth, but how long will it be until there's so much and so varied spam that it's unprofitable to allow users to use e-mail? Eventually, we may well need so many people and tools that it will chew away profits just fighting spam.

    That's why I think spammers need to be treated exactly for what they are - a parasitic infection. They just chew up resources but provide nothing in return. They must be inoculated. Make sending unsolicited e-mail a crime (our illustrous guvmint morons took a step in the totally OPPOSITE direction with their "yea, let's legitamize spamming" bill yesterday). If you're convicted of sending mass, unsolicited messages (that is, you can't prove that you were given EXPLICIT permission to send them), make it a felony and make one of the required sentences that you're not allowed to ever tough a computer again. The trick after that, of course, is to get all the spammy Asian and S. American countries to go along and punish spammers as well.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  16. Try this approach...... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't believe honey pots will be able to solve the problem. I believe in attacking the economics of spam. Make it not worth their while to send it in the first place. Here's one case in point:

    I have been the victim of a spam which used my e-mail in the forged From line. I have been receiving all the 'undeliverable' bounces as a result. Of course I got fed up and decided to do some research.

    I picked out the origination IP from the header of the attached bounced mails (always valid) and did a port scan on then. I found most of them infected with the Jeem trojan.

    Well, this explains the open relay. I gave up complaining to ISP's about their subscribers who have trojaned systems. They don't seem to care. I suppose it's time for vigilante justice.

    The Jeem trojan opens up an e-mail relay on a random port and a control connection plus an http proxy on their own random ports. Time to fight fire using the same fire.

    After 'safe browsing' the web sites listed in the spam mails, a lot of them have form information (usually requesting credit card info). Why not use a program that uses a trojaned system's HTTP proxy to send invalid data as the form contents. I was able to send URL encoded form content based on the form's fields which easily bypassed the form's javascript validations. In return, I get an expected confirmation screen. Hey, maybe they just got one invalid response.

    Now, if this can be done often enough, maybe the ISP will see the traffic and suspend the account of the trojaned system. In the meantime, the source of the SPAM gets a lot of invalid info to filter through. When I say invalid data. I don't mean 'asldfhhfsdf' and such. I mean real looking names, addresses, CC numbers, etc.

    I know there are flaws with this idea, but I don't see where it wouldn't start becoming a thorn in their sides. The Jeem trojan can be controlled remotely. I wish I knew the remote commands to turn them off. But, if we use their known trojans against them, maybe they'll turn them off for us.

  17. Re:How can this work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be nice if webmail services has an option "Bounce this message", so the spammer will receive more and more bounces of actually good accounts.

    Think about...

    on yahoo mail "This message wasn't for you? Is it SPAM? _Bounce it_."