Slashdot Mirror


Examining an Automated Spam Tool

Saint Aardvark writes "SecurityFocus has published an excellent column detailing how spammers r00ted an Apache server, and used it to send spam. The tool they used is (I hate to admit it) pretty sophisticated: it has macro capabilities, picks up email addresses from and reports success or failure to the master server. It's a very frightening read...and so is this: Message Labs reports that they now intercept 27 spam emails per second, up from 2 per second this time last year. Virus-created proxies are mainly to blame."

415 comments

  1. All this really makes me wonder... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    All this really makes me wonder when the death penalty will be approved for spammers. Or at least some harsh beatings...

    1. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by taperkat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      can't we just beat the stupid people that actually respond to spam, thereby making the spammers more money to keep berating me to get my cock enlarged?

      after all, I am a female.

      --
      "But I can't get an ocean that's deep enough for my day..." ~The Frames, "Fitzcarraldo"
    2. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Clever+Pun · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'll see your penile enhancements, and raise you two mortgages and a college degree from a school of YOUR choosing.

    3. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by calebtucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I totally agree. While I really hate the spammers I think I might hate the people that actually buy stuff from spam a little bit more.

      If you think about it, there are some really intelligent spammers (even though they are disgusting scum of the earth). They're always one step ahead of us and are figuring out new ways to spam us.

      On the other hand, the people who buy stuff from spam are just plain morons. period.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    4. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by taperkat · · Score: 5, Funny

      but... my family in Nigeria needs your help... *sob*

      --
      "But I can't get an ocean that's deep enough for my day..." ~The Frames, "Fitzcarraldo"
    5. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by captaink · · Score: 1

      They may be morons but they're the 1-2% respond rate that keeps the spammers happily in business. I think the root of the problem is stupid people, not spammers. If the stupid people were eliminated spammers would be out of business..

      --
      --- If I were a fish, I'd be wet
    6. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by tuxette · · Score: 1
      Well, we could both take those breast enlargement pills they're pushing and become the most popular girls on /.

      But all silliness aside. As much as I would enjoy to see the criminalization of the purchase of goods from spam, I'm not sure how effective it would be. It's illegal to buy illicit drugs but people still do it. And a lot of the dealers are quite well off and would like to keep it that way.

      --
      People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
    7. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      after all, I am a female.

      So what? 'Tis the season for giving gifts, is it not? Why not give the man in your life something you can both use?

    8. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Occasionally I'll get something in my e-mail such as an uptime service for my website that looks quite interesting and I was about to subscribe when I read the entire e-mail and it stated that I signed up to recieve these e-mails.

      I e-mailed their sales dept and informed them that I would have signed up for their service if I heard about it another way, but would instead be going with a competitor because of the way they went spamming.

    9. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by taperkat · · Score: 1
      Yeah.. and 20 years down the line wonder why they're sagging to my knees.

      I honestly don't think it'd be effective. Most spammers get the throwaway addresses from hotmail or yahoo or another free mail service.

      now if THOSE mail services would require proof of identity, I think that would help as well.

      --
      "But I can't get an ocean that's deep enough for my day..." ~The Frames, "Fitzcarraldo"
    10. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by SilkBD · · Score: 1

      I'm telling you, it works. My cock is 12 inches long now.

      --
      00101010
    11. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, get him a BMW.

    12. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by t0qer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Too the parent and the parent parent posters...

      You both make excellent points,
      a. go after the spammer
      b. go after the people that fall for it

      Yet they're both chicken before the egg type of solutions.

      It was a weak protocol that let the genie out of the bottle. Open relays were a part of the net in the beginning because spam didn't exist, there was more co-operation between sysops, and because the net was mainly comprised of scientific and academic types.

      Actually, what is really needed is a new mail protocol. Simple as that. Then there wouldn't be this backwards compatible layer full of holes, and it would render all these worms useless.

    13. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by taperkat · · Score: 1
      Agreed. However, how could anyone / everyone decide how to implement it? It'd also have to be compatible with the current mode as well. the problem is similar to the HDTV/Analog TV debate in that eventually the old style simply won't work.

      very interesting thought. New mail protocol.

      --
      "But I can't get an ocean that's deep enough for my day..." ~The Frames, "Fitzcarraldo"
    14. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's exactly what he said, chief.

    15. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

      You've got it backwards. Spammers have said that by NOT responding to emails, they send more to people than if people respond.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    16. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You will need an ICBM version and Putin's agreement to let it through and not pay you back in the same currency with interest.

      Jokes aside, while not being compromised myself I have gone through a similar process investigating distributed server farms on cable and DSL serving counterfeit software (once again advertised by SPAM). In all cases the final step ended up being somewhere in Russia at least 600km from of Moscow.

      The method of intrusion is different though. In all cases it is windows software. Common examples are the one which copies DVDs to CDs (with all offers seen over the last 2 months being a trojan). Basically this, along with several similar common SPAM sucker gatherers is used for guess what - to gather suckers. The software actually works, but it contains a fairly sofisticated remote access trojan.

      This has recently been extented to include sucker gatherers introduced in counterfeit branded software. Basically, you pay 39$ for a counterfeit Win XP pro at "OEM Clearance Sales" and get a Win XP pro with a "surprise".

      Servers are all over the world, mostly on cable networks (strangely enough very few DSL ones). DNS (which is the weakest link) is run by known "questionable" marketing hosting sites usually in the US.

      With the number of suckers around trying to copy DVDs onto CDs frankly I do not see a reason for all the effort into hacking sites with vulnerable lame PHP software. So I guess these were some "new kids on the block"

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    17. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      How is a new mail protocol going to help exactly?

      Here's how it works currently;

      Any random end user I need to be able to send email
      Spammer hacks their computer
      Spammer can now send email (or do anything else that random end user could be doing on their computer)

      Here's how it works when you (somehow, miraculously) manage to persuade billions of people to switch to a new mail protocol;

      End user still needs to be able to send mail
      Spammer hacks their box
      Spammer can now (still) send email

      A better solution might be to persuade millions of end users to SECURE THEIR FUCKING COMPUTERS, especially when they're on high speed connections. The best approach I've seen so far is that grey-hat hackers need to break in and really trash every hackable box they can find. After a few tedious reinstalls people will learn not to put an insecure machine on the net. Even stupid people, eventually.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    18. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by ryanvm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you think about it, there are some really intelligent spammers. They're always one step ahead of us and are figuring out new ways to spam us.

      I think you're giving them too much credit. Technically, it's a lot harder to selectively ignore certain people then it is to yell at everyone. Staying "one step ahead" really isn't that difficult.

    19. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      Please, Please can I do some of the beating.

      I'm not really a sadist but for spammers, ... I'll make an exception.

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    20. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      can't we just beat the stupid people that actually respond to spam, thereby making the spammers more money to keep berating me to get my cock enlarged?

      Maybe not, but in today's day and age, we could probably charge them with funding terrorism.

    21. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Measured from base of the abdomen, or from the base of the ball sac?

    22. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by t0qer · · Score: 1

      Here's how it works when you (somehow, miraculously) manage to persuade billions of people to switch to a new mail protocol;

      End user still needs to be able to send mail
      Spammer hacks their box
      Spammer can now (still) send email


      Here is how I would improve it..

      First time a client connects, it sends its username/pass to be hashed by the server.

      The server keeps a copy of this hash.

      Next time that client connects, if the hash doesn't match, don't let them send. Simple as that. Have each mail transport create a list of "trusted hashes" so we can still have somewhat reliable mail routing through top level servers.

      ISP's now, run pretty open relays. On the cloud side it's blocked but on their network side any client can send garbage through the SMTP server.

      The best approach I've seen so far is that grey-hat hackers need to break in and really trash every hackable box they can find.

      With that kind of thinking I should go out and trash every home I find unlocked, just to teach the owners a lesson. Sorry but you need to change how you think about things, destructive behavior is never constructive. Why not go in and fix it instead of trashing it?

    23. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Urkki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But users wont get smart. So you have to limit any users ability to send email. Simple as that.

      For example mandate that ISPs charge 1 cent per e-mail sent from user, and see users to make very sure their computers are secure and not spam relays. Of course this also needs a cap on mails/day, or more like cap on $ spent on sending mail per day so users don't get burned too bad...

      Or mandate a CPU challenge per e-mail sent from a MUA that takes 10 seconds to solve per recipient for something like 1GHz x86 CPU, but is cheap to verify by the MTA.

      If spammers can't reach high enough volume, spamming will become unprofitable, simple as that.

    24. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      after all, I am a female.

      Ah, true karma whoring at its finest

    25. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Pathwalker · · Score: 1

      Probably measured from the feet to the top of the comb.

      It also probably gave it a strong beak, and nice plumage.

    26. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by sapped · · Score: 1

      For example mandate that ISPs charge 1 cent per e-mail sent from user, and see users to make very sure their computers are secure and not spam relays. Of course this also needs a cap on mails/day, or more like cap on $ spent on sending mail per day so users don't get burned too bad...

      Here's an idea. Why don't we charge those pesky idiots that keep filling my physical mailbox with junk I don't want 37c for every item they send me? That will stop them dead in their tracks for sure.

      Oh wait - my Netflix DVD's (which I am paying for and want delivered to my mailbox) are now being held at the post office for collection because after the frikken advertising there isn't enough room in my mailbox for the DVD's to go in without getting damaged. (No kidding this actually happened to me.)

    27. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there are some female poultry farmers who would like to increase the size of their cocks. Hens too, if they could. It may increase productivity.

    28. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by sharqee · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad. I just got an email offering to enlarge my breasts. (and I'm a male) Thankfully, I am without 'man breasts' and am not looking for larger, more pert ones.

    29. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by andy1307 · · Score: 1
      after all, I am a female.

      that makes you qualified to use the automated spam to send out an email saying "Size doesn't matter". Remember: An educated customer..

    30. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by anagama · · Score: 1

      Or, as CA tried and Feds denied, make the companies that use spammers responsible for the spammers actions.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    31. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by lisany · · Score: 1

      Man it would sure SUCK to host any high traffic mail lists at 1 cent per mail.

    32. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by gotem · · Score: 1

      why not hanging them by the penis?
      now THAT is enlargement

    33. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by dgatwood · · Score: 0
      That list would become impractically huge. It's more effective to handle this at the protocol level by guaranteeing non-anonymity (or more accurately, making it so that anonymous messages, including spam, get dumped in a separate bucket that you can screen periodically via a web page and read if you want to).

      This is easily accomplished by requiring that each mail server register a key with a (free) certifying agency before going online. That key would follow the server around.

      From a server admin perspective, the process would go something like this:

      1. Default security level is zero. Sites that do not sign messages or sign with an key that has not been signed by a certifying agency are level zero hosts. Server admins can accept, reject, or redirect these to a different mailbox programmatically. Alternately, they could send out a TMDA-like verification message.
      2. Admin installs mail server software. When sendmail/qmail/foomail starts, it contacts the known certifying agencies and asks for keys of other certifying agencies that they know about. System should now know how to handle each class of mail. There should be a process in place for certifying the certifying agencies, and a mechanism for a server administrator to reject keys on a per-agency basis.
      3. Keys signed by an unknown certifying agency are level 1 keys. Most servers will treat these as level 0 keys, but will periodically send the administrator a warning email or syslog message about the unknown certifying agency, and will also attempt to authenticate the agency by contacting known agencies as above.
      4. Admin submits key along with a valid email address and postal address to any of a dozen certifying agencies. These should be free, though they may charge an administrative fee of up to $5 U.S. to cover applicable postage costs. Alternately, email-to-mail gateways could be used so that the server admin would simply pay the mail gateway to get the message "released".
      5. Agency signs the server's key with their Level 2 security key and returns it to the email address given. The address may not be at the host in question, and may not belong to hotmail or other free webmail sites.
      6. There is now a valid email address associated with the key that can be traced back to a real person with some degree of certainty. Site admins may still reject these keys if paranoid. Further, Level 2 signatures should be time-dependent, i.e. a server only verified with an email address should only be valid for thirty days, and treated as Level 0 thereafter.
      7. The certifying agency immediately sends a postal mail to the postal address given. The message contains a randomly generated list of ten words.
      8. Upon receipt, the mail server administrator manually types in the word list into the certifying agency's website.
      9. The certifying agency signs the server's key with their level 3 key and emails it back to the email address given. This time delay ensures that the email address will no longer exist if it belongs to a spammer. It also means that the server administrator's postal address can now be easily obtained.
      So now, there's a database of any legitimate mail servers and their administrators. If someone gets attacked and starts inadvertently sending spam, they can be contacted. If someone is not registered in that databse, the odds of their mail getting through to anyone is near zero.

      In the unlikely event that a spammer actually gets their server's keys properly signed, it becomes easier to take legal actions against them, and they would have a hard time claiming innocence, as electronic signatures are considered legally valid now. Regardless, any number of web-of-trust or similar systems could be set up to exchange keys of known spammers. (Appropriate care should be taken, however, to ensure that they weren't cracked or something.)

      The easy part is implementing such a system. The hard part is convincing Earthlink, AOL, MSN, .Mac, and maybe a couple of other largish ISPs to switch to it. Once you have a couple of those, the rest of the ISPs will fall like a house of cards and the spammers' business will slowly shrivel up and die.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    34. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Urkki · · Score: 1

      First, I'd like to say that $ cost per email is *not* a very good solution IMHO, but anyway...

      So you simply would not use email for such a list if it cost too much. You would use something else, a private web forum or whatever.

      Or perhaps a smart ISP could find customers by providing a mailing list service for their customers, something which would automatically have much more accountability (if you find yourself in a list you didn't subscribe to, you have the ISP that hosts the list to go after).

      It's not like *group* communications depend on email, there are a lot of other alternatives.

      However, for person-to-person communication, it's the only standard solution that can reach just about anybody as long as you have their email. So if group communication has to suffer in order to keep person-to-person communication effective, and no practical way to do it any other way, then so be it. Better to have a system that works well for one purpose, than a system that doesn't work at all (note that it's not quite that bad with email yet, but I fear soon we will be).

    35. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHOA! Your a female! thats great! all hail to the holder of the vagina! HAIL! HAIL! HAIL!

    36. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The solution is simple. I do it every day. Create a spam account (an email account you don't give to anyone but spammers, by putting it into some posts in slashdot for example, or by registering onto stupid websites).

      Every day, take 1 minute to respond to a spam or two. Fill in a dummy address, phone number, etc.

      If every slashdotter does that, that will flood the spammers with fakes responses and it'll become too much work for them to sort them all out. End of spam.

    37. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by ambienceman · · Score: 1

      Well now the trend seem to be for girls to get bigger boobs. I certainly don't want man-boobs.

    38. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by gizmonic · · Score: 1

      Servers are all over the world, mostly on cable networks (strangely enough very few DSL ones).

      I think I have an answer to this. Around here (Chicago area) cable is a lot cheaper than DSL. Only recently have DSL prices come down around here, and even then, when they started dropping, Comcast doubled our bandwidth. I'm getting 3 megs down, 256k up, for around $40 a month. Most DSL does not come close.

      What does that mean? Well, most Joe Average Broadband guys are using cable networks, and not DSL. It's cheaper and faster. People who use DSL are probably buying it because they have some specific requirements, or need business use (ie, faster uploads). Based on that hypothesis, DSL users would therefore be more spohisticated, and have much more secure servers. The home users on cable are the wide open unpatched Windows boxes where the guy is clicking every link he thinks he can see naked boobs on, and getting infected by various trojans and other viruses.

      That's just my impression. I have no facts to back any of that up (except that cable is cheaper than dsl, at least in my area, and at my speeds). I could very well be unknowingly wearing an asshat right now... :) Consider it an educated guess.

      --
      WWJD?
      JWRTFM!
    39. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DSL is more commonly behind NAT that cable which again might just be your best friend for stopping spam trojans...

    40. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      does the phrase "joe job" mean anything to you?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    41. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we just beat the crap out of people that WROTE these software?

    42. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      Why not make a spam auto-responder that will go thru your spam folder, and attempt to respond to any emails, "click" on any links, etc... that would start to cost *them* bandwidth :-)

    43. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Because that would be easy to abuse. Anyone could send zillions of spam pointing to Microsoft and the MS website would go down. Too easy man.

      The human brain has to take a part in the process, even if it is a small one.

    44. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by don_oles · · Score: 1

      Now don't forget to patent and copyright all you've said. ;-)

    45. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 12 oh how i wish it was only 12

      there is something truely bizarre about sitting at home recovering from penile reduction surgery and reading penis enlargment spam

    46. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by dannybudts · · Score: 1

      Firstly, if there was a severe punishment for companies using spam methods, spammers would be out of work... Secondly, the whole method of sending email is wrong: it is unasked for. There should be a mechanism that the person getting the email, should know that he/she receives it & approves it.

    47. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by ktremain · · Score: 1
      Why not go in and fix it instead of trashing it?


      Although this in principle is a good idea, the problem then becomes that the people you fix wont know it was even broken in the first place.

      The only solution is to somehow make them aware they have a problem, and give them the knowledge to fix it themselves, and make sure they have the knowledge to not let it happen again.

      If everyone was aware of viruses like sobig.f and removed them and the backdoors they leave, spammers would have a lot fewer easily compromisable boxes in the first place!
    48. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, Messenger Spam, anyone? Shoot me for saying this, but you're not actually penetrating their box. Simply tell them that if they can read this message, it was sent by a hacker testing to see if their box was insecure or not, and it is insecure, and maybe you should ask someone what to do next (don't refer someone to ZoneAlarm - then it'll actually be spam).

    49. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by ktremain · · Score: 1
      Hmm, Messenger Spam, anyone?

      That in itself is a problem too. Messenger spam is just as bad as usual spam.
      Yes, I know in reality, It's probably the best and easiest way to actually get the attention of most people. I was not actually referring to any specific method, because I couldn't think of one that covers all platforms, and all different known vulnerabilities at the same time.

      AFAIK there's no easy way to actually do what i was suggesting, dont you just wish we lived in a dream world where everything was just perfect? :)

    50. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by stry_cat · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, the people who buy stuff from spam are just plain morons. period.
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    51. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      "It's more effective to handle this at the protocol level by guaranteeing non-anonymity (or more accurately, making it so that anonymous messages, including spam, get dumped in a separate bucket that you can screen periodically via a web page and read if you want to)."

      I can already put all my spam in one bucket using the rules present in Internet Explorer of any other mail reader. I don't want to have to do that.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    52. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by anagama · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. A company hires a spammer to hawk it's products. Why sue the spammer, sue the company. Much easier to locate etc. A "joe job" is irrelevant because we aren't looking at who sent the message, whether intentionlayy or not. We are looking at the product being sold.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    53. Re:All this really makes me wonder... by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 1
      A better solution might be to persuade millions of end users to SECURE THEIR FUCKING COMPUTERS, especially when they're on high speed connections. The best approach I've seen so far is that grey-hat hackers need to break in and really trash every hackable box they can find. After a few tedious reinstalls people will learn not to put an insecure machine on the net. Even stupid people, eventually.

      The problem is that most of the people those people are going to be messing with aren't going to understand what happened, nor how to fix it properly. They'll just download something that claims to protect them, but just opens them up to more attacks.

      a really direct solution would be to make up a few JPGs, each one has text plainly stating that they've been hacked and what they need to do to secure themselves. Considering that most of the wide-open boxes fall into a few different solutions, you wouldn't have to make very many of them.

      then upload the pertinent file and set it as their desktop background image.

      I don't go around breaking into people's systems, so I don't know of the difficulty factor in doing it, but a big chunk of text on their desktop explaining that they've been hacked and need to fix themselves would get attention REALLY fast from the users.

  2. Spammers know what they're doing by bigberk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Spam is profitable, and this is becoming a huge underground business. Spammers regularly compromise other systems and install sophisticated software to allow easier spamming. Here's a document that describes the link between spam and viruses

    1. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by Clever+Pun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spammers regularly compromise other systems and install sophisticated software to allow easier spamming.

      I could have sworn that this was illegal. I mean, it's like some random person changing the lock on my door, giving me a copy of the key, but keeping a copy for themself. If they don't have my permission to do that (read: informed consent), I'm willing to bet that they'd be severly prosecuted.

      If, however, it's NOT illegal, what the hell? There'd better be a good reason for it not to be.

    2. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by captaink · · Score: 1

      I don't recall seeing him mention it was legal in his comment..

      --
      --- If I were a fish, I'd be wet
    3. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spammers regularly compromise other systems and install sophisticated software to allow easier spamming.

      I could have sworn that this was illegal.

      It is illegal, but then again, many of the products and services the spammers are pimping are also illegal. The legality (or not) has very little to do with it.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    4. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by Urkki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course it is illegal. The problem is catching those that do it. The actual spam marketers will be hard to prosecute for it just because they use services of other "businesses" for delivering their marketing material. And actually getting these "other businesses" to court might be rather hard if they operate in some 3rd World pirate heaven, have no public office, and all business transactions are handled electronically, and are purposefully hidden or obfuscated.

    5. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by phorm · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to sell crack too, but some people do it because they can profit from it... just like some people are dumb enough to buy it.

      Really, the drug/user market isn't that much different from the spam/buyer market...except perhaps more people hate the spammers...

    6. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by nfsilkey · · Score: 1

      True. Spitting on a sidewalk in some bumblefsck state(s) is illegal. There is no prosecution/penalty, thus sidewalk spitting continues.

      I just hope the codgy, old, white males on Capitol Hill dont confound the situation. ;)

    7. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by kableh · · Score: 1

      The FBI isn't going to investigate someone hacking your home server. You need to show something along the lines of $250K damage before they'll even listen.

      Not a good reason at all, but unavoidable I imagine. If only we could link spam to illegal music downloads! Let the RIAA subpoena them all!

    8. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think it would be easy to catch illegal spammers. Just buy one of their products and follow the money.

    9. Re:Spammers know what they're doing by Thanatiel · · Score: 1
      The actual spam marketers will be hard to prosecute for it just because they use services of other "businesses"
      If a guy hire a "businessman" to kill a third guy, both the killer and its client are prosecutable.
      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  3. Prison? by Marxist+Commentary · · Score: 1

    At what point does the gulag become an option for cases like this? Where are the authorities?

    1. Re:Prison? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Where are the authorities? Busy chasing down crimes that involve losses greater than fractional pennies per victim.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Prison? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1
      Where are the authorities? Busy chasing down crimes that involve losses greater than fractional pennies per victim

      Perhaps you can tell me where my organisation can get a fat pipe for fractions of a penny?

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    3. Re:Prison? by gustgr · · Score: 1

      At the article it is possible to note that it is very difficult to find the responsable for the attacks. Who the authorities should blame ? The owners of the boxes that were compromised ? This is not justice, just try to hide the source and create a 'fake' solution. Before writing laws to arrest the spammers it is necessary to own/develop enough technology to trace and localize the attackers. Arresting a company owner on SF or Germany or Russia would not solve the problem if the attacker continues to walk free around the net.

    4. Re:Prison? by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      The authorities are busy chasing DMCA violators and drug users.

      Maybe if you can convince them that spammers don't pay their taxes or something we can get some action. Who knows.

    5. Re:Prison? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bend over.

  4. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yet another example spammers aren't just mom&pop operations. This is a big business, with big money backing it.

    Something desperately needs to be done with SMTP to control this stuff....

    1. Re:yep by John+Seminal · · Score: 3, Funny
      What made you think spammers were ever mom&pop. It is their son in the basement. Can't get a job at K-Mart, so he sends out spam. A penny here, a penny there, and soon he can afford a subscription to milfhunter.com.

      All jokes aside, this sucks that people will steal bandwith and commendeer other peoples computers. If we do not correct this problem, Microsoft might decide their "trusted computing" is the anwser because it would identify everyone and market it as "more secure". Have you seen the butterfly that keeps porn away from your kids? Or ISP's could blacklist anyone who is not on their "approved list". I guess freedom of speech is wothless if 100's of spammers are yelling all at the same time. Is there any way we call all yell "SHUT UP" back at them?

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:yep by Urkki · · Score: 5, Insightful
      • Something desperately needs to be done with SMTP to control this stuff....

      Yes. It needs to be completely blocked at backbone routers, and new and better alternative developed.

      So, the steps would be
      1. develop a better alternative as fast as possible, and make it as simple as possible to implement.

      2. deploy the better alternative for test use.

      3. develop a fixed version 2 of the better alternative after it's holes are discovered.

      4. deploy the fixed version.

      5. block SMTP and version 1 of new protocol at international and national backbones and national borders, so that everybody is forced to switch.

      So SMTP would still be completly usable for example inside organizations, so if a company has huge installed base of legacy software, they could have internal SMTP-new protocol gateway.

      Of course this would require IETF to get their act together, and various governments to agree that this must be done, and actual new protocol to be simple enough and not contain patented algorithms or any other stupidities.

      So it will not happen. Then spam will overwhelm the internet transfer capacity. Then SMPT is blocked and free internet e-mail will cease to exist. Proprietary solutions will develop, but there will be a chaos. Incidentally, Microsoft will happily provide a closed proprietary system only usable from their operating systems.
    3. Re:yep by harrkev · · Score: 1
      It is their son in the basement. Can't get a job at K-Mart, so he sends out spam

      Did you read the article???

      Any kid that could pull this off obviously could get quite a nice job as a sysadmin. I could not even follow most of the article!
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:yep by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      That part was a joke. That is how I envision those who have no respect for others.

      The part that I was serious about is companies using events such as this as an excuse to limit what the end consumer can do.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    5. Re:yep by schon · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      Perhaps instead of bitching, and wanting other people to "get their act together", perhaps you could enlighten us all as to how your replacement for SMTP is coming along?

      Perhaps you could explain how it gets around the actual problem, which is that there exist people who want something for nothing, and don't care who they steal from?

      And once you've explained that, I'd be delighted to hear how your new protocol continues to be easy to use, doesn't discriminate against developing nations (by charging money for use), and provides protection against any one party taking it hostage (by not relying on a central authority.)

      Come on, you obviously know so much more than the IETF, why don't you enlighten us all?

    6. Re:yep by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " milfhunter.com."

      Part of me wants to see what the hell that is, another part of me, the goatse shocked part, wants to break my fingures to ensure I can't go there...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:yep by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm not even in any IETF workgroup so I'd have very limited chances to contribute to a solution even if I was qualified to design such a new protocol, which I'm not.

      However, my logic goes something like this:

      1. There's serious problem with the Internet due to spam, and it's getting worse by the minute.

      2. The social part of the problem, ie people, really can't be removed or fixed.

      3. So we need a technical solution that gets around the problem of people using the internet.

      4. IETF is the right body to provide the technical part of the solution, something every ISP and MTA vendor and MUA vendor can implement.

      5. There is no such standard solution.

      6. Therefore, IETF needs to get their act together to offer a standard solution, and obsolete RFCs that don't support this.

      So where does my reasoning go wrong?
      Which of the above points are unreasonable?

    8. Re:yep by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I think what he meant was the IETF needs to get their act together to offer a standard solution part of your post. It's a pretty generic comment, and goes along with "MS needs to do something about their security." What's the something? Be a little more specific if you have an idea.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    9. Re:yep by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with your reasoning above, it's just that "(6)...offer a solution" belies the true complexity of the problem. Seriously, turn this around and ask yourself "Why hasn't there been a solution brought forward yet?" - it's not like vast numbers of highly intelligent people haven't been working on this for years without solving it.

      In my experience, people whose response to the spam problem starts with "We should simply change SMTP..." do not understand the problem.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    10. Re:yep by Urkki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are plenty of suggestions. Combining a good selection of them into a unified protocol would help a great deal. Some of the suggested stuff:

      - "CPU cycle" stamp in every outgoing mail.
      - Making the To-field to actually determine the recipients
      - Making From-field actually identify the sender (by being added by the mail server software, not by client software, so email-specific login to the server would be needed).
      - Integrating signatures into the protocol in different ways, at least to identify the originating ISP.
      - Making email a "pager-type" protocol, recipient only gets a minimally short message telling where to find the actual message (including checksum of the message or what else is necessary), thus stopping at least the spam content clogging up the network.

      Lot of little things that could perhaps also be implemented on top of SMTP even without making it horribly messy. But the reason a new protocol is needed is that old SMTP really stops being used "in the wild" outside private networks, and existing vulnerable legacy software (including the various worm-created spam networks around the internet) stops working.

    11. Re:yep by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • There's nothing wrong with your reasoning above, it's just that "(6)...offer a solution" belies the true complexity of the problem. Seriously, turn this around and ask yourself "Why hasn't there been a solution brought forward yet?" - it's not like vast numbers of highly intelligent people haven't been working on this for years without solving it.

      Well, there are a lot of options (see my reply other other reply of my previous post) being suggested by a lot of people. There are a lot of things that make SMTP a very spammer-friendly, that could be fixed.

      The reason why it has not been done is just that, IETF can't get their act together.

      A lot of suggestions, but they don't seem to have the final push to make something happen. The final push will come if/when Internet really starts breaking up under spam, but it may be too late then. Spam seems to have an exponential growth rate, so from the time it starts to be a real bandwidth problem to the time things actually start to break up is shorter than it would appear...

      At this point there should be a set of new protocol standards ready, so software makers could start implementing them and finding the real-world problems in them. The fact that it's a hard problem only amplifies this need. If that implementation and testing process starts *after* real problems are already here, it's way way too late.
    12. Re:yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The reason why it has not been done is just that, IETF can't get their act together.

      I'm no fan of bureaucracy , but I don't agree. The reason it hasn't been done is that a workable solution hasn't been found yet. Corollary : If someone did have a solution, they wouldn't even need to go through the IETF or any committees, they could simply publish and get started. Any solution has to be able to bootstrap itself.

      It's nothing to do with a "final push", it's that all the proposals so far simply don't work. And these proposals aren't simply wafted away with a few hand gestures (as I admit I am doing here) - they are torn to shreds by seasoned engineers who know what they are doing. I'm as eager for a solution as anybody, but I haven't seen one yet.

    13. Re:yep by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • Corollary : If someone did have a solution, they wouldn't even need to go through the IETF or any committees, they could simply publish and get started. Any solution has to be able to bootstrap itself.

      No. In a case like this it's a chicken and an egg problem. Nobody would use the new system because nobody else is using it yet either. There needs to be a powerful push for a new system to replace an old one, because this new system would have to become as common as email is now.

      Now of course that push can be that SMTP email simply does not work well enough any more. But somehow that sounds like a bad idea, the kind of thinking that any problem goes away if you just think about it long enough without doing anything... Indeed they do, but not quite the way we'd usually want.

      • It's nothing to do with a "final push", it's that all the proposals so far simply don't work. And these proposals aren't simply wafted away with a few hand gestures (as I admit I am doing here) - they are torn to shreds by seasoned engineers who know what they are doing. I'm as eager for a solution as anybody, but I haven't seen one yet.

      There are such obivious, glaring holes in SMTP (such as To and From-fields being totally irrelevant) that I can't really believe there's nothing that could be fixed to make it less ideal for sending spam...

      I mean, it was designed for completely differenent internet. If *every* suggestion to improve on it gets torn to shreds, then I'd be more inclined to believe that the problem is actually elsewhere (ie IETF not getting it's act together, personal egos getting in the way of solving the problem).
    14. Re:yep by jonfelder · · Score: 1

      The problem with the CPU cycle stamp and the to-field idea is that now you can't have mailing lists. I'm sure there are other problems, but this is the first one that occurred to me.

      Making the from-field actually identify the sender is impossible because mail is relayed (i.e. handed from one server to another). How does the receiving server verify that the sending server has properly verified the recipient? For example what stops me from setting up a mail server for spamming that tells the receiving server whatever it wants to hear?

      Integrating signatures into the protocol is a problem because something has to verify the signatures. How do you propose to do this without having an incompetant central authority in charge of the signatures? Think verisign and ssl signatures.

      How does your last solution stop spam from clogging up the network? Notifications still have to be sent, and the original mail still has to be stored somewhere. Wouldn't this cause even more congestion because every single email would require additional steps on behalf of the recipient and the network in order to retrieve?

      Finally, it is generally agreed that a new protocol is needed for mail. However even if a totally bullet proof and perfect solution is designed (no easy feat), how do you plan to coordinate the migration? You can't exactly have a worldwide we're switching to "smtp improved" day. For example think IPv6. It has been in the making and around the corner for eons now, yet we are no where near deploying it.

    15. Re:yep by sff0ghead · · Score: 1

      URKI writes:

      >The reason why it has not been done is just that, IETF can't get their act together.

      The IETF is like a lot of other open-source communities: it depends on contributions from folks who have identified a problem and developed a solution to it. Unlike a lot of other communities: it is completely open, and it is consensus driven. Completely open means you can contribute your solution and get heard by the rest of the community as easily as, say, Harald Alvestrand. That's the upside. The downside is everyone else who has an interest can contribute gets to as well, and some of them may have solutions which don't work, are just as good as yours but different, or which have a different set of engineering trade-offs than yours so that different folks have an interest in seeing different ones succeed.

      And did I mention, the IETF was consensus driven? Though this is "rough consensus", the core idea of the IETF is still that you take the *intersection* of what people feel is a good idea rather than the *union* (common in many other groups). That has a lot of consequences when combined with completely open.

      That doesn't mean the IETF can't work on a problem. It does mean it probably isn't the place to engage in an arms race. In my humble opinion, spammers and anti-spammers are in an arms race.

      So you're not too discouraged, if you look at the development of protocols like SIMPLE or XMMP in the IETF, you'll see neat stuff like e2e message integrity and encryption, and (with the IMPP docs finally out) even some ability to pass things from one to the other. Passing a message in IM, in other words, will soon be better than email for things that make a lot of difference to spam diffusion. Those are new protocols, and a *new* any-to-any message protocol might get a lot of traction. But expecting the work on an existing protocol with millions of deployed nodes to be as quick misses how the entrenched interests of developers (many open source, some commercial) can affect a consensus driven process.

      But if you want to contribute, just do it. The IETF is still open enough and technical enough that a good hack from
      just about anyone will get its just props.

    16. Re:yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In a case like this it's a chicken and an egg problem

      Yes, it is, but not for the reason you imply. The answer to "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is clearly "the egg, by a considerable evolutional age". The first chicken hatched from an egg, but that egg wasn't laid by a chicken. The description you're looking for is not "chicken & egg" but "fax effect" - nobody would use the new system because nobody else is using it. /[end-personal-peeve-with-chicken/egg-analogy]

      What you describe as "holes" in SMTP were originally (and still are) "features". I absolutely agree that SMTP is the product of a different age. But there are wider issues to consider here. For example, what *do* we really mean with the header "from" field? Should it be traceable to an identifiable individual? (Uh-oh! Privacy Alert!). Or should it reliably identify the owner of a particular mailbox? (already possible using S/MIME or PGP and has been for years. Why don't people use these features?). I know it's really tempting to bash the IETF and/or blame personal egos (hell, there are some monstrously large and ugly ones in this field), but I say again, this really is a hard problem. It's made worse that spam in particular is not entirely a technical problem, and, as the old saw goes, you can't solve social problems with technical solutions.

    17. Re:yep by DaveMQ · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert on internet protocols, but it seems to me that some simple things could be done, both technical and organizational, to stop most of the spam. The technical steps would be to ensure that the headers which are added to the top of each email along the route are valid. With valid "Received:" headers, showing the IP address and timestamp of each relay, it should be possible to identify most spammers, or at least their ISPs. The organizational part is the hardest. ISPs can block their own users from sending spam, but the problem is those few ISPs who won't cooperate. It is those ISPs which will have to be effectively "blacklisted". This should involve an industry committee, which could listen to the offending ISP's excuses, and make a decision which is fair. Either we do it ourselves, or governments will do it for us. If you think the burden is too much on ISPs having to block spam from their own users, imagine the internet a few years from now with regulations as onerous as TV and radio broadcasters have now. I would much prefer self regulation, limiting the government's role to just prosecuting spammers who fake their identities.

    18. Re:yep by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Ok, fax effect is better :-)

      Well, SMTP should require a signed From-field added by SMTP server. And SMTP server should require a login before it allows sending mail, and *add* that From field, or at least check that it's one of the valid values for that login, and sign it, for example simply using web signatures. So then it's not so much of a privacy issue, From field would identify the ISP and mail account they vouch for, but not anything more about the sender.

      Now blocking spam would become a question of
      a) dropping mail with revoked signature at the server
      b) blacklisting signatures that are known to be used for spamming but not revoked yet
      c) blacklisting ISPs that keep getting new signatures for spamming purposes
      d) not accepting signatures from signature providers that give signatures with false information

      Getting a signing key is not free from any supplier, and if one signature would be useable for spam for only very limited time, that would push up the cost of spamming greatly, not to mention it'd make ISPs careful to not leak their keys since it would disrupt their mail delivery and incur the cost of getting new keys.

      Also, a signature would always be traceable either back to the ISP or at least back to the company that issued it in the first place, so there would be clear targets for litigation if their security (or business ethics...) is not good enough.

      People will not use S/MIME or PGP because it is not mandated, and because the receiver doesn't use it anyway in 99% of the cases. That's precisely why current version of SMTP needs to be scrapped completely in public networks, to force people to use the security measures, and therefor allow simply discarding any mail that doesn't. It needs a standard protocol (be it SMTPv2 or something completely different) that says "you *must* bounce any mail that does not have X".

    19. Re:yep by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • You can't exactly have a worldwide we're switching to "smtp improved" day.

      My fear is that we will have "smtp doesn't work any more" day, and much sooner than anybody expects.

      There's finite bandwidth available, and there's finite server space available. Mails start disappearing more and more, so spammers will end up sending more and more spam to compete with each others. And soon you just can't rely on email at all, it'll be worthless as a means of communication.

      Maybe growth of spam will stop, but I don't really see why it would... I don't see spammers co-operating and agreeing on quotas. So it'll grow and grow until it dies and takes SMTP with it to the grave.
  5. Well... by hookedup · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One day I noticed that one of my remote servers was sending 24 hours a day a continuous 11Kbytes stream, using the 100% of the upload bandwidth (128Kbits).

    Seems greed has once again turned around and bit someone in the ass (in this case it was a good thing). So all these spammers really need to do is slow down the avalanche of spam somewhat, and throttle their speeds when relaying. Otherwise, how long would this have went on for if he hadnt noticed his upload being maxed?

    1. Re:Well... by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      Exactly

      Thats why all our xdcc bots were set to have max upload speeds.

      And we didnt quite fill their hd's so that they didnt run out of space all of a sudden

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    2. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a totally leet fucktard you are!

  6. If only by goodbye_kitty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If only we could harness the power of these cool (and working!) distributed systems to provide efficient peer to peer content distribution or an actual legitimate email system of some sort...

    1. Re:If only by wolenczak · · Score: 1

      What is really frightening is the fact that these tools exist, they are sophisticated and are wreaking havoc.

      I don't mind deleting 40 junk emails a day, it's just spam, yes, it takes bandwidth and storage, but that's all the harm. Just wonder what would happen if these tools are used against specific targets and act as vehicles for terrorism.

      We could see, probably some day soon, a new strain of internet worm that suddenly dissapears, leaving infected millions of computers waiting for an instruction: wipe the hard drive, DOS the border routers of a whole country, bring to his knees a financial institution, alter databases, corrupt files... THAT would be a real critical problem. And that's the reason why is so important to create methods and mechanisms to stop this kind of threats, not just spam. Effects of spam are neglective if compared to a less appealing scenario.

    2. Re:If only by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      40 a day? You mustn't use your email much.

      Try over 300 (currently averaging 10,000 spams a month)... Thank god for SpamAssassin or I'd have given up on email by now.

    3. Re:If only by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 1

      If only we could harness the power of these cool (and working!) distributed systems to provide efficient peer to peer content distribution or an actual legitimate email system of some sort...

      Yeah, we do use it for an "efficient" peer to peer network. Try Kazaa who, in addition to the banner ads and countless pop-ups you see, reserves the right to use your extra cycles and bandwidth for its own devices in exchange for the content you are downloading (and the service it provides). One guess what the extra CPU/bandwidth is being used for.

  7. Skynet or Berserker? by kk5wa · · Score: 1

    A self-aware, self-improving spam program, that is able to self-propagate, with a distributed mother ship.

    Wow, think of the possibilities.

    --
    sine puella vita suget
  8. They "r00ted" a native american waiter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is obscene. How far will spammers go?

    1. Re:They "r00ted" a native american waiter? by zulux · · Score: 2, Funny

      They "r00ted" a native american waiter?

      We'll the crackers were nice - they allowed the guy to keep 2% of his bandwidth in reserve.

      --

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

    2. Re:They "r00ted" a native american waiter? by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

      On the internet, nobody knows you're a penguin.

      They're just like bio viruses - they'll go as far as necessary to live, but the successful ones will stop before they kill the host.

      --
      Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  9. Why do you hate to admit it? by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're good, and are producing sophisticated tools and methods for spamming, then it's imperative that it is admitted, so people will understand the true nature of the problem and what anti-spammers are up against.

    One of the most fatal mistakes you can make in any conflict is to underestimate your opponent.

    1. Re:Why do you hate to admit it? by Aneurysm · · Score: 1

      What is worse is that a talented few can produce tools that could be used by otherwise reasonably unknowledgeable people to compromise hosts and set up similar spam servers. A scary thought indeed, as these occurences will become more and more common

    2. Re:Why do you hate to admit it? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      It's even more scary when you think what kind of people will be involved.

      When will we have first anti-spam people to "disappear" or even murdered as an example to those who would try to hurt the profits of these people...? Or has this already happened?

    3. Re:Why do you hate to admit it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would anyone be surprised if this was the terrible unintended consequence of downsizing and outsourcing? All the otherwise talented Americans using their skills of shady spammers, while we're left with a bunch of Indians to defend ourselves with....

    4. Re:Why do you hate to admit it? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      If that happens, we'll just have to make sure some spammers "disappear" or are murdered.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  10. Bad getting worse... by tuxette · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Other trends started this year and expected to increase in 2004 include the use of e-mail to trick people into going to what they think is a legitimate vendor's web site and provide confidential information, such as social security or credit card numbers, MessageLabs said.

    Although I haven't experienced spam that goes so far, I have received (in my special spam account for playing with Nigerians and lottery managers) quite a few mails with requests to confirm my e-mail address. It works like this - you get a mail saying something a la: "I am controlling the e-mail sent to my inbox for the following address: sucker@born.every.minute.com. By asking for you to confirm that you really sent email to me I can ensure that I receive no spam and that your email address really exists. This is a one time confirmation, please click the link below and your email will be delivered straight away, now and in the future. Regards, Alberto Huber"

    The funny thing about it was that the "I" in question was neither someone I sent mail to nor someone I know at all.

    Now if they think I'm going to go click the link to confirm that my e-mail address exists, then they would surely be willing to buy some property on Mars I have for sale. Radiation-free. Really.

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
    1. Re:Bad getting worse... by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1
      I have received ... quite a few mails with requests to confirm my e-mail address...The funny thing about it was that the "I" in question was neither someone I sent mail to nor someone I know at all.

      Interesting twist that I haven't come across before. Are you certain that it didn't arise from (eg) posting to a distribution list?

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    2. Re:Bad getting worse... by Capt_Troy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Alberto Huber

      hmmm, something about that name. WAIT!

      it's Rebuh Otrebla backwards! AH-HA!

    3. Re:Bad getting worse... by tuxette · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. But as I said before, I have used that address to mess around with Nigerians and the such, so maybe they sold that address on. Who knows?

      --
      People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
    4. Re:Bad getting worse... by tuxette · · Score: 1
      "Rebuh Otrebla" sounds like some East African princess.

      I really wonder how they generate the names attached to these spams. I mean, I know that they steal real people's addresses and all, but I've never seen so many warped fusion names in my life. Alberto Huber. Blaine Takei. Lars Sanchez. Colleen Stephanopolous.

      --
      People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
    5. Re:Bad getting worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's much more likely to be the result of a faked address due to a virus, as described by the poster above

    6. Re:Bad getting worse... by mr_jrt · · Score: 1

      My poor old mum is getting her inbox swamped with undeliverable mail reports, seems some spamming git is using the domain part of their email addresses to impersonate them.

      At first I thought I'd set up their mail server wrong but no, it has SMTP AUTH on. Still though..... bloody spammers.

      Just as well I'm moving them to ADSL (where they'll get a new email address domain) when I get home over Christmas :D

      --
      Boo.
    7. Re:Bad getting worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its really as easy as sending an HTML e-mail that has an dynamic image in it.

      <img src="http://domain/image.php?id=emailaddress">

      We do this all the time for our newsletter mailing lists, if the users don't accually read the mail a few times in a row we simply opt them out for them. Why waste cpu/bandwidth on an e-mail that no one will read. BTW: We have almost 1 million users and about 50% of those are opted in.

    8. Re:Bad getting worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Its really as easy as sending an HTML e-mail that has an dynamic image in it.

      We do this all the time for our newsletter mailing lists, if the users don't accually read the mail a few times in a row we simply opt them out for them. Why waste cpu/bandwidth on an e-mail that no one will read.


      What about when people specify their email client to not load external images because they are smart and know that spammers use this trick all the time?


      BTW: We have almost 1 million users and about 50% of those are opted in.

      So you're saying that the other 50% of your users don't want to get your shitty email list and you are in fact spamming them?

    9. Re:Bad getting worse... by phutureboy · · Score: 1

      Yep, I have been getting the same thing for several weeks, although it has slowed down recently.

      Check the mail headers - I bet you'll find that each message originated from a different IP. In my case, the messages were coming from hijacked PCs on cable/DSL connections.

    10. Re:Bad getting worse... by ilikecaffeine · · Score: 1

      This brings forth an interesting twist to the open relay worms. What if the trojan/worm read the address book of all the found email clients, and then emailed one of these "confirm my account so you can send me mail" messages to every one of the people in the list.
      The message would appear legitimate, and could be sent right through the open relay they just created. Once the confirmation emails appear (the worm would need to intercept them and keep them from appearing in the user's inbox), add the sender to a list.
      Once the list has X members, the host would distribute the list to the other open relays.

      It's so devious because it looks legitmate, and appears to confirm the "sender," when it actually confirms the recipient.
      The only fishy part of it would be the text of the email. Spams typically have horrible messages, grammatically.

      Hrm... I better get coding. (just kidding)

    11. Re:Bad getting worse... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      You do realize that not all e-mail clients read HTML, and most e-mail clients these days block remote images by default, right?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  11. stupid gap in PHP... by kisrael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually, and yeah yeah yeah, I know there are probably settings around this, but that default of cgi variables automatically being turned into global variables of the form $same_name_as_in_the_form has always seemed to be asking for trouble.

    PHP, at least when I was looking at it a year and a half ago, always felt half-baked to me.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    1. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by el-spectre · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As I recall, you can turn that off pretty easily, although it is a stupid default.

      A coupla years ago I looked into PHP and decided it was lame (waaaaay too many 'convenience functions', instead of generalized functions that you pass parameters to...). This past spring I decided to give it another shot and learned it for real.

      It's still lame. Maybe I'm just spoiled by Perl...

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    2. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by james_orr · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's no longer the default. Not sure what version changed it.

    3. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by ebonkyre · · Score: 1

      that is no longer the default. register_globals is off out of the box in 4.0 and later.

      --
      "Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
    4. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by justMichael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually it's a stupid gap in admins and developers.

      You see Register Globals has been OFF by default since 4.2.0 which was released 22-Apr-2002.

      But yes it is a mess.

    5. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by Ulven · · Score: 1

      In the later versions, it's turned off by default.

    6. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by kisrael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, when I dabbled in PHP, I definately got the feeling that it wasn't ready for primetime, in a way I never got even with earlier version of Perl. That despite all those one-off convenience functions (and some were, admittedly, pretty convenient, requireing download from CPAN in Perl) , there were many structural and functional things in the language that were that way because it was easier for the implentors of the language to code that way. The way array walkers tended to use variables that were part of the array object, so you'd have to call reset to walk the same array twice....and I found bugs in the language in trying to do some simplish two-dimensional foreach type stuff.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    7. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by kisrael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Guh...that previous comment was NOT flamebait and was NOT offtopic...if you RTFA, this misfeature of earlier versions of PHP is exactly the exploit used to hook into the system.

      Frickin' moderators, so many people are so quick on the negative triggers, and not in a helpful way.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    8. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by Alt_Cognito · · Score: 1

      How is this a stupid gap? How are variables dangerous? They are only dangerous when misused. All variables are by default dangerous! Call out the troops!

    9. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by kisrael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is this a stupid gap? How are variables dangerous? They are only dangerous when misused. All variables are by default dangerous! Call out the troops!
      Do you understand the issue?

      In summary, a default where the global variable namespace of your program is settable by any bozo with a web browser is a poor design. Sure, a good programmer will take steps to make sure he knows where his or her data is coming from, but a language shouldn't encourage such public exposure of fundamental things. (which is why the default changed, according to other posters here)

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    10. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by Alt_Cognito · · Score: 1

      ...
      but a language shouldn't encourage such public exposure of fundamental things. (which is why the default changed, according to other posters here)
      ----
      That's a design decision, not a rule. PHP is designed to be a highly writable language, just as C is. Both suffer from similar problems - reliability and security issues.

    11. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by michaelhood · · Score: 0

      register_globals is disabled by default in >4.2.0. It was disabled in the "recommended" php.ini's in versions before that. Anyone configuring a PHP distribution should read over php.ini thoroughly. As long as the setting has been there, there have been comments around it regarding its dangers. There are global arrays now, to access the form data: $_GET[] and $_POST[].
      Here is some background.

    12. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by kisrael · · Score: 1

      That's a design decision, not a rule. PHP is designed to be a highly writable language, just as C is. Both suffer from similar problems - reliability and security issues.

      Yeah, but in this day and age...I mean, to make this kind of HUGELY dangerous mistake SO EASY to make just to buy some "semantic sugar", save one line of code that you'd need to say get this variable from CGI? The cost/benefit ratio is just not in its favor, which is why the default got dumped.

      At least with C, there is a reason beyond semantic sugar why its so vulnerable to buffer overflows, because proper dynamic memory management was expensive, and admittedly maybe some people were willing to sacrfice bounds checking for making the code prettier. But this PHP decision...guh, I wouldn't want to use it in the first place...

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    13. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by bcolflesh · · Score: 0

      From the Geeklog site:

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
      "These updates fix a few minor security-related issues:

      1. As "dr.wh0" pointed out, the category field for link submissions was not filtered at all. Although you probably can't cause too much harm with those 32 characters, this has now been fixed.

      2. Vincent Furia found that the restrictions for the form to email users could be circumvented and could even be used to spam users.

      3. On 1.3.8-1sr3, there is now also a speed limit when sending emails to users.

      4. There was a way to post comments anonymously even when posting for anonymous users had been disabled.

      5. It was possible to post comments under someone else's username.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;

      Only one of these seems "minor" to me...

    14. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by Alt_Cognito · · Score: 1

      Well, I must to agree this is a pretty large hole to be cover while coding a script, there are just so many different things that could be exploited...

    15. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the impression that register_globals dates from when PHP really was an ultra-simple scripting language, and the feature was kept on in later versions because far too many scripts relied on it. It's embarrassing how many people made use of it; I figured out its dangers within days of starting to learn PHP.

      PHP is shaping up to be a pretty decent language, partially thanks to misfeatures like register_globals being disabled. I think a lot of its reputation is due to it being a language a lot of people learn not terribly well - programming badly in a language does not necessarily mean the language itself is bad.

      Look at all the terrible C and C++ out there... :)

    16. Re:stupid gap in PHP... by Professor+Bluebird · · Score: 1

      But many people (and some distros *coughMandrake* (as of 9.0 at least) ) turn it back on so older, poorly written applications will still work. The users apparently see the cost of rewriting their apps as being greater than becoming a spam bot, while the distros want to maintain compatibility to keep said users happy, all at the price of security.

  12. No Death Penalty, Please!!! by tds67 · · Score: 5, Funny
    All this really makes me wonder when the death penalty will be approved for spammers. Or at least some harsh beatings...

    No, not yet! I'm only halfway through my penis-enlarging regimen!

    1. Re:No Death Penalty, Please!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, you can try my penis-enlarging regimen: harsh beating.

  13. (Slightly OT) Apache R00ted?? by goldspider · · Score: 1
    "SecurityFocus has published an excellent column detailing how spammers r00ted an Apache server, and used it to send spam. "

    Did I read this right? Don't you mean this was an IIS server that was r00ted?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:(Slightly OT) Apache R00ted?? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, and apache didn't get rooted, either. A poorly written PHP script did.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:(Slightly OT) Apache R00ted?? by Wyzard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, nowhere does it say that root privilege was used at all -- the attack was against a PHP interpreter embedded in an Apache binary running as www-data, and it started a new process which also ran as www-data. The article summary is a bit misleading.

    3. Re:(Slightly OT) Apache R00ted?? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      True, I should have said, I believe, pVVn3d, as opposed to r00t3d.

      So, the submission should read 'a PHP programmer allowed a variable to be set by an HTTP GET response, and got pVVn3d.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:(Slightly OT) Apache R00ted?? by Homology · · Score: 1
      True, I should have said, I believe, pVVn3d, as opposed to r00t3d. So, the submission should read 'a PHP programmer allowed a variable to be set by an HTTP GET response, and got pVVn3d.'

      But now we got 150 clueless /.-posts claiming that SMTP is at fault.

    5. Re:(Slightly OT) Apache R00ted?? by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      SMTP isn't at fault for gaining access to the server. It is, however, at fault for making it awfully easy for people to use that server to impersonate random domains that point back to neither the spammer nor the web server that was attacked, resulting in a rather weak audit trail.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:(Slightly OT) Apache R00ted?? by Homology · · Score: 1
      SMTP isn't at fault for gaining access to the server. It is, however, at fault for making it awfully easy for people to use that server to impersonate random domains that point back to neither the spammer nor the web server that was attacked, resulting in a rather weak audit trail.

      Exactly my point : SMTP was not responsible for the server compromise. However, since the term 'mail' was mentioned in the ingress, SMTP gets the blame.

      Now, the other issues you bringing up, like audit trail, is worthy of quite a few articles ;-)

  14. What really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the fact most Antispammers know who the biggest PITAs are. If the feds were to just ask for a little peek at the data, they could shut down the morons pretty quickly.

  15. The products themselves take care of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    People who respond to Nigerian spammers get taken.
    People who buy pump&dump-spamvertised stocks lose their money.
    People who buy bogus-prescription opiate painkillers go to sleep all the time and lose their nationwide radio shows.
    People who buy penis enlarger pills have their dicks fall off. The problem is that they're usually older men who have already made their contributions to the gene pool, so Darwin doesn't get them in the end.

    The problem, of course, is that all of these bad things happen to the customers after they've given the spammers their money, so it doesn't stop the spammers, and if they're dumb enough to believe that the spammers' products will work, they're too dumb to believe the Absolutely True Results By Top Scientists which say that their dicks will fall off if they buy fake vi1@gruh, even if we get the supermarket tabloids to keep printing headlines about it.

    1. Re:The products themselves take care of that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People who buy penis enlarger pills have their dicks fall off. The problem is that they're usually older men who have already made their contributions to the gene pool, so Darwin doesn't get them in the end.


      Clearly, the solution in this case is to take the bloodline of these older men, and terminate them, and thereby perform Uncle Chuck's Work for Him.

      Yours in the Service of Evolution and Natural Selection
  16. New protocol? by HornyBastard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think it's time we get a new mail protocol.

    If we can somehow get a list of relays authorized for the sender's domain, it would be easier to flag a message as SPAM.

    Also, I think the messages should be stored on the relay, with just a URL sent in the mail body. It would solve two problems:
    * The size of the message will be limited by the size of the sender's mailbox.
    * It will use more resources on the relay, and the admin should be less likely to run an open relay.

    --
    Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
    1. Re:New protocol? by gfilion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, I think the messages should be stored on the relay, with just a URL sent in the mail body. It would solve two problems: * The size of the message will be limited by the size of the sender's mailbox. * It will use more resources on the relay, and the admin should be less likely to run an open relay.

      This has allready been proposed by Dan Bernstein: IM2000

    2. Re:New protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That second part is a great idea. I propose that we call this "Internet Message Access Protocol" or IMAP for short.

      I just posted an RFC, wrote a server, and updated all the popular

    3. Re:New protocol? by quantum+bit · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is. Check out SPF. It's simple, built on existing protocols (DNS), and 100% djb-free.

    4. Re:New protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. Given a time period to wring out a new protocol and produce servers, I'd predict a transition period of just slightly over-night. Everyone besides the spammers is right tired of spammers. At last, a class of humans that can make lawyers and politicians appear relatively decent.

    5. Re:New protocol? by HornyBastard · · Score: 1

      That second part is a great idea. I propose that we call this "Internet Message Access Protocol" or IMAP for short.

      With IMAP, messages are still sent using SMTP, and stored on the reciever's server. It is not used to transfer the message to the MX.

      --
      Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
    6. Re:New protocol? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      There is. Check out SPF. It's simple, built on existing protocols (DNS), and 100% djb-free.

      Can someone tell me WHY there is an overwhelming hate for this man? Everything I have read indicates that he is nothing short of genius, yet people can't seem to stand him.

      Any reasons?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    7. Re:New protocol? by pohl · · Score: 1

      I think a protocol extension is the only answer, and that SMTP+SPF is potentially the right way to go.

      There is an interesting side-effect that users of free unix need to consider. In many organizations, the administrators of the IT infrastructure are a hostile entity that cannot be negotiated with. Those of us who use unix within an organization often get away with it because we are able to support ourselves. But if SMTP+SPF is adopted, we're going to need to have an official SMTP gateway within the organization for sending mail. For a company hooked on MS Koolaid, that may not be an easy thing to come by.

      I'm sure it will be worth it in the long run, but it may be a bumpy ride for many of us.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    8. Re:New protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exchange supports SMTP AUTH. I imagine it can probably even do it over SSL. Not that 1/10 of the bozo Exchange "administrators" out there would have any clue how to do it.

    9. Re:New protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you've never been on a mailing list when DJB comes in and basically demands something (maybe a new feature in the FreeBSD kernel, or whatever), with his conclusions already made and opinions already formed, and berates everybody who dares answer him in any way other than 1) agreeing with him and/or 2) implementing or doing whatever he wants.

      That being said, *usually* his ideas are well-formed and well-thought-out, but sometimes they only make sense within his own little universe. Whatever the case he's just a person you have to keep at arm's length.

      There are other DJB annoyances, they are all related to his inability to comprehend opinions other than his own.

      Think of any geek, co-worker, friend, etc., you might know that never admits he's wrong, is always arrogant, but is a genius, so you sortof put up with it and silently pray that he gets laid or something so he'll be a friendly cooperative genius. Then multiply by 100 to get DJB.

      I try not to let it affect my opinion of his software programs, which are usually very useful (daemontools is the coolest thing ever for instance).

    10. Re:New protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pohl wrote:
      >
      > I think a protocol extension is the only answer, and that SMTP+SPF is potentially the right way to go.

      I'm not so sure that this is the right way to go. Indeed, the consquences you list are right on the mark. But the reprecussions of adopting such a solution can be made even more explicit:

      What we'd be doing by adopting something like SPF is giving up our right to communicate with whomever we want and how we want using the Internet. It is the email equivalent of PKI. If your ISP (or whoever can influence it) wants to censor you or make you use a certain vendor's mail system then agreeing to standards like the SPF makes it that much easier.

      Of course, ISPs can already block connections to the SMTP port, and some do. But there is at least some sort of backlash against this kind of behavior, and as long as caring consumers have a choice they can go to an ISP that doesn't block the SMTP port. But if somethign like SPF is made a standard across the Internet there will be no choice. We'll be locked in worse than ever.

      The bright side is that it will make spam harder to send. But there might be better ways of accomplishing this. Personally I like the idea of making the sending computer compute a lengthy hash, which will certainly make sending millions of spam emails impractical. This method also does not entail giving up our ability to send email without interference from our ISP or anyone else.

    11. Re:New protocol? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is a terrible idea at so many levels. Even if it helps penalize open relays and prevents the whole "connect, dump, disconnect" DSL-connected mail servers, it creates a dozen new problems for each one it solves.

      For one, notifications being stored in memory means lost mail, or at least the need for every server in the world to periodically check and make sure you have received your notification. More notifications = more overall traffic = network flood from hell.

      Second, it means that the sender's machine has to be online and accessible in order for me to read mail that was sent to me. The internet is a flaky thing. I'm almost guaranteed to be able to reach my local mail server. No such assurance exists for random joe remote mail server in Siberia.

      This is particularly a problem in a corporate environment where people regularly get email messages from slow, distant servers. Imagine potentially taking a 30 second DNS timeout for every single email you open, and I'm sure you see the potential problem.

      That solution is taking a step towards the right solution, however, which is to ensure that the sender's location cannot be forged. This is easily accomplished through proper signing of messages (with a properly certified key) at the server level without any need to modify the SMTP protocol itself. While such a scheme requires buy-in, it neither breaks backwards compatibility (though it does make it intentionally painful for people who don't upgrade their mail servers by requiring per-message verification) nor breaks the fundamental usability of email.

      Just my $0.02.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:New protocol? by quantum+bit · · Score: 1
      What we'd be doing by adopting something like SPF is giving up our right to communicate with whomever we want and how we want using the Internet. It is the email equivalent of PKI. If your ISP (or whoever can influence it) wants to censor you or make you use a certain vendor's mail system then agreeing to standards like the SPF makes it that much easier.


      I thought that when I first read about SPF, but after contemplating it for a while decided that it was worth the trade-off. The possibility for censorship is extremely limited.

      A system like SPF only affects mail sent from @isp.com. If isp.com doesn't want to let you send mail directly from a certain IP without going through their relay -- fine -- nobody says you have to use your @isp.com account to send mail. In fact, many people prefer to have an ISP-neutral account so they can switch ISPs without having to change email addresses. Either use a third-party service or spend $10 a year to register jones.org. There are plenty of registrars that will let you park your DNS on their servers and some even offer mail forwarding to your @isp.com account.

      With SPF, the only reqirement to send from jones.org is that the IP address is authorized -- which requires control of the DNS for jones.org. If you own the domain it's no problem. The only way your ISP can stop that is to block outbound port 25 traffic, which would have the same effect even without SPF or a similar mechanism.
    13. Re:New protocol? by pohl · · Score: 1

      Exchange supports SMTP AUTH. I imagine it can probably even do it over SSL.

      I think the real danger is not that Exchange cannot be set up as a safe SMTP gateway, but that the administrators would refuse to do so: "Why should we open this additional service on this machine, increasing its exposure to remote exploit, just for you? Outlook is the 'standard' for email around here...if you want email, follow the 'standard.'".

      I have encountered this logic many times.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  17. yes it is profitable by RouterSlayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    yes it's definitely profitable, this is part of the problem, a major part of it!

    even with all the crap that people are doing, new SMPT clients, new RFCs and bullshit, it's not going to work!

    why? because spammers pay their ISPs tens of thousands of $ a month just for the privilege of spamming!

    I remember an old story months (or years) ago about a spammer, got tracked down, the whole nine yards, the ISP refused to cut them off because they were paying the ISP over $50,000 a MONTH to send spam. These days they pay even more.

    So all your "checks and balances" don't do any good, because the spammers are VALID users (at least in the eyes of the ISP hosting them).

    And this is also why no one does egress filtering. AT&T US, etc won't do it because they get PAID to keep sending the stuff...

    face it, spam is BIG business, it makes millions, esp for the ISPs, etc.

    all your useless "valid" client checks, checksums, special SMTP servers, blah blah blah won't make a damn of difference.

    the only way is with either good (huge) blacklists or bayesian all over the place.

    and what someone said about "end users" not caring about bandwidth usage, not true. I'm an end-user, and I care, excess bandwidth costs me money dammit! I am my own mail server, so don't tell me a firewall on my server is gonna slow down the traffic. it doesn't.

    I keep to my original proposal, a massive blacklist. headache? yes, but it'd work if kept updated...

    1. Re:yes it is profitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > $50,000 a MONTH

      The guy makes enough money via spam such that he can cover $600,000 a year on bandwidth alone? Either the numbers are off, or I really need to change my job.

    2. Re:yes it is profitable by geekoid · · Score: 1

      as a end user,you are an excetption not the rule.
      Most people don't care about bandwidth.

      "yes, but it'd work if kept updated..."
      never work, becasue A)some spammers are a legitimate ISP customer. You cu of that ISP you cut off al the non spamming emails.

      also, there is no insentive to spend the money to keep checking its validity all the time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:yes it is profitable by phorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember an old story months (or years) ago about a spammer, got tracked down, the whole nine yards, the ISP refused to cut them off because they were paying the ISP over $50,000 a MONTH to send spam. These days they pay even more.

      Because SPAM as a whole is becoming illegal in many areas, and much of what spammers do is already illegal. If the ISP is allowing the spammer to continue operation, and he is pumping illegal products/scams/etc then the ISP will be on the line.

      It's one thing to profit for unscrupulous activity, it's another to knowingly allow an illegal one.

      Making it easier to certifiably track spammers is part of the solution because if you can say with strong surety that an ISP is supporting the spammer... then you can take action against the ISP.

    4. Re:yes it is profitable by leerpm · · Score: 1

      No, you are wrong. The real solution involves a multitude of changes. It requires blacklists, filters, open relay blocking, client verification, legislation and possibly other fixes as well.

      There is no magic silver bullet that is going to make spam go away. The key is bringing all of these various pieces together, thereby closing the loopholes bit by bit until it is no longer feasible for spammers to continue their operations.

    5. Re:yes it is profitable by Electrum · · Score: 1

      yes it's definitely profitable, this is part of the problem, a major part of it!

      Spam is also profitable for all of the companies selling anti-spam products. How many of them would go out of business of spam was stopped tomorrow? Is it really in their best interest to stop spam?

    6. Re:yes it is profitable by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      I keep to my original proposal, a massive blacklist. headache? yes, but it'd work if kept updated...

      Actually, I suggest the opposite.

      A white list. Make it user configurable, add the ability for the email server to drop connections as soon as it gets a header it doesn't like ( as apposed to getting the message then loosing it ), and you're gold.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    7. Re:yes it is profitable by VisualThoy · · Score: 0

      If the ISP is allowing the spammer to continue operation, and he is pumping illegal products/scams/etc then the ISP will be on the line.
      It's one thing to profit for unscrupulous activity, it's another to knowingly allow an illegal one.


      Its happening with P2P already.

    8. Re:yes it is profitable by arekq · · Score: 1

      A lot of popular anti-spam products (popfile, spamassassin, etc.) are open source projects run by people who probably would be very glad to 'go out of business' because spam suddenly disappears. :)

    9. Re:yes it is profitable by seb249 · · Score: 1

      One solution - though not perfect is for the end user to use an email client that can filter mail from people not in their address book.

      As i said not perfect and it doesnt solve the bandwidth or congestion issues directly but its a start. Thunderbird is the only one i have seen that does this.

    10. Re:yes it is profitable by mrex · · Score: 1

      Support your local SPEWS. The problem you describe is exactly what SPEWS was created to fight, and exactly why spammers spend so much time badmouthing it -- its brutally effective.

    11. Re:yes it is profitable by RouterSlayer · · Score: 1

      don't need to keep checking it.
      and you're wrong about cutting off all the non spam emails too.

      why? and how? easy...
      "unblocked lists", once a "valid" client has been blocked once, he gets unblocked and never blocked again. simple, easy.
      so ONE email gets blocked, big deal. not a headache.

      i've been doing this for over 10 years, it works. and I've even done it at some major ISPs, it works...

    12. Re:yes it is profitable by RouterSlayer · · Score: 1

      How about this-

      1) a blacklist (/24s minimum)
      2) a whitelist (/32s ok, but /24s preferred)
      3) an "unblocked" list (people that got blocked by accident). usually individual IPs (/32s)

      Like I said, 10 years doing this, it works.

    13. Re:yes it is profitable by RouterSlayer · · Score: 1

      what? you've never heard of "popfile" ?
      ah yes, the wonderful windows users.. ;)

      TMDA works this way too.

      none of these are good options. they don't "solve" anything, the spam still flows...

    14. Re:yes it is profitable by RouterSlayer · · Score: 1

      SPEWS is fugly. damn that's fugly. IMHO only of course. no proper access list or firewall rules.
      no domain lists for postfix.

      but it's a start.

      their site is very hard to navigate and use, or to find things directly.

      ugh...

    15. Re:yes it is profitable by mrex · · Score: 1

      SPEWS is fugly. damn that's fugly. IMHO only of course. no proper access list or firewall rules.

      They publish zone files...by doing a little elementary parsing you can turn it into any format you want, but part of the great benefit of DNSBLs is that they can be easily updated by a trusted central authority without any work at all on the part of you the admin. By using (or translating) the zone file yourself, you take on the responsibility of keeping it current. The last thing I as an admin need is another item added to my daily "check for updates" list.

      no domain lists for postfix.

      Domain lists? Most of the spam I see comes from bizarre fake domains or forged legitimate ones. Blocking by the IP of the SMTP session initiator is the only reliable method, since that is the only common thread that is not completely under the control of the spammers. I'm sure that's one reason they're now employing trojan-zombie networks -- it does signifigantly expand the amount of non-contiguous IPs with which they can trespass on your server.

      but it's a start.

      I don't really see your complaints, other than the aesthetic design of the site which I can't really comment on other than to say I've never had a problem navigating it. I've only really been there to read the FAQ and perform lookups, but for what its worth both those functions are as accessable as can be.

      their site is very hard to navigate and use, or to find things directly.

      What were you looking for that you couldn't easily find?

  18. Nivenate 'em by Verteiron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah, send 'em into the organ banks. Mind you, if my arm falls off, I'm not sure I'd like to know my new one might have come from a spammer...

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  19. this is good by geekoid · · Score: 1

    spammer find away in, use it for spamming.
    Gets traced relativly easy to the server, a patch is issued.
    This is probably the most benign thing that can happen from an exploit, and it is easy to track down. Finding it in a research center would be better, but barring that, this ain't so bad.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:this is good by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      Sure it is good,
      except this computer was a server, with a security minded administrator that put at least 3 or 4 hours into figuring out what happened to his box.

      Now imagine the millions of computers out there, connected 24/7 to the internet, unpatched, unfirewalled, unhardened. Sure, this incident wasn't so bad, but I can imagine that there are boxes that stay 0wned until the day that they are decomissioned, due to clueless admins or just plain neglegence. I see it on irc all the time. people hack boxes and install a bnc, or other irc gizmo, somehow lose control of the box, but the drone remains connected to irc for months, or even a year.

      So I don't think 'this isn't so bad', i think, wow the spammers aren't idiots, they have recruited some knowledgable black hats and are actively exploiting box after box with complex attacks and hand coded/modified tools, not some windows spam-app. This is terrible and scary.

      --
      music lover since 1969
  20. Prison by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1
    Sheesh ... something good the politians could do if they weren't so clueless: put the people that write this stuff in prison.

    Rich.

    1. Re:Prison by harrkev · · Score: 1
      Sheesh ... something good the politians could do if they weren't so clueless: put the people that write this stuff in prison.

      Yes. It is just that easy. Do your part. Provide the names and addresses of the perpetrators. Oh, by the way... could you also provide the proof?

      And if they are not in the US, how do you get them over here to take their punishment????

      It might be easier just to follow the link. Buy a product and persecute whoever gets the money. But the problem is in the proof that THEY are the ones to send the spam. They could always say "I promised XYZ company 10% of profits. I did not know that they sent spam." It is called plausible deniability.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    2. Re:Prison by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1
      So next time someone gets murdered, perhaps we should all just throw our hands up and say "it's too difficult - someone provide the proof please!"

      This is what the police are for. They go out, find the evidence, present it to court, and the murderer gets convicted.

      It's not so hard to find these spammers - they leave a trail of abuse a mile wide. Just go to spamhaus.org to download your initial list of suspects.

      Put them in prison. They're abusing the resources of the world just as much as someone who goes and trashes your local park or sets fire to an old barn - except on a much larger scale with huge social and economic consequences.

      Rich.

    3. Re:Prison by Bugmaster · · Score: 1

      Important distinction: the people who use this stuff should be put in prison. Outlaw certain kinds of writing, and you're no better than Ashcroft and the DMCA.

      --
      >|<*:=
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. And the worst news is. . . by mntgomery · · Score: 2, Funny

    that this intrusion is probably the work of some teenage kid who will never have to do a day of real work in his life. But at least stuff like this keeps us admins employed. . . at least some of the time.

    --

    This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
  23. Probably not (itself) spam mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It looks like a pretty standard challenge-response thing. While I suppose that those could be faked to verify emails on a spamlist, it's more likely that one of those viruses that emails with random from addresses sent mail to someone using a challenge-response system with inadequate spam controls being applied before the challenge stage.

    1. Re:Probably not (itself) spam mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      likely that one of those viruses that emails with random from addresses

      Of course! It's fairly obvious, now I think about it again...neeed coffeee...

  24. OpenBSD on macppc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Geez,

    This is going to make me move my web server to OpenBSD 3.4-stable on macppc even sooner. It would have two layers of defense against this kind of attack, even if the PHP hole was there.
    1. Chrooted apache means that necessary shared libs/utility apps for the binary aren't available immediately.
    2. PowerPC processor means that i386-binary payloads won't run

    Running under systrace might also help stop it from opening outbound connections.
    1. Re:OpenBSD on macppc by zulux · · Score: 1


      OpenBSD on SUN hardware is even better: Sparc chips have built in executable protection.

      Sparc hardware nativly allows processes to set chunks of memory as "allow code execution, but don't allow self-modifying code".

      Unfortunatly curent x86 hardware lacks this feature without a lot of work.

      --

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

    2. Re:OpenBSD on macppc by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
      This is going to make me move my web server to OpenBSD 3.4-stable on macppc even sooner.

      Mine is running an uncommon httpd on an uncommon OS on an uncommon hardware platform in a chrooted jail running as 'nobody', on a DMZ that is not allowed to send anything to the Internet except replies to http requests.

      Even if someone cared enough to break in, they couldn't use it to do anything, not even a DOS. The worst they could do would be to deface my web pages, and nobody cares about them anyway. This is way overkill for what is essentially a home vanity site, but I sleep easy at night.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    3. Re:OpenBSD on macppc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mounting /tmp "noexec" would have prevented it, too.

    4. Re:OpenBSD on macppc by azimir · · Score: 1

      In the OpenBSD 3.4 release, which came out recently, they introduced a W^X system for x86 that accomplishes the same thing.

      If you would like a quick overview of how it works on x86, please follow this link:

      http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2 00 3-04/1362.html

  25. Pretty good article by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was a pretty good article, but he leaves off one glaring fact. If he had kept his software up to date, this would never have happened. BugTraq says August 2002 when this was identified.

    --
    This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
  26. apache wasn't rooted, an installed PHP app was by deander2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it should be noted that this wasn't apache that was rooted. it was a poorly written PHP app, using an injection technique.

    1. Re:apache wasn't rooted, an installed PHP app was by davburns · · Score: 1
      Technically, nothing was rooted.

      You don't need root to send email.

  27. Spam funders? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who exactly is funding all this spam? Is there one major media conglomerate behind it, like Viacom? That would be totally wild.

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Spam funders? by leerpm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt it. What does a giant corporation like Viacom have to gain from sending out penis-enlargement advertisements?

      The most reasonable guess along this line would be the drug companies trying to sell to an underground market. But everyone knows that the drug companies are fighting hard to keep the drug prices artificially high in the US, so what would they have to gain too? I mean, have you looked at most spam lately? It certainly doesn't appear to be a case of a real company trying to make a legimate profit. Most spam is for bogus offers.

    2. Re:Spam funders? by Urkki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess porn business is what brings in most of the money for spammers.

      And then I suppose that once the basic spamming infrastructure is established and paid for by that, there's ready market for getting other businesses and plain scammers to do spam marketing, thus increasing spammer profits more and pushing down the price per email.

    3. Re:Spam funders? by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      Sadly it is partly large coorporations that pay others for leads - these leads may have been optained from sending spam.

      Succers who answer Erase your credit spam - are sold to loan companies as wanting credit.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    4. Re:Spam funders? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      What does a giant corporation like Viacom have to gain from sending out penis-enlargement advertisements?

      The next generation of porn stars? /me ducks

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  28. A question regarding education/tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have 2 questions that I have always wondered:

    1. Most spam mails are selling something physical and are actual companies; why can't they therefore be tracked down and slapped with lawsuits easily?

    2. Why doesn't user education work? Maybe a mass education campaign towards users will make the spammers give up - I agree there will always be the odd idiot, but if 99% of users are educated, just like most kids know not to talk to strangers, there will eventually be a decline in such?

    1. Re:A question regarding education/tracking? by Jacer · · Score: 1

      Have you ever thought that there might be people out there who actually want a bigger penis?

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    2. Re:A question regarding education/tracking? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Because it's usually some spamming company performing the spamming, not the real company. They only hired their "PR services", in which case you have to prove they did know it their marketing practices would be illegal.

      2. No, 99% is not enough. A 1% response rate would be insanely high. Even a 0,01% response would easily be enough. Because it costs next to nothing, with next to nothing in risk.

      To pull on your "99% of users are educated, just like most kids know not to talk to strangers" analogy, it wouldn't work if the pedos could ask thousands of children simultaniously (i.e. no cost of time) and none of those that refused would report it. Who cares if 990 turn you down, if you can have a 10-kid orgy every day? Sounds awfully cruel, but that's the way spam works today. They pray on the few stupid enough, and hope that the great majority will simply hit 'delete'.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:A question regarding education/tracking? by doublem · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      I'm happy with mine, thank you very much.

      I want these bozos to leave me ALONE!

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    4. Re:A question regarding education/tracking? by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Because it's usually some spamming company performing the spamming, not the real company. They only hired their "PR services", in which case you have to prove they did know it their marketing practices would be illegal.

      True, but what if said companies were publicly outed and humiliated? What if an orchestrated effort was made to let said company know exactly how the world feels about their carelessness in hiring their PR firm? Would that not be sufficient to send the message that if you hire a PR company, you better be damn sure you know how they're promoting your good name?

    5. Re:A question regarding education/tracking? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yes I agree, the only way of stopping spam is to do something about the companies employing spammers to carry out their evil work.

      OK so there are a lot of people saying

      "Yes but the companies just employ other direct marketing organisations through some kind of shady cloak and dagger money in a brown envelope type agreement. So it's impossible to do anything about that."

      Really I think that's a cop out, first of all these companies probably have a pretty good idea of the kind of people they're hiring as soon as the brown envelope is mentioned and so there should be some kind of penalty introduced for these companies.

      Secondly the company employing the spammers should be investigated with a view to tracking down the spamming company, which should be possible by following where the money went to, and they should then be prosecuted.

      It's really no good passing laws to control spam, as many countries are now doing without having the necessary powers to enfore those rules.

      As we are seeing techincal soloutions are far from ideal in preventing spam and even less ideal for bringing the spammers to account all of which makes it even more imperative to to pursue this problem down traditional rather than techincal paths.

      As it stands it's obviously very difficult to enforce penalties against offending companies and this is what we should look at changing to deal with the problem.

    6. Re:A question regarding education/tracking? by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      True, but what if said companies were publicly outed and humiliated? What if an orchestrated effort was made to let said company know exactly how the world feels about their carelessness in hiring their PR firm? Would that not be sufficient to send the message that if you hire a PR company, you better be damn sure you know how they're promoting your good name?

      The problem is that large companies pay "affiliates" to generate leads. Reputable companies will have policies against allowing their affiliates to engage in spam. However, we're talking about multi-level-marketing. A legitimate affiliate may sub-contract out to other lead generating companies, who in turn buy leads from other sources, and so on. If you follow the chain down far enough, you'll find a company who doesn't follow up on the practices of someone they're buying from.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  29. And it has the tacit involvement of real companies by swb · · Score: 1

    There was a great article in the local paper about how many ordinary businesses collecting email supposedly for customer service purposes are selling this info off, where it ultimately gets into the hands of spammers.

    I'm not sure how the spammers re-close the loop with mainstream businesses, but I'm sure its happening.

  30. Spammers Hiring Goatse Trolls? by goldspider · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Other trends started this year and expected to increase in 2004 include the use of e-mail to trick people into going to what they think is a legitimate vendor's web site..."

    That sounds suspiciously familiar, especially when you substitute "e-mail" with "innocent-looking links to Amazon.com".

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  31. Re:enlargements by ebonkyre · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, there's no accounting for spammers' tastes. Judging from some of the spams I've seen, females with enlarged cocks are apparently pretty popular with these folks...

    --
    "Time is an abstract concept devised by carbon-based lifeforms to monitor their ongoing decay." - Thundercleese
  32. why not e-stamps? by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    How come the idea of e-stamps is not getting any traction? The concept is that you are assessed a small charge for sending unwanted mail.

    I dont see what the technical or social barriers are. For example, it would not require any change in the way mail is transported. Instead it would all be handled by the recipient's browser.

    consider the following straw man scheme. I send you an e-mail.
    1) If I am in your white list the e-mail is accepted.
    2) if not then the e-mail is examined for a signed, serial numbered e-stamp and if present a short message is sent to central post office to debit the senders account one penny, and a receipt is returned to my e-mail program which then lets the message in.
    3) Finally if the message does not contain a stamp and is not white listed, the message is put in a spam folder and a memo sent to the sender (me) telling me that I need to request permission to send e-mail.

    The last step is how for example Earthlink's highest level spam blocker works. If most messages are spam then of course it doubles the total number of messages sent, but does not double the total message sizes or hand shaking. To the extend that it works, the post offices will only be consulted if the sender is not in the white list so unused stamps can be reclaimed. Moreover one could have the option of refunding the senders stamp if the message were welcome.

    I dont see what the sociologocal or technical hurdles are. Not every one has to be using the stamp processing client program. When stamps are not present it defaults to the earthlink system. When they are is skips that nuiscance.

    the best part is that legitimate direct mailers might very well be willing to pay the postage to send you an advertisment but presumbaly in many cases these would be targeted ads to people with potential interest.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:why not e-stamps? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How come the idea of e-stamps is not getting any traction?...I dont see what the technical ... barriers are.
      No offence, but many people more technically gifted than you or I have been wrestling with these issues for years and still haven't created a solution because the problem is a hard one to solve.

      On a simple level, consider this - in order to migrate from the SMTP protocol to "something better", we would either have to (a) have the entire world convert simultaneously to the new standard or (b) allow backward compatibility with SMTP. (a) seems highly unlikely, and (b) means that you don't solve the problem. And before you point out that in the case of (b) we'd only need a limited transition time before we'd all be on the new protocol, I'd offer the example of IPv6. How many years has IPv6 been in the works? How many million man-hours of committee time has it already been through? How close are we all to deploying IPv6?

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    2. Re:why not e-stamps? by harrkev · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Finally if the message does not contain a stamp and is not white listed, the message is put in a spam folder and a memo sent to the sender (me) telling me that I need to request permission to send e-mail.


      Yup. Then my anti-spam system sends you an e-mail and you, the spammer collect my penny...

      Or ... my anti-spam system sends you an e-mail telling you to request permission. Then your anti-spam system sends me an e-mail tellin me that I have to request permission. Then my anti-spam system sends you an e-mail telling you to request permission. Then your anti-spam system sends me an e-mail tellin me that I have to request permission. Lather, rinse, repeat.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh no offense either but did you read the post you replied to? The proposed scheme doe NOT require any changes to SMTP. It does not require universal participation and works if its 0.001% or 99% of the world participating. It does require some for-profit stamp servers to come into existence but since there is a profit motive this will happen naturally. Moreover if these stamp servers went off-line the system does not stop working it just defaults to the stamp-free mode described.

      so is there a problem wih the scheme now that you have read it?

    4. Re:why not e-stamps? by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not every one has to be using the stamp processing client program. When stamps are not present it defaults to the earthlink system. When they are is skips that nuiscance.

      The problem is that when you use the EarthLink system, you become a nuisance to hundreds of others around the world.

      I currently am up to about 300 spams per day. Most of those are forged addresses--which means they belong to someome, just not the spammer. If I used the EarthLink system I would be sending "challenge" messages to about 300 innocent people each day. Suddenly *I* am part of the spam problem from the perspective of those 300 people per day.

      As long as return addresses can be forged, challenge/response systems should be frowned on at least as much as spam--possibly more than spam since they supposedly solve spam by generating more garbage for others on the network which is just counter-productive and annoying.

      That said, I like the rest of your idea. Email must remain free so I'm opposed to a system under which I automatically have to pay a penny to everyone I send email to but only get it back if they decide to credit me.

      But if you can set your own "charge" for receiving spam and spammers can embed a token in their email saying "I'm willing to pay a maximum of $1 for someone to read this message" then if a spam comes in that pays the amount you've decided to charge for receiving spam, it goes out to the central payment server and credits you and debits the spammer, fine. Pay me $1 per spam and I'll happily receive 300 per day!

      Of course, at $1/spam there won't be any... which is even better!

    5. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh dude, Have you not seen how mail blocks and Earthlink are doing things these days. This is exactly how they do it. There is no recursion problem any more than there is a recursion problem when two vacation message programs start heckling each other. And lastly the message back to the unknown sender would not include a stamp. stamps are not required, they only are ther to allow an unknown sender to bypass the gatekeeping.

      so do you see any other problems?

    6. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      so is there a problem wih the scheme now that you have read it?

      Yes. Point (b) - it doesn't solve the problem

    7. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In most (but not all situations) its possible to weed out bogus challenge responses. For example, if I get a challenge to an e-mail I allegedly sent but the recipient if not in my address book (or sent mail list) then my e-mail program can just discard it and never bother me. Obviously there are certain cases this wont work but that's a minority.

      to the extent that spam is reduced eventually this issue becomes negligble anyhow.

    8. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure it solves the problem. Spammers cant afford to stamp. and unstamped messages wont be read hence no profit in spamming. OF course they will continue to spam people not using such a client e-mail program.

    9. Re:why not e-stamps? by Vainglorious+Coward · · Score: 1
      OF course they will continue to spam people not using such a client e-mail program.

      If they're continuing to send spam, how is that "solving the problem"? The "problem" is not the annoyance of individuals having to view spam; the problem is that spam wastes bandwidth and other resources, resources that cost money. If the spammers don't stop sending, the problem isn't solved. Indeed, solutions which merely take away a fraction of the spammers' audience are likely to increase the problem, since the incentive is then for the spammers to send even more messages to maintain the same number of returns. Some would argue we're already seeing such an effect - there's certainly no doubting the massive increase in spamming in the last year. As I started out by saying, this is not a trivial problem and many highly intelligent people have wrestled with it for years without coming up with a workable solution. When people write "we should simply [change protocol or whatever]" it's because they don't fully understand the nature of the problem.

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
    10. Re:why not e-stamps? by FreeMars · · Score: 1

      I'm all for e-stamps. A penny isn't enough, though. Go for 10 cents per email.

      A whitelisted sender isn't asked for an e-stamp.

      An unknown sender is asked for an e-stamp. The email is accepted after a side transaction with the bank cashing the e-stamp.

      A blacklisted sender is asked for an e-stamp. If one is sent it is cashed and the mail is forwarded to /dev/null -- hey, it doesn't hurt to ask!

      When the human recipient gets around to reading the email, she can decide if it is non-spam. If so, she clicks a button to refund an e-stamp to the sender, and probably adds the sender to the whitelist. (Not doing so gets you labeled as a deadbeat, and people will stop sending you email.)

      SMTP programs which don't support e-stamps can be sent an error message directing the sender to a webmail form.

      The e-stamp plan depends on someone coming up with a CHEAP high-volume micropayment system. For it to work an e-stamp with a cash value of $0.10 shouldn't cost the sender more than ~$0.11, so mail between strangers costs the sender and recipient a penny each. Spam costs the sender 11 cents and gives the recipient a dime credit.

      --
      Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
    11. Re:why not e-stamps? by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In most (but not all situations) its possible to weed out bogus challenge responses.

      In most (but not all) situations, it's possible to weed out bogus spam--but that doesn't make spam acceptable.

      For example, if I get a challenge to an e-mail I allegedly sent but the recipient if not in my address book (or sent mail list) then my e-mail program can just discard it and never bother me.

      That's a whitelist approach. But that's a closed system. Many people (myself included) have to be able to receive email from people we've never talked to. They initiate the conversation, not me. So I can't just have my email program reject email as bogus just because it's not whitelisted or in my "sent" folder.

      The point is that the challenge/response model depends on sending out a challenge for every spam that comes in. You are assuming that others are using an anti-spam solution to catch your bogus challenges and treat it as spam. That's a bogus approach.

      Yes, people can filter out your challenges. But tell me how that is different from filtering out spam and why your automated challenges should be any more acceptable to me than outright spam? Both are email I didn't ask for and don't want.

    12. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IPv6? Terrible example to make your point. Changing a mail protocol would not require every router in the world to be changed, every non-IPv6 compliant TCP stack to be re-written, DNS to handle an entirely new addressing scheme, etc. The two are both protocols, yes, but not at all the same thing. You're comparing apples and orangutans.

      You should have continued your thought process on the transition time to switch from SMTP to some new protocol - you would have realized that you were not too far from a solution. You sorta slammed your forehead into that brick wall on your own by bringing IPv6 into the picture. ;)

      The transition to a new could be smoothed out considerably by the idea of backwards compatibility on the server side. Re-engineer the SMTP server to support both the new protocol and SMTP. Demonstrate the capabilities of the new protocol with a few open source clients and distribute them both to users and to folks that write email clients. With either an agreed upon new standard or a rogue protocol that's just too good to miss out on, the geeks of the world will switch to the new clients and email client coders will have little choice but to begin to support the new protocol. You would then see a natural evolution to the new protocol with the masses generally moving away from SMTP with the upgrades of their favorite email clients. Hell, most of them probably wouldn't even realize they are using a new protocol, because let's face it, most users don't have a clue what a protocol is in the first place. Why would they? Finally, switch off SMTP on the server side, never to be used again. Ta-da, a new mail protocol lives!

      (Granted, the above scheme greatly simplifies the fact that there are more than one SMTP server out there. It's left as an exercise for the witch-hunter, I mean reader, to figure out the bigger picture. If you're a moderator and simply don't understand this, you're not alone, mod me down! Whoowhoo.)

      If the process is made transparent to the users and simple enough to not require every sysadmin in the universe to need a full retrain, we might actually be able to acheive this. Or, we could continue to sit around tables, drinking stale coffee, stroking our 2-day stubble (yes, even some girls!), going on and on about how it's just too complicated and how no one will go for it.

    13. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I did begin my remarks with "On a simple level..." ;) I bring in the example of IPv6 just to demonstrate in a vivid way how difficult it is to wean the entire world off an entrenched protocol. Yes, of course, IPv6 is a different orangutan, but the principle is the same - backward compatibility is vital during transition and backward compatibility in this case means you don't solve the spam problem. That doesn't mean I'd rather stroke stubble (even if it's on a girl) and drink coffee - I'm eager to hear proposals that solve the problem; but I have heard many and am still yet to hear one that does solve the problem. You glibly refer to "re-engineering" and "agreed upon new standards" as though it's easy. It isn't, and the fact that many people more intelligent than you or I have yet to achieve this proves the point. Maybe I'm wrong and you know better; in that case I urge you to submit your proposals to the IETF or similar bodies. However, you wouldn't be the first to discover they don't have a grasp of the subtle complexity of the problem. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to discover just how complex this really is.

    14. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But tell me how that is different from filtering out spam and why your automated challenges should be any more acceptable to me than outright spam? Both are email I didn't ask for and don't want.

      His challenges (hopefully) won't contain porn, viagra ads, pictures of sex with animals, penis enlargement ads, etc.

      His challenges (hopefully) won't have 50+ bytes of random words just to bypass your spam filter(s).

      His challenges (hopefully) won't try to use symbols to distort words and bypass your spam filter(s).

      His challenges will be appropriate for any age, extremely easy to filter out, and hopefully even small in size. After all, it just needs to say that the sender wasn't in the recipient's whitelist and provide a method to add their name to the list, which could be as simple as following a URL or replying with a specified string of text.

      The real difference is that it can be filtered out. Where as real spam can not, at least not without taking a good chunk of legitimate email along with it. So even people who are against this system and prefer to use the current spam filters won't be bothered by it nearly as much as they're being bothered by real spam.

    15. Re:why not e-stamps? by zemkai · · Score: 1
      You are seeking a 100% solution. This is noble. However, refusing a n% solution (n < 100) simply because it is not a 100% solution is not noble, but silly. Rome wasn't built in a day.

      That said, I abhor the idea of e-postage, and far prefer the "compute this problem" approach.

      -ZK

    16. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We disagree on what we mean by "solution". A "solution" to me is one that makes spammers stop sending. I already explained above why a proposal that shaves a few percent off the spammers' audience (and client-side too, mind, not even at the SMTP level) is no solution at all and may even contribute to the escalation of the problem.

    17. Re:why not e-stamps? by zemkai · · Score: 1
      I view the problem as "spam." When I'm feeling more cranky than usual I view the problem as "number of useless bits taking up my WAN bandwidth."

      If a solution prevents those bits from reaching my system (and therefore using up my pipe), the situation is improved as compared to the status quo.

      Regarding your latest comments:

      A "solution" to me is one that makes spammers stop sending.

      We agree on this. I'm simply willing to reach that goal in more than one step. You don't seem to be.

      ... a proposal that shaves a few percent off the spammers' audience (and client-side too, mind, not even at the SMTP level) is no solution at all ...

      1) Explain why e-postage cannot be added to the MTA. (I'll save us a back-n-forth: ESMTP wasn't part of SMTP either; connection is left as an exercise to the reader)

      2) Explain how something that reduces spammer's audience / reduces use of my bandwidth is "no solution at all."

      ...may even contribute to the escalation of the problem.

      Do you have some basis for this, or is it just a strawman argument?

      -ZK

    18. Re:why not e-stamps? by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      How come the idea of e-stamps is not getting any traction? The concept is that you are assessed a small charge for sending unwanted mail.

      Right now, it's easy to pretend that the email came from someplace else. It's hard to prove who sent the email. Until that problem is solved, trying to charge per-email is just going to force all of the costs on innocents. Spammers are already spoofing my domain in their crap, and I'm not going to pay a per-email charge when they do it to make you happy.

      If you can prove who sent the mail and who didn't, then a whole lot of the spam problem gets very easy, and a per-email charge isn't needed.

      And a per-email charge will kill things like Hotmail, /., Lockergnome, and most mailing lists.

      The "solution" that you suggest would essentially ruin email. I'd like to find a solution to spam, but one that leaves email useless for anyone but marketers sucks.

      I dont see what the technical or social barriers are. For example, it would not require any change in the way mail is transported. Instead it would all be handled by the recipient's browser.

      Browswers are great for, well, browsing. But for email, most of us use email programs.

    19. Re:why not e-stamps? by droleary · · Score: 1

      How come the idea of e-stamps is not getting any traction?

      Because even you aren't pointing anyone to something they can do about it. On the other hand, I'll be happy to point people to X-Mulct.

      The concept is that you are assessed a small charge for sending unwanted mail.

      That's generally a bad idea as stated because it requires a micropayment system, which isn't in place for anything, let alone for an extension to email. X-Mulct instead works on a "macropenalty" system, where I can take the virtual dollar you're sending with your message if I don't like getting mail from you.

    20. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are seeking a 100% solution. This is noble. However, refusing a n% solution (n < 100) simply because it is not a 100% solution is not noble, but silly. Rome wasn't built in a day.

      When n << 100, it's pointless. Get it? I don't see why we need code to talk clearly. I guess easier for the antisocial types. A hint, you could refer to something as a "perfect solution" and a "less than perfect" solution and not sound like a total dork.

    21. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm simply willing to reach that goal in more than one step. You don't seem to be.

      Dunno where you got that from. I'm more than willing to actively do things about this (besides posting on /. ;). I have examined many counter-measures and I use quite a few of them. Many counter-measures mitigate the effects of spam; none of them are a solution.

      1) Explain why e-postage cannot be added to the MTA.

      It could be, but the post I responded to was talking about client-side. I'm sure we agree that the solution won't be client-side. Now you explain to me how you get every SMTP server in the world to implement. How about 90% of them? How about 50%? How about anything more than a tiny fraction of a percent?

      2) Explain how something that reduces spammer's audience / reduces use of my bandwidth is "no solution at all.

      Reducing the audience is vastly different than reducing use of bandwidth. When I talk about "contributing to the problem" I mean that half-arsed measures that merely prevent a few people *seeing* the spam is actually an encouragement for spammers to increase the amount they send. Some people say we're already seeing that, but I have no concrete evidence to support that. But I do know that the levels of spam have increased significantly in the last nine months

    22. Re:why not e-stamps? by jonfelder · · Score: 1

      His challenges also contribute to the problem of bandwidth utilization and storage costs.

      Problems with spam are not just limited to reducing the annoyance to end users. There are real costs associated with spam which are only increased by having a challenge system.

      Furthermore because everyone doesn't use this system, spammers have more of an insentive to send additional messages to try to reach the same number of people as they did before. More spams means more challenge messages...thus you have a significant increase in the amount of bandwidth and storage taken up by spam.

      Finally this doesn't address the fact that while automated challenges are fine for you they are pretty annoying for people trying to reach you. If I were a potential customer I may chose to just ignore the person who forced me to respond to a challenge and go with a competitor who didn't require more work on my part.

    23. Re:why not e-stamps? by zemkai · · Score: 1
      Dunno where you got that from. I'm more than willing to actively do things about this (besides posting on /. ;). I have examined many counter-measures and I use quite a few of them. Many counter-measures mitigate the effects of spam; none of them are a solution.

      I'm beginning to think I might be troll-bait.

      I suggested that a partial solution was better than none, where you seem to see anything less than a complete and perfect solution as no solution. You're response as to your willingness to do something doesn't really address that.

      explain to me how you get every SMTP server in the world to implement. How about 90% of them? How about 50%? How about anything more than a tiny fraction of a percent?

      The same way you get anything new adopted. First you release it as a patch to a few common MTA's. This allows those interested to apply said patches and show proof of concept (or proof of failure, if you choose).

      Next you get it standardized. Depending upon the popularity of the first step, this may or may not be challenging... or even necessary.

      Next, you talk to developers of other MTA's (or active, interested 3rd parties) and encourage or help them to put support into those MTA's as well.

      If the idea is a good one, then eventually (like ESMTP), it will be included in the majority of shipping MTA's... and as the world upgrades to those versions...

      In short, the way that most things get done.

      Reducing the audience is vastly different than reducing use of bandwidth.

      Oh? That sounds like something that could be solved during the research and design phase... for example, if the average spam to / through my user base causes 20K of bandwidth to my server, and I put the challenge / response before accepting the address list or data, and the c/r is 2K in total bandwidth, then I've just reduced the bandwidth by 90%.

      In the spirit of full disclosure, I'll acknowledge that this is the point where you should say "but the spammer doesn't use a c/r compliant MTA, and thus you save nothing." However, the transition to or support of c/r doesn't preclude the use of other systems as backups during the transition period. Two such systems which immediately come to mind are whitelists and alternate challenge / response systems that require sender intervention.

      When I talk about "contributing to the problem" I mean that half-arsed measures that merely prevent a few people *seeing* the spam is actually an encouragement for spammers to increase the amount they send. Some people say we're already seeing that, but I have no concrete evidence to support that.

      You seem a rational person. But rephrasing your contention without providing evidence for it -- and then in the next sentence explicitly stating that you have no concrete evidence to support it -- really doesn't help to convince me.

      Yes spam has increased in the last nine months. Can you correlate this (or some percentage of it) to anti-spam measures?

      Not sure why I'm bothering any longer...

      -ZK

    24. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm beginning to think I might be troll-bait.

      Ah, the old reverse-psychology trick, eh? Check my post history. Or don't. I haven't checked yours, and now I don't need to.

      where you seem to see anything less than a complete and perfect solution as no solution

      You keep accusing me of this, but this is simply not true. Really. Read back through my posts and show me where I say that. I don't : it's all in your head. I'm just not interested in "solutions" that don't work. *At all*. If you were talking about partial solutions, that would be great. But so far you haven't actually offered any solutions, workable or not.

      [Witter about incremental adoption ignored since we need to find a solution before we can adopt it]

      [Fundamental failure to understand how C/R affects bandwidth consumption also ignored]

      Yes spam has increased in the last nine months. Can you correlate this (or some percentage of it) to anti-spam measures?

      Oh for fucks sake! I already said I can't. Spam has increased. Counter measures have increased. Some people say there's a correlation. I don't know whether that's true.

      Not sure why I'm bothering any longer.

      We agree. Please stop. I already have. Nice troll, but I have much more important things to do now. Like, my arse isn't going to scratch itself, is it?

      I am reminded of a sig I once saw : never argue with an idiot; he will drag you down to his level and beat you through experience

    25. Re:why not e-stamps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the long run this will decrease the value of spam. Ergo less spam. Even if this were to double the bandwidth temporarliy this would easily be worth the lack of spam

    26. Re:why not e-stamps? by keytoe · · Score: 1

      How many years has IPv6 been in the works? How many million man-hours of committee time has it already been through? How close are we all to deploying IPv6?
      IPv6 doesn't offer any compelling advantages to the average internet user, whereas anything that cuts down on the amount of spam in their inboxes is worth any inconvenience. The pressure of expansion in the current IPv4 address space doesn't get them pumped up. Penis enlargement advertisements do.

      Er, you know what I mean...
    27. Re:why not e-stamps? by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      His challenges (hopefully) won't contain porn, viagra ads, pictures of sex with animals, penis enlargement ads, etc. His challenges (hopefully) won't have 50+ bytes of random words just to bypass your spam filter(s). His challenges (hopefully) won't try to use symbols to distort words and bypass your spam filter(s).

      So? There's plenty of spam that doesn't contain that particular content, doesn't have random words, nor uses symbols to avoid spam filters. It's still spam and I don't want it.

      His challenges will be appropriate for any age, extremely easy to filter out, and hopefully even small in size.

      It's not the size of the spam that is time-consuming, it is the quantity. And if it's easy for me to filter out then the whole challenge/response system is bogus--if it's easy for me to filter out then what makes you think a legitimate challenge would get through my spam filter?

      The real difference is that it can be filtered out. Where as real spam can not, at least not without taking a good chunk of legitimate email along with it.

      If anything, a challenge is harder to filter out than normal spam. Normal spam is actually VERY easy to filter out with a Bayesian filter. So far this month I'm at 99.92% filtered with 0 false positives. Challenges would be more difficult to filter out because they would be less "spammy." Of course, if I start getting flooded with bogus challenges then all the sudden all challenges are going to look spammy and they'll eventually all get filtered--even the legitimate ones!

      Challenge/response is a non-solution to spam.

    28. Re:why not e-stamps? by stry_cat · · Score: 1
      As long as return addresses can be forged
      This is the real problem. The way email is handled is going to have to be changed so that forged From: headers cannot happen. I'm not even going to pretend to understand how this is going be fixed. Can someone enlighten me?
    29. Re:why not e-stamps? by padark · · Score: 1

      Been done, patents issues accordingly, never took off. How do I know? Tried developing the idea a couple of years back :-)

    30. Re:why not e-stamps? by stickyc · · Score: 1
      I'd offer the example of IPv6. How many years has IPv6 been in the works? How many million man-hours of committee time has it already been through? How close are we all to deploying IPv6?

      I consider myself reasonably tech-savvy and still have no idea why we need to switch to IPv6. I thought the point was to increase the available address space, but that's no longer an issue as everyone's running NATs, rather than eating up public space.

      My point being that there's no "Prevent the end of the world" message attached to IPv6. Wheras if you put up a big sign that says "Upgrade and there will be no more spam", you can bet people would be upgrading in droves.

  33. Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dictionary entry for 'he' Used to refer to a person whose gender is unspecified or unknown.
    Dictionary entry for 'she' [no such thing]

    1. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uh, no. Using "he" as a generic 3rd person pronoun is deprecated, and has been so for a long time. Though I cringe at the thought of women being spammers, and would hope that women would have more sense. :-)

      Note that both your references have notations about generic usage and the problems that arise.

      The least worst I've heard recently is singular "they".

      ...laura

    2. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using "he" as a generic 3rd person pronoun is deprecated

      Umm...no, it's not. Even if it was, there's no replacement for it. Every English scholar shudders at the sight of "he/she" and "they" even moreso.

    3. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      "SHe/it."

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    4. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by taustin · · Score: 1

      Using "he" as a generic 3rd person pronoun is deprecated, and has been so for a long time.

      Maybe on your planet. In the English speaking world, however, it's still common usage.

    5. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not taking advice on English usage from anyone who uses the phrase "least worst".

      "Worst" is definitive and one thing cannot be more or less worst than another.

      Besides the original point made by the poster was incorrect. "He" is and always has been the neuter pronoun in English. See "he" and "she". Oh and while you are there learn about "worst".

    6. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. Using "he" as a generic 3rd person pronoun is deprecated

      What makes you think that "he" is deprecated? Does it say so on the manpage or is that also deprecated in favor of a womanpage?

    7. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      While you're at it, look up irony.

    8. Re:Not just "sounding better", he is correct usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you make up an example, it's ok to use either "he" or "she".

      When you refer to a person whose sex is not known, only "he" is ok. That's what we're talking about. It's not the same thing as making up examples.

  34. Spammers know what they're doing-Jeckell and Hyde. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many of these are victims of outsourcing turned spammer? Your job just went overseas, and all you have to look forward to is Walmart, and Fast Food. Spamming looks positively glowing by comparison. And it provides a "challenge" any geek couldn't resist.

  35. SpamAssassin makes me not care by jbs0902 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I know it is selfish, but SpamAssassin does such a good job of killing of my spam, especially with Bayan (sp?) filtering, that I no longer care about spam. It eats up some bandwidth, but I have so few email addresses and emails are so small, I'll accept it.

    Now my main concern is not getting rooted (or the equiv').

    1. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it also make's not care about RTFA?

    2. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by Tripster · · Score: 1

      While SpamAssassin works well I am finding it is starting to miss more and more, this always happens until a new version comes out which catches most and then slowly drops off as spammers figure out ways around it.

      The spam problem is getting worse, I MRTG my local ISPs incoming mail server I built for them, it basically runs all mail through SA and virus checking. The graphs don't lie, incoming spam is growing at an alarming rate.

      We're already looking at doing TDMA next and offering that to the users, with a domain name that has existed since 1996 and users using that since then as well there is a lot of incoming junk, more than we like to see.

      The spammers use of the trojaned network is making it impossible to fight them right now, we already use RBLs of dynamic addresses with some success but there are still a ton of unlisted cable/dsl boxes.

      We recently tried requiring reverse DNS just as AOL started doing, well today we had to drop that requirement as it was causing too much blocked mail due to bonehead admins not having reverse lookup setup yet, apparently none of their users email AOL.com but do contact our little 1400 user ISP.

      If we use reverse DNS and the RBLs we are turning away 75% of the connecting smtp sessions.

      A competing ISP locally has started using SA at the smtp level, you score more than 6 and they don't accept the message.

    3. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I know it is selfish...I no longer care about spam

      Not selfish. The word you want is stupid. Your attitude is equivalent to saying you don't care about massive water pollution because you've got a really good personal filtering system that can make a small amount of drinking water safe, so you don't care about pollution, say, killing crops.

      The problem with spam is that it is threatening to overwhelm the basic infrastructure of the net.

    4. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by enjo13 · · Score: 1

      What a terrible attitude.

      Think about this, while spam is a minor annoyance for you.. for some of us it is EXPENSIVE. As part of my job I maintain my companies customer support software. We provide e-mail support, and are currently running into HUGE problems with spam. For every 10 legitimate support requests we receive, we probably receive an additional 4 or 5 spam e-mails. For us 1 false positive is simply not tolerable, so our spam filtering can't be very aggressive.

      I have a few methods of dealing with this (challenge response on messages marked as spam by our filters is the most effective), but it's taken a lot of time (and therefore $$$) and time to resolve it. In the end this makes our products more expensive, and takes me away from adding new product features and providing better support for our customers.

      Spam sucks...period.

      --
      Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
    5. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that if we all had really good personal filtration devices for spam, it really would clean up the internet. Unlike the Hudson, which isn't worried about whether your filter works.

    6. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by sootman · · Score: 1

      As much as I would like to use my mod points on the score:0 answer also replying to you, I would like to point out that not all of us have the strength and time to fight the good fight against spam. Besides, since the opponents are a) well financed, b) already doing illegal stuff, and c) often foreign, the question is, what can we really do? I'd rather try to drag Bill Gates into court than a Romanian spammer. I have no problem at all with any individual who declares that he will ignore the world's spam problem and will instead focus his energy on feeding his family, going to school, saving the whales, shooting pool, or however else he wants to spend his time. We can't all be activists, and even if we could, we can't all be activists for the same cause. Besides, why *should* he devote his energy to figting spam when the ones in control of the Internet--ISPs--sell bandwidth to spammers? No reason to stick your fingers in the dike when an ISP is using a firehose to blow water over the top of it. Fighting SPAM would be 1000% easier if we had buy-in from ISPs.

      So, I'd drop the "stupid" back to "selfish." Speaking of which, what exactly are you doing for water quality in your area? And the homeless? Are you a crossing guard at your local elementary school? Pick up litter from the roadways? Adopt a couple foster kids, maybe? Ring a bell for the Salvation Army this holiday season? Donate blood? Have you gone to the Red Cross and been CPR certified? I'm not ragging on you, I'm just pointing out that there's lots that could be done (many things, I'd say, more important than fighting SPAM) and I'd never berate someone for choosing not to help any particular cause.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    7. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by Grimwiz · · Score: 1

      When you fight spam with spamassassin you can submit fingerprints fo the spam to a central database that allows more spam to be identified.
      This way you help the global community.

      --
      -- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think
    8. Re:SpamAssassin makes me not care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most stupid Windows admins think that reverse DNS makes you susceptible to SPAM. Its because most Windows admins simply don't understand DNS. And they're stupid.

  36. Finally! by fsmunoz · · Score: 3, Funny

    First spam, then the Empire! Finally Portugal is regaining it's place! Seaway to India, you say? Do I ear Brazil? Was that "Eastern Empire" sir? Bollocks! It all fades away compared to the might of SBTF.NET!

    On a more serious note, the telephone contact given in the RIPE lookup is a bogus one (lacks one number to be a valid portuguese phone number), the "Rua do Norte" street doesn't exist in Lisbon and SBTF isn't listed in any portuguese site that deals with companies registration.

    Some say "bad publicity is good publicity"... I would rather not have my country mentioned by these particular reasons.

    But... the guy reporting it is from Spain... this could be some devious plot to, er, something. ;)

    cheers

    1. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, from my vantage point here in the UK, they were indeed a "great empire". Whatever the episode regarding Maldivians you are refering is it is absolutely incidental since Portugal, during a certain period in time, had both the Atlantic and Indic Ocean under control with most of the major cities completely taken...and with a population no exceeding 1 million people... and for several centuries.

      It began to decline under attack from the Dutch and us Brits during the period it was under a "One King, Two Crowns" thing with bloody Spain, but after that short period it managed to keep the "empire" until 1975 IIRC... Macao was lost in 1998 or so.

      I'm not debating if an Empire is "a good thing", as it were, but that Portugal had one, and a very impressive one if I might add, that's obvious. Food for tought...

      (Warning: Portugal is England's oldest Ally and, as such, I could be biased, but in this articular case I seriously doubt so; if anything I'm failing too fully convey the importance of it).

  37. Re:Microsoft vs *nix by frankie · · Score: 1
    Microsoft biggest promoter of viruses. *nix biggest promoter of SPAM

    Nope. Windows is the master of both of those domains, thanks to the power of spam-trojan viruses.

    This article is interesting because it was a PHP exploit on a *nix/Apache box, but Windows is where the big-time spammers do their R00Ting.
  38. Re:Offtopic I know... by Saige · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm embarassed to admit it, but I've been watching that show. I taped it last night, because I was busy elsewhere, and planned on watching it tonite to see what happens. After all, who would spoil the results of a show like that on a place like Slashdot? I figured nobody would.

    BUT SOMEONE HAS TO GO AND POST A DAMN OFFTOPIC MESSAGE IN A CONVERSATION AND RUIN IT FOR ME! WTF are you doing??? Where's an army carrying clue-by-fours when you need them?

    --
    "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
  39. spamtools by AeiwiMaster · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hi

    I have made an eigenpoll
    to find the best spamtools.

    First ranking the tools you know,
    the it runs some data minning and find the best tool.

    Right now the list looks like.

    sa-exim
    Outclass
    Mail Scanner
    spamprobe
    POPFile
    SpamBayes
    SpamAssass in
    Vipul's Razor
    Blackmail
    bogofilter
    Infinospam
    Spamthis
    Shovel
    SpamBouncer
    Declude JunkMail
    spamhole

    1. Re:spamtools by TheSync · · Score: 1

      What about TMDA? I find it to be the best.

    2. Re:spamtools by AeiwiMaster · · Score: 1

      You can also add new tools to the eigenpoll.

    3. Re:spamtools by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Is the typo in your sig a joke or an example?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  40. how to fix the problem by Brandon+T. · · Score: 5, Informative
    You can fix this problem by catching attempts to modify the $GEEKLOG_DIR file via get or post methods at the top of the gallery/classes/geeklog/User.php file. Insert this line:
    if (isset($_GET['GEEKLOG_DIR']) ||
    isset($_POST['GEEKLOG_DIR'])||
    isset($_SESSION['GEEKLOG_DIR']))
    die('nice try buddy.');
    }
    The $GEEKLOG_DIR variable is actually set at the end of the gallery init file, so it should not be coming from any other directories. This is another example of why it's bad to leave register_globals on, as the whole problem could have been avoided otherwise.
    1. Re:how to fix the problem by Luckster7 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how you're going to get bad data into $_SESSION, I think you really mean to check the $_COOKIE array. Fornatually, there's a simplier way to check all requested variables:

      if ($_REQUEST['GEEKLOG_DIR']) die('nice try buddy.');

      --
      Deuteronomy 13:06-9
    2. Re:how to fix the problem by Vantage13 · · Score: 1

      or just turn off register_globals which shouldn't be on anyway...

    3. Re:how to fix the problem by James_G · · Score: 3, Informative
      This is another example of why it's bad to leave register_globals on, as the whole problem could have been avoided otherwise.

      Except.. it wouldn't have, in this case at least. Gallery works with register_globals turned off, I just checked.. but then I noticed the code (this is in init.php if anyone wants to check):

      if (!$gallery->register_globals) {
      if (is_array($HTTP_GET_VARS)) {
      extract($HTTP_GET_VARS);
      }

      if (is_array($HTTP_POST_VARS)) {
      extract($HTTP_POST_VARS);
      }

      The extract() function basically takes everything from the _GET and _POST arrays and dumps them straight into the appropriate variables, which is exactly what register_globals does. Whether it was turned on or off, you would still be able to pollute the $GEEKLOG_DIR variable via get/post. This is a pretty braindead piece of coding right here, and makes me a little worried about using gallery. I hope they plan to fix this in the future.

    4. Re:how to fix the problem by Otto · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They added hack prevention code to a lot of gallery way back when.. My init.php has similar code to what you posted, but it also has this at the top:

      $sensitiveList = array("gallery", "GALLERY_BASEDIR");
      foreach ($sensitiveList as $sensitive) {
      if (!empty($HTTP_GET_VARS[$sensitive]) ||
      !empty($HTTP_POST_VARS[$sensitive]) ||
      !empty($HTTP_COOKIE_VARS[$sensitive]) ||
      !empty($HTTP_POST_FILES[$sensitive])) {
      print "Security violation\n";
      exit;
      }
      }

      Essentially, it's just checking key variables like "GALLERY_BASEDIR" to make sure that they're not set in the input. If they are, it suicides. Any variable which is dangerous they can then simply add to that array at the beginning of the file.
      --
      - 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.
  41. How much $$$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    does anyone know how much money a spammer makes? can it really be worth all the effort?

    1. Re:How much $$$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pull down about $15k a month...

  42. Need to block port 25 all over by penthouseplayah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In my dorm we have blocked port 25 from LAN to internet. It was thought to keep viruses from propagating from out network and keep people from setting up a spamserver. Now it looks like a very good decision. (they can actually only use our DMZ smtp gateway, which is antivirus protected).

    All ISP or the like should block port 25 outbound by default, and make people use the smtp server of the ISP. If people (1 out of 10.000) would like to use port 25 outbound, they should contact the ISP through a bureaucratic procedure. That would close the trojan hole at least.

    Are there any other ports (priviledged/unpriviledged) that one can safely block to avoid trojans and the like???

    1. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To do that ISPs need to allow SMTP authenticated users to send e-mail with any domain name attached.

      I have to run my own e-mail server, because Comcast (my cable modem provider) doesn't allow me to send outgoing e-mails with my real e-mail address, its go to be @comcast.net or whatever their domain is.

      If they block port 25, e-mail is effectively shut off for me as a usable technology on the Internet, and I'll be stuck either having to tunnel the e-mail to someone who doesn't have it blocked, or change ISPs.

    2. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by taustin · · Score: 1

      Comcast is run by retards. Buy service from retards, you're likely to get retarded service.

    3. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by taustin · · Score: 1

      So long as they are reasonable about opening up ports on request, I would agree. As someone else noted, they also have to have reasonable policies set up on using their own SMTP server, and that server needs to work. And should have virus scanning of some kind on it.

      As to other ports, 137-139 should simply be blocked, period, with no exceptions. They are used only by Windows networking, and should be non-routable across the entire internet. There is no excuse for them ever being open to the internet. If you need to use those ports, you need to be using some kind of VPN tunnel.

    4. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. Block my outbound port 25 and I'll gladly cancel my ISP account. If you think I want to pass all my mail through Time Warner's mail server so their middle managers can read it and not just the guys running the hops, you're smoking crack. Some of us like the internet to function as advertised, thank you very much.

    5. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by michaelhood · · Score: 0

      I live in Orange County, Calif. and have Cox' cable service. They have blocked outbound 25, and I contacted their sysadmins and kindly requested that it be opened for me, and explained that I needed it so that I could use my office's SMTP servers. They told me it could not be done. Physically. I explained to them that it could, and even offered to provide the IOS commands. =) Needless to say, even though I remained diplomatic throughout the experience, I couldn't get it open.

      Now I run tcpsg, to forward port 24 to 25. It can be found in the FreeBSD ports collection.

    6. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by kableh · · Score: 1

      RoadRunner won't even answer my emails asking them to stop blocking incoming HTTP. I'm supposed to trust those asshats with some procedure to allow me to send email from my server?

      Not trying to blast you, but ISPs blocking ports really pisses me off. I'm paying for internet access dammit, so stop breaking Internet Protocol!

    7. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by taustin · · Score: 1

      I live in Orange County, CA, too. Get a real ISP. Seriously. Cox is run by idiots. It's hard to imagine they lied to you, because they'd have to know how full of shit they were to realize they were lying.

      Why on earth are you using Cox? Do you enjoy the pain?

    8. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its already going this way IMO. We'll eventually be in a world where instead of a black list of ports at ISP/NSP routers we'll have a white list (consisting of http and https only in the extreme case).

      Is this bad? Maybe not... all the orgs I've set up networking for are fine with the policy of an inbound whitelist, and frequently an outbound one as well.

      The biggest nets I run/ran (couple of hundred hosts in one case) block inbound/outbound port 25 except on blessed internal IP's and it has never been a problem: even in a lab org full of s/w engineers with lots of pet projects. Saying its OK to get port 25 if you want it quenched all complaints -- and not too surprisingly after thinking about exposing their pet projects to the net at large, very few actually wanted it. This of course means having a non-broken SMTP relay for outbound traffic (which isn't that hard).

      Personally if I can make SSH work to any random IP (somehow) almost everything else doesn't matter -- assuming normal services like http/https/smtp are somehow managed upstream and don't suck.

    9. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by Ronny+Cook · · Score: 1
      The ISPs can't really do this. Sure it's technically possible, but any ISP of nontrivial size will cut its own throat if it forces all customers to relay through a common server.

      Consider:

      • Outgoing email from the ISP will all have a common source IP address. (Or will come from a pool of common addresses.)
      • The ISP has no way of knowing that somebody is a spammer when they initially sign up. There will be a lag of a couple of days before they find out (if anybody tells them.)
      • There is no reliable way to automatically detect outgoing spam. By "reliable" I mean *no* false positives and no false negatives.
      • Some anti-spam block lists will add you if you fail a single check and all removals are processed manually.
      The net effect of this is that if *one* of your customers spams (or their system is abused as an open relay, or is compromised in a manner such as the article describes), then *all* of your customers will be blocked from sending email to those using these block lists. With no fixed timetable as to when the removal will occur, even if the problem is fixed immediately.

      There were about twenty block lists last time I looked. If I find out about a spammer the instant they are added to a block list and if I can remove somebody from one block list per minute, that's still an average of ten minutes that my entire customer base is being blocked. In practice the delays are much larger than that.

      So the ISP has to set up a *very* good mail relay, which costs money. Then a single spammer can cause all of their email to selected sites to be blocked.

      In the ISP business this is known as "unreliable service" and with Internet access being a commodity market it's a good way to go broke.

      If you can think of a reliable way around these issues there's a lot of ISPs who would like to talk to you. Once you can set up an SMTP relay and be certain that the sins of one customer won't cause all of them to be blocked, forcing use of the relay is easy (it's just a transparent redirect). Unfortunately this is a case where one anti-spam measure (the relay block lists) renders another unusable.

      Allowing customers to send email directly may result in *their* address being banned, but at least it doesn't affect *other* customers.

      Incidentally, most ISPs do *not* want spammers on their network. They chew up disproportionate amounts of bandwidth, they get your servers banned (which can affect your other customers) and they cause a stream of complaints that must be handled manually. All of this means that unless the spammer is offering you a *lot* of money they're just not worth it.

      Unfortunately the sales people who accept the contracts with such people in the first place tend to be clueless about such things. :-( But spammers are rare enough that such "offers" are rare.

    10. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by michaelhood · · Score: 0

      Shrug. Just moved out here from Columbus, Ohio. Didn't know of any cable alternatives. I have absolutely no complaints about the service thus far. They screwed it up when they connected my cable TV service, but I've had 0 downtime since. Great speeds. I had Time Warner (RoadRunner) in Ohio, and thats not available here, so.. what do you recommend? I'm not in a contract.

    11. Re:Need to block port 25 all over by taustin · · Score: 1

      what do you recommend?

      If you want to run a server, DSL. www.dslextreme.com is a good start. If you local phone company is SBC, it will suck, but there's nothing to be done about that.

  43. Hah! by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 1, Funny

    I knew it all the time, Apache and Unix servers are among the most vulnerable on the planet. This could never happen to trusty old Windows boxen.

    ...oh, wait...

  44. gotta be an easier way to... by martin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) make money (or is spamming that easy?)
    2) get my rc control car that gives me a reduced mortgage, life insurance and 'elongates' my love life :-)

    More seriously, the education needs to be for the people who buy off these people. If people stop using the 'services' then the spammers will move onto some other way of making money.

    1. Re:gotta be an easier way to... by mabu · · Score: 1

      gotta be an easier way make money (or is spamming that easy?)


      1. Spamming is NOT profitable. That is, for the most part a myth in the industry, just like the myth that anyone can chuck up an adult site and make tons of cash.

      Spammers are the same dorks who would otherwise be hawking Herbalife, Shaklee or other MLM scams (and most cases still do) and are always looking for "easy money". If you notice, one of the mantras of MLM is to "look successful" and to preach to everyone else that what you're doing makes big bucks, but it almost never does. The same goes for spammers spewing crap about how rich they are. It's an illusion.

      If spamming were really profitable people would stay in the business longer. They don't. If spamming were profitable, there would be lots of big companies doing it, but there isn't. Spamming is an extension of all the get-rich-quick schemes using new technology.

      More than a hundred years of MLM scams still hasn't demonstrated to people that these schemes don't work, but people still buy into it? Because they're morons with short attention spans and questionable work ethics.

      2. Spamming CAN be easy, which is why many morons get into it.

      Many of these people creating this elaborate spam technology are likely the same nerds who would otherwise be spending a month trying to wire up a toaster to their LAN. Just because it's hi-tech doesn't mean that it's profitable or worthwhile.

      3. SOME people in the spam business make money. You could say *indirectly* "spamming makes money" but like MLM, the money to be made isn't in the actual product/service, but in hoodwinking unsuspecting n00bs into thinking that the money they pay for spam services will be effective. Likewise, these spammers pay good money for network resources and programming services to augment their abilities, so some money does change hands, but for the most part, 99.9% of the spammers don't make any money, and if they do, it's really only money at the expense of stolen bandwidth and network resources so it's more like stealing that actually generating revenue.
  45. TMDA (was:Bad getting worse...) by zenspider · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've gotten a few of those and always attributed it to a legitimate TMDA triggered by the newer breeds of email viruses that set the from: to be someone else from the addressbook (ie, me).

  46. Interesting, but... by grahamtriggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's first of all say I am no fan of spam. In fact, I hate it. All spammers - and virus writers - should be strung up and subjected to some real virii.

    However, some of these statistics are possibly obscuring reality. For example, let's take Messagelabs anti-spam service. Until recently, all emails from WorldPay - receipts, etc. - were marked as spam. All the traffic on an email discussion list that I have signed up for are marked as spam. Some commercial email notification lists that I have signed up for (ie. Maplin offers) are marked as spam.

    But none of those emails *are* spam. Admittedly, some spam emails do get through without being flagged. So maybe it's a bit 'swings and roundabouts'. And regardless, the situation is pretty depressing anyway.

    One thing I have been thinking about - and just wondering whether it should be entered as an Ask Slashdot item - are some of the 'cures' as bad as the problem itself?

    I work on biology / medicine journals websites, and we offer a number of automatic notification and general update services. Note that these are *not* spam - they are requested by individuals by signing up on the website - and instructions are given in every email in how to remove yourself from the list. And they are a very valuable service to many people that do choose to receive them. Yet it only takes 1 person to not bother to read or follow the removal instructions, or otherwise hit some other temporary (accidental) issue that holds up their removal, and then submit it to a blacklist service to bugger things up for many other people.

    So where is the regulation on the blacklist services? Where is the ability for *genuine* (provably genuine) companies to register their services in such a way that rather than getting blacklisted immediately, they have the opportunity to respond to the issue raised? Is this a small or large price to pay to partially stem the tide of actual spam?

    1. Re:Interesting, but... by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So where is the regulation on the blacklist services?

      The market regulates it. A blacklist that is too aggressive doesn't get used. It's really that simple. If your ISP blocks stuff you don't want blocked, compalin to them, or switch. If someone's blocking your mail, it's up to them to complain to their ISP. If they don't, they obviously don't object.

      Where is the ability for *genuine* (provably genuine) companies to register their services in such a way that rather than getting blacklisted immediately, they have the opportunity to respond to the issue raised?

      Most mail admins don't give a flying fuck whether you are a "genuine" company or not. I got spammed relentlessly by American Express, until I block their entire IP block until the heat death of the universe. If you don't want to be blocked, don't spem. It's not that difficult. Really.

    2. Re:Interesting, but... by c_dog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only problem that I can see in your solution is that "genuine" is usually validated for the deepest pocket...meaning that if you have the money to spend to "legitimize" your "marketing" efforts, you will *never* be blacklisted. To get a working example of this, look no further than the exemptions identified in the US Do-Not-Call List.

    3. Re:Interesting, but... by onomatomania · · Score: 1

      Here's something for you to consider: Unless your email services use closed-loop a.k.a. confirmed opt-in then you're a spammer. Why? Consider the case of some random party entering my email address in your handy little web form. Unless your system first confirms my email address (with a unique token that must be acknowledged) then I'll eventually be receiving crap from you that I do not wish to receive, and you are thus a spammer. It is not a question of IF this will ever happen, but when. People mistype email addresses, or make up ones they think are invalid. Or, they maliciously sign up some third party on every web form they can find. It happens. If your system does not deal with it properly by confirming every email address then you're a spammer, plain and simple, and you deserve to be blacklisted when it happens. It doesn't matter if you had the best of intentions, or if your messages contain removal instructions in 23 languages. Spam is not about content, it's about consent.

    4. Re:Interesting, but... by Brooks+Davis · · Score: 1

      Where is the ability for *genuine* (provably genuine) companies to register their services in such a way that rather than getting blacklisted immediately, they have the opportunity to respond to the issue raised? Is this a small or large price to pay to partially stem the tide of actual spam?

      Bonded Sender might do what you want.

      --
      -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
  47. The Marketer is Responsible Too by supersmike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you received an ad in the mail for my product and the ad was contaminated with anthrax, wouldn't I be liable? Maybe not if I told you I used a mail service to send my ad, and that they must have done the contaminating, but at the bare minimum, I would be expected to fess up as to who the mailer is. If I didn't know who the mailer was (blind credit card form or somesuch) I might be guilty of negligence - at least I'll bet a civil suit would say so, because someone has to be blamed for the contamination. Spam may not be anthrax, but there is a conceivable case for liability if we went after the marketers, no?

    1. Re:The Marketer is Responsible Too by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • If you received an ad in the mail for my product and the ad was contaminated with anthrax, wouldn't I be liable?

      It's not quite like that. When you receive spam that has legal contents, you are not receiving "anthrax". The spam was maybe at some point transferred by illegal means (hijacked computer), but you have know way of knowing that for sure.

      If it was your computer that was hijacked, and you could intercept the spam and show what spam was being transmitted through your computer, perhpas then you could go after the company advertised in the spam.

      Of course assuming you have the motivation and money to get involved in such a lawsuit... They will claim innosense, being exploited by evil overseas marketing company that actually sent the spams, and they don't have any money anyway if you win...

      So it's not easy, and it's not cheap. It could be even dangerous to you or your family, if the spammer has connections to organized crime...
  48. Time to get serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how long before people start having to "strike back". This guy got as far as finding out the master server; just imagine, for a moment, what he could have found had he turned the table and rooted the master server. He probably would be able to trace back all the way to the culprit.

    I'm not saying this should be done; I'm just saying this will be done, sooner or later, by someone who got fed up enough. And that will mean the end of the Internet as we know it, since the spammers will react violently to the strike back, turning the whole net into a gigantic game.

    1. Re:Time to get serious? by exhilaration · · Score: 1
      since the spammers will react violently to the strike back, turning the whole net into a gigantic game

      Good, then maybe the "authorities" will start paying attention. Until Amazon or Microsoft get hurt, the FBI will continue to play dumb.

    2. Re:Time to get serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will react violently to the ones striking back. Which will leave the computers they hacked into and used to attack each other, and computers near these, looking like a war zone.

      But unless one of the sides is dumb enough to try to use Amazon's or Microsoft's network as one of their bases, I doubt they would be directly affected (I know rule 3, but spammers doesn't seem to be playing dumb anymore).

  49. Re:Offtopic I know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on...you couldn't guess the outcome after watching her swoon over that other jerkoff for over half the series? The guy from NY deserved more fomr her anyway...she's obviously a trick-ass hoe.

  50. Do-it-yourself blacklist? by pjack76 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Here's an idea, tell me why it won't work. :)

    Instead of having one mail server for your home or organization, you have two. Except one is secretly useless. It just blackholes everything that's sent to it.

    You buy another domain and list the blackhole as the MX record for the new domain.

    You sign up for a bunch of email marketing lists using addresses from the blackhole domain.

    Everything that gets sent to the blackhole server is by definition spam.

    The blackhole server also runs DNS. You set your real mail server's RBL DNS to point to the blackhole server.

    Every time the blackhole server accepts a connection on port 25, the blackhole server immediately drops the connection (so no wasted bandwidth) and updates DNS with the originator's IP address.

    You now have your own local blacklist, you don't have to trust somebody elses. Keep a log, if somebody bitches about it you can say "Well, somebody sent spam to my blackhole server on this date at this time from your IP. Suffer".

    You'd have to combine it with a whitelist to let Yahoo and Hotmail and so on through, but you'd still kill a lot of spam.

    Thoughts?

    --

    Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor

    1. Re:Do-it-yourself blacklist? by HornyBastard · · Score: 1

      You sign up for a bunch of email marketing lists using addresses from the blackhole domain.

      You asked for it, it's not SPAM.(If they sell your address, then it you start getting SPAM.)

      You'd have to combine it with a whitelist to let Yahoo and Hotmail and so on through, but you'd still kill a lot of spam.

      I don't think a webmail interface is very good for sending bulk email, or do they now offer SMTP relays?

      --
      Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
    2. Re:Do-it-yourself blacklist? by schon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's an idea, tell me why it won't work.

      OK, but remember, you did ask.

      First of all: what you envision is nothing new. It's called a 'spamtrap'.

      The most important thing is that it relies on security through obscurity - as soon as the spamtrap addresses become known, they're useless (and can actually be used to fsck you up.) If you think this won't happen, I urge you to read the article - this spam machine isn't stupid, and will find your spamtrap addresses faster than you think.

      Every time the blackhole server accepts a connection on port 25, the blackhole server immediately drops the connection (so no wasted bandwidth) and updates DNS with the originator's IP address.

      Pretty simple - anyone who knows the spamtrap address(es) can now DOS your legitimate mail server by sending mail to your spamtrap. (I realize you noted this, but included only Yahoo and Hotmail.)

      Spammers get your spamtrap address, they have infected machines on many different ISPs, so they send mail to your spamtrap using those ISPs' (again) legitimate mail server.

      Congratulations, you have just stopped receiving email from every ISP on the planet.

    3. Re:Do-it-yourself blacklist? by pjack76 · · Score: 1
      Yup, and that's why I asked, I figured it was all so obvious. Thanks for clarifying...

      Somebody else think of something that will work please. :)

      --

      Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor

    4. Re:Do-it-yourself blacklist? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      A lot of the 409 scammers employ people for very little money to manually copy and paste scam email text into hotmail and yahoo accounts.

      So it's just fine for sending bulk when people only cost $5/day.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    5. Re:Do-it-yourself blacklist? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Don't drop the connection. Tarpit.

      Also, if spammers are using distributed networks of hijacked computers, you might get the same spam from two different systems. It might be worthwhile to collect the full text of the spam you get on your tarpit machine so that you can use the hashes to identify spam sent via other methods.

      (None of these are new ideas of course.)

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    6. Re:Do-it-yourself blacklist? by Technician · · Score: 1

      You'd have to combine it with a whitelist to let Yahoo and Hotmail and so on through, but you'd still kill a lot of spam.

      No I wouldn't! I don't have any family members using it. Killing that and letting everyone know why is great. My dad is no longer on MSN. He received too much SPAM on a new account. It's easy to convince these people to get a real ISP if they want to use e-mail.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  51. Deprecated for a long time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But 'he' is what Obi-Wan Kenobi uses in Attack of the Clones, a year 2002 movie.

    1. Re:Deprecated for a long time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also set in the past, genius.

      Though I disagree with it being deprecated.

  52. OK. who's behind this? by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let's dig a bit. As usual, we ignore where the spam came from, and concentrate on where the money goes.

    The spam contains ads for the "Asta Design Group", which has been widely spamvertized. A bit of searching turns up this address:

    • SeafishNET and the Asta Design Group
      360 NE 49 St
      Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA 33334
      E-mail: seafish1@ix.netcom.com

    Another lead gives us

    • The documents and information on this Web site are copyrighted materials of SeafishNET, Asta Designs and its information providers.... "SeafishNET" and the SeafishNET logo are registered trademarks of SeafishNET.
    • SeafishNET
      360 NE 49 St.
      Oakland Park, Florida 33334 USA
      (954) 351-7961
      seafish1@ix.netcom.com

    Same address and zip code, but in Oakland Park, a Ft. Lauderdale neighborhood. Now we have a phone number. Google gives us

    • Charles Fish, (954) 351-7961, 360 NE 49th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334

    Checking the satellite imagery, that's a tract house backing up to a six-lane highway. It's not a mailbox service.

    Since we're talking about felony computer intrusion here, that's the address to give the cops. This may or may not be the intruder, but they probably know who it is.

    1. Re:OK. who's behind this? by bmsleight · · Score: 2, Funny
      Why not phone him to ask him if he is responsible for the spam. Also stealing someones paid bandwidth.

      Please do not all call Mr Charles Fish at once we do not want him being /.ed. One at a time please ....

      Add to Mailing lists Charles Fish, (954) 351-7961, 360 NE 49th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334

    2. Re:OK. who's behind this? by subterranean · · Score: 1

      I agree that you have to follow the money, but why start at the end of the chain when you can start at the beginning? Make it a crime to sell harvested email addresses for the purpose of spamming. I would like to see a spam paraphernalia dealer take Tommy Chong's place in the clink.

    3. Re:OK. who's behind this? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1
      Well, now you have my interest, never mind moderating. I just reorganized my backups from my *personal* workstation, and last year's email totalled 795 megs in tar.gz format. Mind you, my ISP is a local mom-n-pop dial-up provider; I use linux.

      What I'd like to know is how you track all that info down; sure, I use "host" , "dig", and "traceroute" sometimes. Nmap is useful when I get *really* pissed. Problem is, literally 95% of my email is spam because I don't buy that "marketing partners" BS. Also, it seems to always come from repeat offenders munging the subject, etc.

      Looks like you used some type of business records. So, how do you find all that out? I've got a *big* list of names to check, and a few weeks of time... thx in advance.

      --
      C|N>K
    4. Re:OK. who's behind this? by SaneLane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One thing interesting to me is that the English used in some of the log messages and other bits of this distributed SPAM system were very obviously written by someone for whom English is a second language. There wasn't enough of it to guess what their native language is, and their English is pretty good, avoiding the common mistakes that usually give away the type of native language.

      Given the the German and Russian addresses, I would not at all be surprised if the distributed SPAM software was written by someone in Russia on contract to (paid by) some SPAM company in the U.S. Or perhaps it was written by a foreign national residing in the USA -- like this "Charles Fish" fellow.

      Of course, the SPAM regulation law that Congress just passed is almost useless. It never declares or makes SPAM illegal. It just requires spammers to not forge addresses and silly things like that.

      I think every corporate IT administrator or geek of another sort should repeatedly emphasize how much time and money is being lost to SPAM until the big corporations really put the pressure on world governments to make SPAM flat out illegal. That won't stop it, but it will give the folks fighting it some legal teeth with which to chomp on the culprits when they can be cornered.

    5. Re:OK. who's behind this? by Animats · · Score: 1
      It's not like it's rocket science. Mostly I just used Google.

      I did look in US trademarks. One page claimed "Asta Design" and "SeafishNET" were registered trademarks. They're not. Nor is either business registered as a Florida corporation. Nor are they in Dun and Bradstreet.

      There are many ways to trace businesses. When you put a credit card number in, a transaction record pops out at your bank. That lets you follow the money. Any site that accepts credit cards can be tracked in this way.

  53. How do you know if your box has been compromised by wiskydelta · · Score: 1

    and is being used as a spam generator

  54. Spam rate is going up? This is newas? :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloodgate spam stats - see for yourself...

    Cheers!

  55. What can we learn? by Isomer · · Score: 1

    What can we learn from this in our attempts to cut down the amount of spam we get? Well, one thing I learnt was that spammers are testing which mail addresses are rejected, and presumably not wasting their time on them. So if you prevent a spammer from sending mail to you (via ESMTP replies), then they are likely to (eventually) remove you from their lists.

    What other things can we learn from this?

  56. Only way to fix spam by tobybuk · · Score: 1

    I've gone from maybe 10 spams a week to over 140 a day in the last year. It's a joke! I only get 5 or 6 real emails a day. I don't care what new geek ideas get invented, RFC's published or laws get passed. The ONLY way to stop this cancer is to make sending an email COST. FULL STOP. My la-la ears are on until you all agree with me ;)

  57. Illegal to look at someone's email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You know I was just thinking about this. Is it illegal to look at someone's email in the US? Some wiretap like law or something? If so, detecting a spam bot on your system has to be done a different way. And if it is connecting to another smtp server your should not be looking that that either under US law? No?

    I'm just thinking ahead, if a spammer is brought to court and stuff gets thrown out cause it was obtained by "illegal" means.

    1. Re:Illegal to look at someone's email? by RY · · Score: 1

      For the government/law enforcement to do it may be illegal with out a warrant.

      For a network administrator it is completely legal to monitor networks for problems, investigate, respond and fix to the problem.

      Case law supports network administrators monitoring their networks/computers. if illegal activity is found and the admin turns the evidence over to the police, the evidence is admissible in court.

    2. Re:Illegal to look at someone's email? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea but isn't illegal to actually look at someone's email?

      I saw this in dsniff's mailsnarf's info:

      mailsnarf- a fast and easy way to violate the Electronic Communications Act of 1986(18 USC 2701-2711), be careful.

    3. Re:Illegal to look at someone's email? by RY · · Score: 1

      I can't remember which case it was.
      The case dealt with child porn via email. One of the emails got stuck in a queue. The net admin opened the email to view the header info to find out why it was stuck in the queue. The admin saw the porn and turned it in to the police.
      The defence was that the admin was Illegal in the viewing of the email. The court found that the discovery and viewing of the email was legal because it was within the admins scope of legitimate diagnostics. The case ended with the defendant becoming inmate.

      18 USC 1030 is more appropriate in this case. The spammer has no expectation of privacy on a system or network that is being illegally accessed. The admin has complete standing to monitor all trafic on his/her network.(I hope that they wrote that in their internal user agreement) With the intrusion being on an email server it falls under interstate commerce the spammer can say hello to USC 1030. Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers.

      Throw on theft of services etc etc.

      Maybe the admin can get a conviction in a criminal case if a competent prosecutor can be found.

  58. Now if they'd only do something with the feedback! by mercuryresearch · · Score: 1

    I had always wondered if the spammers actually kept track of whether the mail was actually sent successfully or not. My guess was they didn't, because I have users on my domain that have been gone five years, returning 550 responses the entire time, still getting the same spam they attempt to send to me.

    So now we know they're checking this. Obviously they're not using it to change their lists -- so possibly it must be part of the billing side (ie only pay for mails that get successfully delivered.)

    Semi-related unsolicited free plug for open-source spam control:

    I recently switched from agressive DNSBL spam control to ASSP, a bayesian filter that proxies your mail server. It stopped all those virus-infected zombie mails that were getting through the DNSBLs dead in their tracks (pardon the pun). I can't recommend ASSP highly enough. http://assp.sourceforge.net/

  59. Hatred of DJB by ErikTheRed · · Score: 2, Informative

    I haven't met the guy and tend to hold him in reasonably high regard based on what I've read of his writings on the Internet. That being said, he appears to be extremely opinionated and tends to say or imply that certain people that disagre with him are idiots. While this may be the case (or may not be; I have no idea, but I'll give djb the benefit of the doubt), his tendency to express himself so bluntly probably turns many people off.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:Hatred of DJB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more... he has some good ideas, but his implementation of them is often... um... unorthodox, messy and/or just plain wrong. And a lot of people have problems with his licenses.

      He often just doesn't play by the book. Which is fine when his stuff is useful and the book is wrong. But his "innovations" sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater and that pisses a lot of people off as it makes installing or using his software or even collaborating with him to develop his software a royal pain in the ass.

    2. Re:Hatred of DJB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      license?? WHAT license??

  60. Sell Mars to you? by Trbmxfz · · Score: 1

    Now if they think I'm going to go click the link to confirm that my e-mail address exists, then they would surely be willing to buy some property on Mars I have for sale. Radiation-free. Really.

    Or, more likely, if someone clicks their link, they can be added to the list of gullible people who can be expected to buy land on Mars.

  61. Re:How do you know if your box has been compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your outgoing bandwidth gets slammed to the limit.
    Use MRTG.

  62. Hear me out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I propose we do nothing to stop spam. Instead, we should encourage spam. Eventually, it will collapse under its own weight. Eventually, people will no longer use e-mail, and they will migrate to some other form of internet communication (p2p?), which is more secure.

  63. I run by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Apache, PHP, mySQL on Windows 2000.

    mySQL got hacked recently (passwords removed, and accounts deleted). I checked the obvious means and found that they hadn't used the hidden door with the "Rape Me" sign on it. That door was renamed and moved anyway. mySQL isn't open to the outside so they had to go through the web-site somehow. My guess is an escalation of permissions hack from an account I gave someone.

    mySQL doesn't handle anything worthwhile and PHP is in safe mode. I also pretty know who did it and it wasn't to be malicious. Nothing was deleted.

    Nobody has ever hacked into my Windows box even though it runs logged in as an Admin. This also wouldn't be a big deal if mySQL would stop being dense and put in a configuration to define what constitutes localhost. The dreaded 1045 error. Even Mercury Mail and EZMTS have little configuration settings where I can say what IPs and domains == localhost so it doesn't keep sending e-mails to itself. Heck, you can't even set the root user during the install. What should have been a five minute uninstall reinstall of mySQL over WinVNC is now requiring I go down to my ISP and get physical access to the server.

    So yes, the only exploits that ever happen on my Windows box do only come through open source products. And I do keep them up to date. They're just a pain to install, poorly documented (readability), and difficult to configure to be usable and secure. The 1045 error of mySQL is common upon install and yet in 4 versions is still there and solutions consist of "try this and hope it works"

    Unless you intend to use FORMS for everything, PHP needs to have global variables on. This is just a lesson in paying attention to what those globals are and how to make sure they contain valid values.

    Ben

    1. Re:I run by bertrandom · · Score: 1

      I can't really think of any example where you would need "register globals" on, except to run legacy code. Can you give me an example?

  64. SPAM Problem Solved by DeanFox · · Score: 1

    Why spend our time and money trying to stop spammers. It will never work. We will *never* be able to identify them beyond reasonable doubt. Spammers will forever be beyond our ability to stop them. Fact. But, there *is* something we could do to completely stop SPAM 100% tomorrow. Go after the people who are selling the product. They're easy to find. If they want to sell a product, they have to be availible and easily accessable to the buyer. Tracking down a seller who want's your money would be like... Well... even our law enforcement could do that. (poke intended) For every business selling their product via spam I suggest a $1000 fine for each SPAM in which their product was mentioned, sold or otherwise marketed. One law, one fine, directed not to the spammer but the seller of the product. Problem solved.

    1. Re:SPAM Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the spammer sent the spam, so we go after the company, who then shrugs their shoulders and says "We didnt contract out to send spam" because they know you cannot link them to the senders of the spam.

    2. Re:SPAM Problem Solved by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I sell "jeremyp penis extensions". How do I put my biggest rival (deanfox dick enlargers) out of business?

      I think I'll pay a spammer to send 20,000 Spams to the US Justice department (or whatever you call it). Do you have $20 million to spare?

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    3. Re:SPAM Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's all very nice until some free software zealots decide to send out millions of spams advertising Microsoft products. Bam! Law gone. You need to prove that they hired spammers to promote themselves. Not to mention, that a lot of these products are quasi-legal and many operators are overseas or in the gray market underground, beyond our jurisdiction or out of reach. Fighting on this front is exactly like the war on drugs, and we know how sucessful that has been.

    4. Re:SPAM Problem Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And like the money laundering laws that already exist - the banks that service them.

  65. major illegal activity by mabu · · Score: 1

    What these people did was hugely illegal, in probably every jurisdiction they're operating. You don't need anti-spam laws. You just need the enforcement agencies to pursue criminal charges against the guy.

    I hope this guy has contacted the FBI and the authorities in Germany and other areas and is pushing them to launch a full investigation so they can put this guy in a prison cell where he belongs.

    1. Re:major illegal activity by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      The FBI won't even talk to you unless you've suffered $50K+ worth of damages.

      It's like car breakins. Who bothers even calling the police anymore, except to cya for the insurance? Our civilization is falling apart. The Internet is just a glaringly fast-paced precursor of what's coming.

      Of course, if you take action yourself, that'll get you locked up faster than you can blink. Can't have people thinking they can defend themselves.

    2. Re:major illegal activity by mabu · · Score: 1

      It's not difficult to demonstrated $x amount of damage to meet their threshold. And on a civil level, you can also sue everyone the spammer promoted and use that as a vehicle to subpoena the records needed to further identify the attacker.

      Not to mention all of this stuff involves major felonies. If there was any "commerce" activity on the server or network, the perpetrator also likely is in violation of the USA Patriot Act and could be considered a terrorist, with even more severe penalties.

    3. Re:major illegal activity by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      OK, you try and get someone to prosecute them. I'm not denying it's all illegal. I'm just saying you'll never get a cop to do anything about it.

    4. Re:major illegal activity by mabu · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I agree with you, but that's no reason to not keep trying to push the authorities to take action. If we put enough pressure on them, they will start prosecuting these people.

  66. Except he's saying... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That is does work right now and if it stops he'll be out of luck.

    I'm in the same boat, using an external email service for email and if Comcast started blocking outbound port 25 traffic (as my workplace does now) I would have to seek another service. I think Comcast would catch enough heat from blocking ports that they would loose more than they would gain.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Except he's saying... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      How about if they did two things:

      1 stop masquerading sender addresses
      2 block port 25.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  67. Go straight to the source! by exhilaration · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the FBI might be able to ignore us, but those that fund the spammers will have a harder time ignoring thousands of screaming Slashdotters.

  68. Oh come on! by Duke+of+Scarborough · · Score: 1

    Profitability of spam is nowhere near the kind of business the "mobsters" (ex-Soviet or not) are interested in. Compared to the drug trade, credit card "tricks", prostitution etc. those penis-enlargement pills is a joke. And by the way, being an ex-Soviet myself, I can tell you that abilities of ex-Soviet programmers and hackers are greatly exaggerated.

    1. Re:Oh come on! by zangdesign · · Score: 1

      It's not the penis enlargement pills sales they're after, it's that handy little credit card number that accompanies it.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    2. Re:Oh come on! by Duke+of+Scarborough · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I fail to see logic here.

      One of the reasons spam is growing is that it results in legitimate sales of whatever junk they offer. They actually ship those pills, you know (not that I've bought any). Further, I don't believe the businesses who use "email marketing services" would knowingly disclose credit card information to "mobsters" since that would have caused legal and/or financial problems for them - if any noticeable amount of fraud is reported by their clients then credit card companies will go after them.

      If the majority of spam was used to de-fraud credit cards then the spam wave would have worked once and then died, at least for a noticeable period of time until people forget about it.

      I agree, there are emailed attempts for credit card fraud - I have recevied three such messages myself, one pretending to be from Citibank and to from "paypal". However, they're rare compared to the hundreds of bona fide spam messages that have real, however useless, products behind them. And again, profit margins of spam-promoted sales would have been of no interest to "mobsters".

    3. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And by the way, being an ex-Soviet myself, I can tell you that abilities of ex-Soviet programmers and hackers are greatly exaggerated.

      Really, I've heard they can really hack an 6502 when they can get there hands on one.

    4. Re:Oh come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian, I can tell you that the "abilities of ex-Soviet programmers and hackers are greatly exaggerated".



      HAHAHA!!!

  69. Why stop there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only we could gather the excess food consumed by we Americans, by far the most overweight people in the world, and share it with countries who suffer real famine...

    If only we could take the ridiculous amounts of wealth that go unused and hoarded by a very small number of people and share it with the countless families of the world that can't even afford to heat their homes, if even they have a home...

    If only we could gather all the girls from Maxim, who are all no doubt not getting sexed up properly, and send them to my house...

    Sorry, got a little carried away.

  70. Impressive Forensics by Tacoguy · · Score: 1

    I am truly impressed that this gentleman in Spain performed a forensic analysis of what appears to be a true cyperpuzzle ... San Francisco to Germany to Russia to Portugal and finally to Spain.

    I believe that instance documentation such as this demonstrates that legislation in the US can not possibly curb the tide of spam.

  71. "The Authorities?" I don't think they care. by annielaurie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The overwhelming amount of spam I get now involves the advertising (and presumably selling) of a controlled substance--a prescription drug that is deemed a narcotic. The prescribing of this drug (and a few others in the spams) by legitimate physicians, and its dispensing by legitimate pharmacies are strictly regulated in some kind of effort to prevent the abuse of the drug--an abuse that is rampant in many areas of the US.

    I keep waiting to hear that the Federal authorities have taken some action in this regard. If you've ever been through US Customs (and especially if you're young, not white, or in any way "unusual" looking) you'll know that they make a great show of looking through everybody's sneakers and dirty laundry on the hunt for "illegal drugs." Even in these times of terrorism, it's their chief claim to fame.

    The potential for abuse seems enormous and growing to me. It also seems to me that a lot of the spams advertising this stuff originate in, or pass through, the U.S. If somebody in our town hung out a sign saying GET YOUR PRESCRIPTION NARCOTICS HERE--NO PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED, my guess is the police would take an interest. But we seem to have virtual open-air drug markets operating undisturbed.

    If anyone wonders how spammers make money, this is certainly one possible way, and I suspect it's incredibly lucrative.

    --
    DUCT TAPE: The Election Supervisors' Secret Weapon
    1. Re:"The Authorities?" I don't think they care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Online pharmacies are currently 100% legal. The prescription is issued by a real doctor based on what the person enters when ordering - if you take a look at one of the order forms you will see that there are a lot of questions about medical history.

    2. Re:"The Authorities?" I don't think they care. by jamiefaye · · Score: 1

      It is very easy to lie on the web forms. The Doctor is in reality a CGI script.

      Of course a doctor with a DEA number has to be in the picture so the pharmacy is in compliance with the Controlled Substances Act. They do revoke a doctor's DEA numbers & licenses eventually for being a "script writer", but like all other forms of spam investigation and prosecution, seems to be an endless game of whack-a-mole.

      I imagine a doctor can make several million on the Internet writing Valium, Vicadin, etc., scripts before he gets caught. Its a great retirement plan since the gang makes at least $100 per sale.

  72. Reports to the Master Server? by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
    So, the spam software reports to a "master server"?

    The spammers have been DDoSing anti-spam sites. Perhaps it's time to return fire.

    1. Re:Reports to the Master Server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is JuggleGeek's resume. I will rip it to shreds because he is viscous and very much an unskilled arrogant jerk that constantly makes paranoid statements, espouses half truths and makes arrogant comments on Slashdot. JuggleGeek: An NT 4.0 Lover. A bit behind the times, don't you think? His work is so cheap and unprofessional they use Win98. He claims to be a programmer. His "workstation" OS of choice: Win98. Nice.

      HAND CODED HTML! WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT COULD STILL HAPPEN?
      You mean "Thought it would happen," not thunk. Thunking is something a "programmer" should know about. Most people hand core or use code to generate HTML. Big fucking deal

      WELL, IT'S MOSTLY HAND CODED. BUT TO BE FAIR, I HAVE USED
      HOMESITE 2.5, AND IT IS PRETTY NICE.
      So it is not hand coded. Make up your mind. Moron
      MOSTLY, I LIKE HAVING A QUICK ONE-KEY METHOD OF SEEING HOW
      THE PAGE LOOKS AT ANY GIVEN POINT.
      HACKER : STEPHEN WHITIS
      You cannot hack HTML. That is an amateurish, juvenile thing to say. You can author HTML, no more. Its as easy as using a typewriter

      Stephen "JuggleGeek" Whitis's Resume Page (p1 of 3)
      - Moron error. Possessive form of Whitis is Whitis'.

      I am currently seeking employment.
      Forgone conclusion. That is why resumes are written. Moron.

      I am interested in Delphi programming, with an emphasis on internet related applications, user interfaces, and databases. Web design is not a specialty area, but I have basic skills and an interest in developing them further.
      Interest in a subject is not a reason to hire you. No one cares what you like. It is about what you can do for other people. Moron. So, you want your next employer to teach you not to suck in web design?

      I currently live in Dallas, and have no interest in moving.
      I currently have a company "INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE" and have no interest in hiring you.

      I am not looking for "traditional" work. Part time work would be considered, as well as telecomuting [SIC] work. The usual 9 to 5 job doesn't interest me, as I have an ongoing project which already takes up a certain amount of my time.
      Translation: I'm a loser that cant keep a real job. I don't have the attention span or the responsibility to finish anything. I like to telecommute to further hide my ability to do nothing. I fail to mention the project because its probably killing small animals or fucking sheep.

      If you have a project you need done, and the project interests me, I can be hired cheap.

      You can be hired cheap because you suck
      If you are looking for a full-time, long term, 9-5 kind of guy, then I'm not the one you're looking for. I'm a self taught programmer with 20 years of professional experience. I'm confident that I can be successful with any programming project I take on, but I will only accept offers where the project interests me and the working conditions meet with my non-standard lifestyle.
      This isnt a resume. This is a stupid conversation you are having with no one. Self taught means you point out the fact most real programmers will rip you apart. 20 years? Doubtful. Most of your expoerience is more IT than programming. You have never contributed to an opensource project to prove you can submit code, you have no code portfolio. Non-standard lifestyle. FUCK YOU.

      I get a lot of emails from headhunters wanting me to consider jobs out of state. I am not leaving Texas. (And I'm very unlikely to leave Dallas.) If your out of state company wants to hire me, then I'll need to telecommute.
      You are threatening your employer with the fantasy you might be having about being head-hunted all the time. You w

  73. Re:Offtopic I know... by BTWR · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    my bad. seriously. i shoulda printed a *spoiler* warning.
    guess i deserved the troll label.

  74. Mod Parent Up by Morosoph · · Score: 1

    This is an excellent idea. There may be problems with it, but if there are, it deserves a +3 at least and a reply, not -1 overrated!

    For my 2 pence, I reckon that to get clients to encrypt by default and only accept encrypted email would chew up a lot of spammer's CPU time, and make the whole spam business a lot more expensive. Of course, this would also be difficult to make happen, particularly when countries like France make the encryption of private email illegal.

  75. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  76. well, what you can do is... by keeboo · · Score: 0

    ...to reply using SCO's CEO e-mail address.

  77. Server zombies by ElliotLee · · Score: 1
    Quite interesting that there are so many servers out there on the Internet now, easily harnessed for abuse, spam, DDoS, illegal file hosting and sharing, etc.

    With broadband widely available, every kid and his uncle has a server. I bet tons of them are set up and forgetten, computing power stolen and abused. Who ever updates them? Where do the wasted resources go?

  78. Think First, Speak Second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spamming on behalf of my competitors would seem a good idea given your reasoning.

  79. Questions for you Linux experts out there by TheTranceFan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm a relative Linux noob and I'm trying to understand this thing. I read the whole article, but there are a few things I'm not sure I get.
    1. Was his server really rooted? It seems like these bogus httpd's that were running were still running as www-data, the user this guy had Apache running as.
    2. Did I miss some escalation-of-privileges step, or does apache's user usually have this level of privileges? Like chmod'ing things it got with wget...yikes!
    3. I run php with register_globals=off. Is that enough?
    4. What's an easy way in Linux to tell if your outbound bandwidth is slammed?

    I was very impressed with the forensics this guy did. It was fascinating. Too bad it's necessary. I wonder how many machines out there are compromised without anyone even knowing it.

    1. Re:Questions for you Linux experts out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1. No. A badly written PHP script as exploited to get the same access as the local user running the web server. (Note here that the web server used is irrelevant). This is definately not _rooted_ however.

      2. Any user can use chmod to change the permissions on their files. You can not however arbitarily set ownership, which is good. Otherwise you can set a file setuid, then assign it the owner of root. (Which would be bad). Not being able to chmod, would stop a lot of scipts from working (setting write access to data files, etc)

      3. It's a good start, but that wasn't the problem here. It was bad non defensive programing, using the extract() function. see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88632&cid=7675 493

      4. You can do this using ifconfig if you like. Simply do a ifconfig every x time.
      Use the difference in the TX packets. There are useful network monitors about. For example KDE system guard allows you to view the tx and rx Kb/sec rates in semi-realtime.

    2. Re:Questions for you Linux experts out there by bobsledbob · · Score: 1

      1. No he wasn't 'rooted'. The bogus httpds could have run as any user, theorectically. But, in this case ran as www-data because that's what the valid httpd was running as which had the php exploit. I'm not sure how www-data was able to open a listening socket on a priviledged port though. Someone more knowledgeable would have to give an answer here.

      2. No, no escalation was necessary. /tmp is (usually) readable and writeable by anyone. Therefore, it wouldn't be too hard to download a file in /tmp and chmod it.

      3. This solves a lot of problems, but no of course this is not enough. It's only enough when you are running perfectly secure bug free software. When will it be enough then? Probably never. The exploit did work though because of this poor default setting of PHP (new versions now default to register_globals=off). Part of the problem too was that he was running software that the source was available so that the exploiter was able to scan the software looking for the perfect condition to interject his code. I'm sure there's probably tons of these 'bugs' which are known by these types of spammers but which haven't been found by the developers yet.

      4. Your ISP is probably the easiest one to tell you. But, of course, there's probably tons of various firewalls and such that could report that information. I'm sure /. would be the crowd to answer that question.

      --
      Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
    3. Re:Questions for you Linux experts out there by CTachyon · · Score: 2, Informative
      1. Technically no, the spammer never got root. The spambot was sending spam as an unprivileged user (the same one that Apache ran as), which is still plenty to run a spambot.
      2. Any user can chmod files that he/she/it owns, even to deny him/her/itself access and then chmod it back.
      3. In this case, apparently not, although it should be.
      4. There isn't anything built in at the command line to do it for you (at least, in any distro I'm aware of). You can kinda kludge it by reading /proc/net/dev, waiting 5 seconds, reading it again, and dividing the difference in bytes by 5. Hell, in fact, here's a Perl script I just knocked out to do it: bw-usage.pl. (You'll need Time::HiRes from CPAN; you can install it with perl -MCPAN -e 'install("Time::HiRes")' as root.)
      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
    4. Re:Questions for you Linux experts out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      2. No, no escalation was necessary. /tmp is (usually) readable and writeable by anyone. Therefore, it wouldn't be too hard to download a file in /tmp and chmod it.

      It seems to me that a good defense -in general- would be to mount /tmp with -o noexec.

    5. Re:Questions for you Linux experts out there by netik · · Score: 1

      Even though the spammer never got root, there are some ways the author could have protected himself from such an attack.

      For starters, running the apache server inside of a restricted chroot would have removed most of the commands that the attack depended on (wget, lynx, fetch, etc.)

      Also, installing proper egress firewall rules (i.e. don't let the web servers send email - only let the email server do that) would have stopped the spam from getting out at all.

    6. Re:Questions for you Linux experts out there by CTachyon · · Score: 1

      Running Apache in a chroot wouldn't have necessarily helped -- the spamming app could have been a self-contained statically-linked binary. Firewall rules, however, would have been a good idea, unless the mail daemon and web daemon were on the same server for cost reasons. Even so, a few iptables -m owner rules on the server could have helped.

      --
      Range Voting: preference intensity matters
  80. Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in the US it has become illegal to fight back. If not for that people would gladly take up arms and choose sides in a duel to the death cyber war. In this case the master server would be DDOS'd off the net within minutes of detection. Collateral damage? Yes there would be some ... but what do you call what we have now? Take the handcuffs off the victims. Spammers don't have the application of technology cornered otherwise and all the law has produced so far is a fertile breeding ground for these parasites. So what do we need, more rule of law? Nevertheless, that's what we're going to get.

    1. Re:Unfortunately by RY · · Score: 1

      Beter that 1000 spammers go free than one inocent gets harmed.

      Same percentage as my inbox.
      Now where did I leave my bat?

    2. Re:Unfortunately by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Here in the US it has become illegal to fight back

      It is also illegal when the spammers do it. There is, quite obviously, no enforcement. Without enforcement, the question is no longer whether it is legal, but whether it is moral.

  81. who needs a specific penalty? by alizard · · Score: 1
    If you were on a jury, would YOU vote to convict somebody of [insert anything] against a major spammer?

    If a jury has Internet users on it, I doubt a prosecutor could get a conviction no matter how compelling the evidence.

    A few high-profile case where somebody kills a spammer and the jury lets the killer (I can't say murder in this case, it doesn't fit) walk will send a message to spammers.

  82. Nice Article by Crapflinger · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised at the amount of time spent on ways to cause trouble. I mean that unlike most slashdot users, computers are still a new thing for many people around the world, and unlike way back when...I started using computers and discovering the net, e-mail was a new and great thing. Of course, I wasn't exposed to it in the same time frame as the new people discovering e-mail for the first time. Unfortunately, I think that spammers need a serious lessons thought to them. Unlike using a bat which can be deadly and more or less give you a certain sense of immediate satisfaction, these people should suffer the same type of disatisfaction with a new product. Kinda like selling them some new service, but then having all the programers tamper into their software in order to cause them some undo frustration. Of course by writing this I'm asking for trouble, but again unfortunately, spammers being so courageous of nature, never show their faces. Cuz to be honets, I've already got my practice swings in, so if a spammer would like to get in touch on a face to face basis, sign me up. I'll be first in line (with my handy wonderbat) Sincerely, Crapflinger

  83. A realistic solution by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Over 99% of discussion on elimination of spam always seems to resolve around

    * Make every stupid person smart so noone responds to spam

    * Change every mail server in the world to use a new protocol

    * Use client-side spam detection to hide spam and expect the stupid people to use it

    Well, I have less than complete faith in any of these methods providing an adequate short term solution. So, why cannot we look at the big picture?

    A few major spammers are sending millions of emails. The effect is close to being a DoS attack on the entire Internet. These emails are susceptible to pattern analysis if analyzed on a global basis. Surely what we need is somethng akin to an Internet-wide intrusion detection system. When pattern analysis indicates a spam attack, we simply block the traffic as close to the source as possible.

    Wouldn't there be a cost associated with this? Sure. But the spam problem needs to be resolved and this is the only realistic short term solution that I can envisage.

  84. SPAM as a whole is becoming illegal? by csk_1975 · · Score: 1

    These Indian spammers think its legal. order@imark-india.com (202.63.171.243):-

    "Since India has no anti-spamming law.."

    "This e-mail message may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. It should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have erroneously received this message, please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Since India has no anti-spamming law, we follow the US Unsolicited Electronic Mail Act of 2000, which states that mail cannot be considered Spam if it contains contact / removal information, which this mail does. If you want to be removed from the mailing list then you must reply to this mail with "Remove" in the subject line and e-mail for faster response and action

  85. PHP stupidity by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1
    From the article:
    Time for checking the suspicious 'GEEKLOG_DIR' variable in the User.php file:
    require_once($GEEKLOG_DIR . '/lib-common.php');
    So there it is. The php script doesn't properly set the variable and it can be set from the HTTP GET.
    Who the fuck designed a programming language where variables can be set (without explicitly asking for it) from the HTTP request? (Duh... this web thing doesn't need any security measures, right?)
    In addition, the 'require_once' sentence includes and evaluates the specified file during the execution of the script.

    Which is also rather stupid in that require_once() will happily take a URL instead of a filename. Downloading code from some website without any signature checking or other security measures is bad enough when a human does it (though most of us do); terrible for a program to do automatically.

    Still, PHP is a popular web scripting language just as Internet Explorer is a popular web browser, so maybe security misfeatures don't matter as much as we'd like to think.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  86. Honey pot trap by F4Codec · · Score: 1

    Is there some way this intrusion could be detected, and subverted into a honey pot trap? Write a similar client that responds to the iamdemon and stuff, and then goes through the motions. Sends back believeable statistics and claims to be delivering lots and lots of addresses?

  87. Double standard by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

    Wait a sec, when windows users get infected its their own fault, but when linux or apache doesn't have the ability to scan for changes or trojans its the spammers fault?

    There are many parties at fault here, including the sysadmin who doesn't run tripwire.

  88. A suggestion for getting Congress to pay attention by Genghis9 · · Score: 1

    Sign up your local rep to a bunch of spam lists. If it's enough of a personal pain to them they'll do something useful. Otherwise why would they care--it's not like it's a Big Business concern which will net them money at re-election campaign time. Would anybody run an election with anti-spam as a key item on their plank? Of course not!

  89. MOD PARENT UP!! by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

    Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will win every battle.

    Sun Tzu

  90. Re:First Nigerian Spam Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hahahahahahaha LOL thats right.
    Here is what i think Bush is going to do.
    A new bufferzone controling the oil (south irak) will be established and the rest of Irak will be left to Sadam to decapitate, again.

  91. Re:Spam Spillover by Technician · · Score: 1

    I have taken a hard stance against any direct marketing of any kind. I let telemarketers know that I never respond to cold calls due to fraud risk. I let them know to advertise in the directory and on Their website where I can find their product when I'm in the market for it. Repeat calls puts them on my bad businesses list.

    Making this clear seems to clear up much of the telemarketers calls.

    Now if there were any way to get the message out to the spammers.....They could pare down their list to just those who care.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  92. Re:after all, I am a female by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep berating me to get my cock enlarged?

    Oh that's why it's so small! ;-)

  93. Re:First Nigerian Spam Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have one ord LAEL !!! I hate those F*CKERS!!!

  94. Re:upload being maxed? by Technician · · Score: 1

    I know if I overload my kitchen electrical by trying to brew coffee, make a waffle, fry eggs in an electric frypan and heat a toaster bagel, I know the circuit breaker is going to pop.

    Simple question, why can't they make routers that drop off if maxed out for a few minutes? Most everything else that gets overloaded will shut down. Even my car if overloaded too long will overheat. (towing a yacht over the mountain and hold freeway speeds will do it)

    A router that learns usage patterns for port 80, 110, 25, etc could go a long way to protect the connection.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  95. Re:First Nigerian Spam Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! megaLOL!

  96. Re:First Nigerian Spam Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What an offer! I'll transfer 75% of my incommings right a way!

  97. Re:Ex-Soviets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone with half a brain and a mild understanding of basic economics and economic theory could have told you that the "transition" would not go smoothly. You can't plan an economic transformation. It WILL take 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 generations to complete. As Iraq is about to learn as well...

  98. Re:upload being maxed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem: What do you do then when you want to play Unreal Tournament online for a few hours?

    You get the drift. Consumer/Home router products don't have that level of sophistication for a simple reason: 95% of Users are stupid. Ever listened to a Dell tech support call?

    BTW, there is products out there that learn usage patterns and most larger sized corporations already use them.

  99. Charles Fish? by metamatic · · Score: 1

    Charles Fish? Are you sure that's not just another red herring?

    (Sorry.)

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  100. Challenge-response -- the share-your-spam solution by KMSelf · · Score: 1

    Challenge-response is considered harmful. Why? For precisely the reasons you're highlighting. Either:

    • Spam with spoofed headers is generating challenges to your account. At best this is an annoyance. At worst, a Joe-job.
    • Spammers are faking C-R challenges to harvest legitimate, reachable, email addresses.

    To those who've called these "legitimate" TMDA (or other) challenges: what is legitimate about sending unsolicited mail to the wrong person, merely because you've received unsolicited mail from someone else?

    --

    What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?

  101. Re:Unfortunately JuggleGeek, we fucking hate you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is JuggleGeek's resume. I will rip it to shreds because he is viscous and very much an unskilled arrogant jerk that constantly makes paranoid statements, espouses half truths and makes arrogant comments on Slashdot. JuggleGeek: An NT 4.0 Lover. A bit behind the times, don't you think? His work is so cheap and unprofessional they use Win98. He claims to be a programmer. His "workstation" OS of choice: Win98. Nice.

    HAND CODED HTML! WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT COULD STILL HAPPEN?
    You mean "Thought it would happen," not thunk. Thunking is something a "programmer" should know about. Most people hand core or use code to generate HTML. Big fucking deal

    WELL, IT'S MOSTLY HAND CODED. BUT TO BE FAIR, I HAVE USED
    HOMESITE 2.5, AND IT IS PRETTY NICE.
    So it is not hand coded. Make up your mind. Moron
    MOSTLY, I LIKE HAVING A QUICK ONE-KEY METHOD OF SEEING HOW
    THE PAGE LOOKS AT ANY GIVEN POINT.
    HACKER : STEPHEN WHITIS
    You cannot hack HTML. That is an amateurish, juvenile thing to say. You can author HTML, no more. Its as easy as using a typewriter

    Stephen "JuggleGeek" Whitis's Resume Page (p1 of 3)
    - Moron error. Possessive form of Whitis is Whitis'.

    I am currently seeking employment.
    Forgone conclusion. That is why resumes are written. Moron.

    I am interested in Delphi programming, with an emphasis on internet related applications, user interfaces, and databases. Web design is not a specialty area, but I have basic skills and an interest in developing them further.
    Interest in a subject is not a reason to hire you. No one cares what you like. It is about what you can do for other people. Moron. So, you want your next employer to teach you not to suck in web design?

    I currently live in Dallas, and have no interest in moving.
    I currently have a company "INSERT COMPANY NAME HERE" and have no interest in hiring you.

    I am not looking for "traditional" work. Part time work would be considered, as well as telecomuting [SIC] work. The usual 9 to 5 job doesn't interest me, as I have an ongoing project which already takes up a certain amount of my time.
    Translation: I'm a loser that cant keep a real job. I don't have the attention span or the responsibility to finish anything. I like to telecommute to further hide my ability to do nothing. I fail to mention the project because its probably killing small animals or fucking sheep.

    If you have a project you need done, and the project interests me, I can be hired cheap.

    You can be hired cheap because you suck
    If you are looking for a full-time, long term, 9-5 kind of guy, then I'm not the one you're looking for. I'm a self taught programmer with 20 years of professional experience. I'm confident that I can be successful with any programming project I take on, but I will only accept offers where the project interests me and the working conditions meet with my non-standard lifestyle.
    This isnt a resume. This is a stupid conversation you are having with no one. Self taught means you point out the fact most real programmers will rip you apart. 20 years? Doubtful. Most of your expoerience is more IT than programming. You have never contributed to an opensource project to prove you can submit code, you have no code portfolio. Non-standard lifestyle. FUCK YOU.

    I get a lot of emails from headhunters wanting me to consider jobs out of state. I am not leaving Texas. (And I'm very unlikely to leave Dallas.) If your out of state company wants to hire me, then I'll need to telecommute.
    You are threatening your employer with the fantasy you might be having about being head-hunted all the time. You w

  102. Re:First Nigerian Spam Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha...well Bush is a son of a bitch...

  103. Re:upload being maxed? by Technician · · Score: 1

    Unreal doesn't use port 25. It would also be based on usage patterns. It's kind of like where indoor grow operations are sometimes caught by unusual power consumption for a normal suburban house and it's prior history. A unusual pattern gets noticed and shut down.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!