Security Predictions of 2004
scubacuda writes "Computer World's security predictions for 2004: R.a..n,d,o.,m p,u,,n,c.t,,u_a.t.1..0.n evading spam filters, Internet access filtering, better desktop management, enterprise personal firewall deployment, tools that securely scrub metadata, corporate policies against USB flash drives, Wi-Fi break-ins, Bluetooth abuses, cell phone hacking, centralized control over IM, public utility breakin publicized, government defense against cybercriminals, organized cybercrime, and a shorter time to exploitation."
It doesn't take very much CPU to s/\W//g
Yeah! Block all email containing only graphics!
Base64 isn't hard to decode... or to just bin.
I've never seen an email with an IP address based URI that wasn't spam. Trash em
Not this user, or this user's spam filter. Spams using these techniques get the highest spam scores and when 5 is worthy of trashing, 35 is worthy of laughing at (at least until I get so much spam I'll put it in /dev/null rather then ~/mail/spam)
>Don't put your email address online, period
That's like saying "Don't go out after 9pm or you deserve to get beaten/raped".
Sorry, but my instincts are to fight the spamming bastards rather than give in to them.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
It comes down to a choice:
I don't want to put barriers in people's ways when they wish to contact me (OK, sometimes I do - 'No I will not fix your computer! I don't even know you!' - but generally I don't). Making people use a JavaScript enabled web browser AND answer a question is a barrier, and I don't want it.
What seems slightly more workable is to ignore punctuation in the subject when checking for 'spam' words. This would fit more in line with the extremely naive filtering available to Outlook users.
Going simply by punctuation density could cause a lot of false positives based on acronyms and ellipses.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
I expect the new IM worms to be the next major disaster to these tech companies, just like Slammer was for their unmanaged MS SQL installations.
It surprised me that noone listened to my suggestions on setting up an internal server. OK, not every luser knows IRC, but surely there are many IMs that can be set up to use an internal server and block everything else at the firewall. We tried the Lotus Notes clone of AOLs AIM and it sucked (as everything Notes), apart from using encrypted line data.
I remember trying to get hold of a senior developer I was working with using plain old talk in a terminal and he didn't know it... He got the notification in his shell and called me instead. Sort of explains the renaissance of these dummy IM clients.
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
cat
If you are stating that Outlook client pass/fail filters are bad because (among other flaws) they need constant updating, then you are preaching to the choir. Until Exchange gets a good scoring filter, it makes sense to at least improve the flawed tools that are available to most corporate users.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
.-.--