Slashdot Mirror


How Well are Your Servers Handling MyDoom?

whosyourgeekdaddy asks: "A co-worker was showing me some of the usage stats for a clients exchange server: its averaging 630 users, and 300,000 emails per day, for the last 4 days. This made me want to ask how heavy is the workload for your 'average' Exchange server? Is this typical? MyDoom has upped the usage some, but not a lot. This client is a real estate company, so e-mail is frequently used." Of course, Exchange servers aren't the only ones feeling MyDoom. What kind of statistics have you been seeing from MyDoom, both as a user and as an administrator?

81 comments

  1. Not a Problem by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 3, Informative

    grep "X-Infected: W32/Mydoom.A@mm" rejectlog* | wc -l
    11096


    All rejected at SMTP time, not mindlessly bounced after the fact.

    My server isn't even feeling it.

  2. Frist by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

    I see that today I got three MyDoom e-mails on my older account and none on my newer account.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  3. 500 mails a day? by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you're getting 500 emails a day, either the entirity of your staff is subscribed to lkml and debian-user, or you've got a staff that hasn't been trained not to plug their damned mail address into every last fucking form field in sight.

    Seriously, half an hour of internet usage training 2-3 times a year can halve your bandwidth requirements.

    (p.s. -- Don't mod me up. I'll only use the karma to troll at +2 later.)

  4. Business as usual by gtrubetskoy · · Score: 1
    According to my spammeter it barely made a dent in the sea of spam I'm getting these days.

    It took my baesian filter a few to learn to recognize it, since then I'm not affected by it in any way. Of course, I'm not exactly a big Windows user either....

  5. For the record by jeffasselin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have about 50 users, we got around 200 viruses in the first 18 hours.

    --
    If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    1. Re:For the record by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      I have about half the number of users.

      Users got around 3 or 4 instances of the worm, and I got all of the bad address bounces - maybe a dozen or so.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  6. Thanks guys. by reaper20 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Spamassassin, postfix, and procmail developers - I sit here at home with a beer whilst my Exchange colleagues want to kill themselves right about now.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:Thanks guys. by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hear hear!

      Same goes to the Exim, Exiscan, and Clamav authors.

      I woke this morning with an e-mail saying the Clamav signature DB was updated, then had a look at my Exim reject logs to see if it was rejecting Mydoom. Sure was, at that time about 2000 of them since midnight.

    2. Re:Thanks guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever. I'm running postfix, procmail, spamassassin and client-side bayes (Mozilla Thunderbird).

      The few people I know with huge mailservers haven't seen any significant change either. They're running Sun ONE Messaging Server 5x on Solaris - one of the two also using a Brightmail plugin.

    3. Re:Thanks guys. by Dunkirk · · Score: 1

      Would you care to share your formulation of rules that block this particular virus? I don't want to simply stop .zip file attachments, nor can I stop this virus based on sender, subject (especially), or size, since they're all variable. In short, I don't know where to start.

      --
      Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
    4. Re:Thanks guys. by gibodean · · Score: 1

      You should already be blocking any attachments with a .pif, .scr, .cmd, .bat extension. Probably also .exe, or at least munge the name so you can't easily execute it.

      In addition to that, I am now blocking anything which an attachment named :
      message.zip
      document.zip
      file.zip
      data.zip

      etc....... for whatever the virus uses.

      If it got too bad, I'd put a virus scan on all incoming emails, but procmail rules seem to work fine.

      No worries.

    5. Re:Thanks guys. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Would you care to share your formulation of rules that block this particular virus?
      F-prot scans inside zip files, as do many others - the clamav web page says it does too. I just use MailScanner and get it to call f-prot as a virus scanner, but it can call a whole lot of others, as can most of the mail filtering software out there.
  7. User... by Jack+Comics · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I won the recent Netscape auction for the Jack at netscape dot com e-mail address and a "free" year's worth of dial-up access.

    Once I logged into the e-mail account, I noticed it was a little spammy, but that was to be expected. AOL/Netscape was generous though and gave me a one hundred megabyte POP3 e-mail account.

    However, yesterday evening, I noticed an influx of about *2,000* e-mails in about a four hour period. All were related to MyDoom, either with the virus attached or bounces due to forged "from" addresses. Since then, I've been getting an average of 830 e-mails per *hour*. My Netscape e-mail account has reached the 100 megabyte e-mail quota twice so far, with over 13,000 e-mails each time, and after I clean it out, it starts to fill back up again. There's just no end in sight. The e-mail account is completely useless to me now. I should have known bidding on that auction was a bad idea. :( In the meantime, I've had to make the e-mail account white listed, meaning it now only accepts e-mail from known e-mail addresses, until I can figure out an equitable solution.

    --
    "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:User... by thatnerdguy · · Score: 0

      Probably because it's an easily guessable address. Mine is like that too, although all I am getting now is bounce messages after getting one instance of the virus.

      --
      I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
  8. sysadmins by Ed+Thomson · · Score: 1

    What makes this worse is all the virus emails that are sent back to the (spoofed) senders by sysadmins. This practice just multiplys the problem and puts evin more strain on the email servers.

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

      I can restate previous slashdot articles too.

      What makes this worse is that all the virus emails are targeting SCO, which reflects badly on the slashdot community

      see?

  9. Well... by Kris_J · · Score: 1
    We've discovered that the anti-virus engine that supposed to be scanning email isn't working properly. Suspect file extensions sill cause the attachment to be nuked, but I haven't been able to cause an alert with either a zipped virus or, say, a file with a .xls extension.

    Other than that, the servers are handling it better than the staff. I had to take my phone off the hook to get some work done investigating the problem on the server.

  10. well... by drakaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    since I don't allow in attachments that end in .pif .exe .scr .com or .bat (including zipped ones...thank you antigen), there have been precisely zero delivered to anybody's inboxes.

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  11. Handling it just fine. by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1, Informative

    My 90MHz pentium is handling it just fine. Via dial-up.

    Granted, it's not even turned on, but it *is* handling things just fine.

    Eagerly awaiting +5, Informative.

    --
    Ron Paul 2012
    1. Re:Handling it just fine. by JM+Apocalypse · · Score: 0, Troll

      If I had mod points, I'd mod this Score:5, Troll

      I'd start with the Troll part :-)

      --

      - - - - - - -
      Orppf urp mf y.ppcxn. yflcbi otcnnov C am yflcbi yr n.apb Ekrpatv (Dvorak -> Qwerty)
    2. Re:Handling it just fine. by shfted! · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd help!

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
  12. Way less than yours, so even less a problem by Wee · · Score: 1
    My server isn't even feeling it.

    Same here, although I've had quite a bit less traffic that you:

    wee@foo:~$ grep mydoom .procmaillog | wc -l
    163

    My personal domain is an "MCI network" (friends and family), and I only have 5 users. They all use Windows, so I'm happy to keep them shielded from recent trouble. It's been quiet for them.

    I happened to be talking to one guy who gets mail from me (we see each other infrequently) and offhandedly asked how he was coping with the MyDoom problem. He didn't know what I was talking about. He hadn't been reading the news lately, and it took me a minute before I realized all the virus-laden emails were getting dumped before he ever saw them. I forgot my little procmail recipe was in place.

    So, yeah, MyDoom's pretty much been a non-issue.

    -B

    --

    Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

    1. Re:Way less than yours, so even less a problem by epsalon · · Score: 1

      What recepie do you use to catch it?

    2. Re:Way less than yours, so even less a problem by Wee · · Score: 1
      The recipe is in an earlier post.

      BTW, I'm up to 269 emails caught. Seems to be picking up steam...

      -B

      --

      Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.

  13. Report... by eyeball · · Score: 4, Funny

    "How Well are Your Servers Handling MyDoom?" Pretty well. We're thinking of adding another cluster.

    Just kidding, lawyers.

    --

    _______
    2B1ASK1
  14. Mod Up! by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

    Same here. We were filtering this before any AV updates were available. File filtering will save you far more often than updated AV software (which we use also).

    Just noticed you used Antigen, like us. Great product and as the parent notes, it will look inside archives as well. Check it out..from www.sybari.com.

  15. Same here by cgenman · · Score: 1

    3 over the course of the past day. Looks like it's time to update AVG's AV signatures.

    1. Re:Same here by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 1

      Nah, just don't open the attachment.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  16. Reasonably well, for now by named · · Score: 2, Informative

    Our main virus/spam scanning machines are handling it pretty well. We're seeing some increased processor utilisation, but... This is for a site that serves probably 70,000 users, many of whom are, uh, less than careful with their addresses. On a typical day, we process somewhere around 300,000 messages (depending on how frisky the spammers are feeling).

    In the first 24 hours we blocked about 66,000 instances of this beast, and were continuing to recieve them at about 3000 - 5000 per hour as of 1700 PST.

    Our virus statistics machine wasn't handling things so well, though ;) I think "drinking from the firehose" about sums it up. It's got 24000 virus notification sitting in the mail queue waiting to have their little snippits of info entered into the database ATM.

  17. Nothing compared to spam by hords · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm a mail/systems administrator at a small/medium sized ISP. This virus is nothing compared to the onslaught of spam we get. >2 million total messages a day and blocking >1.6 million due to spam. Our virus filter is taking them out no problem, and no we aren't bouncing it =)

  18. im still waiting by CptChipJew · · Score: 4, Funny

    For MyDoom 3, and its starting to feel like its never going to come out.

    --
    Vonal Declosion
  19. wow by gyratedotorg · · Score: 1

    "A co-worker was showing me some of the usage stats for a clients exchange server: its averaging 630 users, and 300,000 emails per day, for the last 4 days"

    im slightly off topic here, but wow. thats scary. i dont know about anyone else, but i wouldnt feel comfortable with my company's exchange server directly connected to the internet like that. we have a content-filtering smtp relay in our dmz to take the brunt of crap like this. we block email with potentially dangerous attachments and viruses before they even get to our internal network.

    --
    Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
  20. I don't know by schnits0r · · Score: 1

    I think you should ask SCO about theirs. :)

  21. Re:Not a Problem by mike_sucks · · Score: 1

    So what virus filtering software are you using?

    --
    -- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
  22. Mine are handling it pretty well by Shut+the+fuck+up! · · Score: 1

    #nmap -P0 -p 25 xx.xx.xx.0/24

    Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
    The 1 scanned port on (xx.xx.xx.1) is: closed
    The 1 scanned port on (xx.xx.xx.2) is: closed
    ....
    The 1 scanned port on (xx.xx.xx.255) is: closed

    Nmap run completed -- 255 IP addresses (255 hosts up) scanned in 732 seconds

  23. Sounds similar by Chemical+Serenity · · Score: 4, Informative
    Unfortunately I was caught working on another project, and the serious inflow came between 'freshclam' updates... inside that 12 hour spam we ended up with about 40,000 of the things clogging up the works and god only knows how many untold thousands dropped on the front end. After getting the update in and cleaning out the garbage we're getting several thousand an hour, but the server barely notices it.

    One trick which helped ease the burden is that the majority of the emails are coming in with very specific topics: "hi", "hello", "test", "status" and "server report". Added this line to my postfix spamfilter rules and it eased a LOT of the burden immediately:

    /Subject:.*(hi|hello|test|status|server report)$/ REJECT 550 Your email has the subject of an Worm.SCO.A viral message. Change your
    subject and resend.
    If you're an administrator out there reading this, for the love of whatever god you hold dear TURN OFF YOUR BLOODY VIRUS BOUNCE MESSAGES! I've had as many 'replies' to faked From: headers as virus mails. You're making the problem far worse than it otherwise would be!
    --
    "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
    1. Re:Sounds similar by eht · · Score: 1

      Why don't you bounce them back, teach them a thing or two? If they don't notice it why should they change anything.

    2. Re:Sounds similar by Chemical+Serenity · · Score: 1
      Because I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. As it is I sort of AM bouncing them back, de facto:

      1. Virus mail spoofs a nonexistant from: address on my domain, sends it to server 'x'.

      2. Server 'x' bounces the mail to the nonexistant From: with a 'this is a virus, bad bad bad' message. Maybe it also adds the virus itself into the message (yes, some do this!) and mangles it just enough that clamav won't detect it on my side.

      3. My server receives the unfortunately now-legitimate mail and during processing realizes "I don't know this user", bouncing a 'User not found' message back to the sender. Adding in special rules to avoid bounces-on-bounces are only marginally successful, as there's no standard to judge if an incoming email is a bounce itself.

      ... and thus one virus mail generates 2 additional mails' worth of traffic in certain circumstances. The really annoying part is that it's well known these viruses are From: spoofers, and that the so-called 'industrial strength' tools that generate these replies (Norton, anyone?) haven't the brains to figure out that replying to a spoofed from: won't accomplish squat.

      I could mitigate the problem somewhat by letting unknown user events just fall into the black hole, but there are many instances where they're legit typeos. It's just too useful a function to give up at the moment... and even if I did, it wouldn't solve the problem of traffic amplification due to mismanaged services.

      --
      "People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
    3. Re:Sounds similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were my admin I'd fire you for that braindead workaround.

    4. Re:Sounds similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - Numerous people have shown how you can filter these things based on content, but this tard is blocking tons of legitimate mail with subject lines like "hi" or "hello".

    5. Re:Sounds similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In a business, people don't send messages with 'hi' or 'hello' in the subject. They send messages with 'Please fix blah' or 'Support needed for foo'. Maybe in your world where you're trolling for the hot chixx0rz it might be different.

      Not that an anonymous troll like yourself would likely understand what the word 'business' means, anyways.

  24. The user, experience and self-infection by rayamor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reminds me of that dell commercial where users had to go through computer boot camp.

    I notice a steady flow of anti-microsoft commentary when an outbreak such as this occurs. Remember... it was the user (is luser appropriate here?), and not microsoft that "stuck the needle in their arms."

    During times like this - I think back to the amount of times I've ever gotten infected by a virus... none, I've never used AV software and probably never will - I just don't have a need, just like many other slashdotters.

    Why is this you ask? Easy, because we know better. All of the hours spent in front of our boxes have allowed us to developed a trained eye... quick to point out a bullshit email subject or attachment.

    The common user does not know any better and keeps infecteing themself with the virus of the month. AV software isn't always of help because viruses are created faster than the AV companies can update their definitions.

    The solution lies in user training. How can mass user training be accomplished? I think OS's after being installed or used for the first time should offer (or mandate) a presentation on secure computer usage.. what to look out for, and things not to do when on the computer, such as give out credit card info or fall for Nigerian scams.

    1. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by David+McBride · · Score: 1

      No.

      This was a social engineering attack. The main reason it worked was a) the message itself was believable and b) Outlook does a really shitty job of rendering attachments.

      All you really need to add to Outlook to stop these things from working quite so well is a red flashing light next to the unsafe file so that even with a double-encoded extension, very long filename, or whatever other trick an attacker may use it is clear that you shouldn't open/execute that file.

      The thing is, user training can only help you so much -- even if they're told that some classes of attachment are dangerous and shouldn't be touched, this attack (and hundreds before it) take advantage of bugs in Outlook so that it looks safe!

      When they see a safe non-executable textfile in their email, what should they do? In this case, they shouldn't touch it! But that's an exception to the norm -- how can your users know what is safe and what isn't if their mail client can nolonger be trusted to represent reality accurately?

      Herein lies the core problem, in this case at least: Outlook's UI.

    2. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Although this is a user problem, Outlook definately has a bug. There is no way that the code that decides how to display the icon for the attachement should be seperated from the code that decides how to "execute" it and thus will display different things. That is a definate bug.

      Not a bug, but a nice feature, would be to have any executable attachment pop up a dialog that says "Do you really want to run this thing, it is probably a destructive virus. Do not run unless you are really certain that you trust the sender and that you know the sender had a good reason to send it to you."

    3. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by in10d · · Score: 1

      There is no way that the code that decides how to display the icon for the attachement should be seperated from the code that decides how to "execute" it and thus will display different things.


      The code _should_ be separated.
      Attachment type is identified by its MIME Content-Type, that's enough.


      Not a bug, but a nice feature, would be to have any executable attachment pop up a dialog


      Come on, the dialog would be buggy too.

    4. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      All you really need to add to Outlook to stop these things from working quite so well is a red flashing light next to the unsafe file so that even with a double-encoded extension, very long filename, or whatever other trick an attacker may use it is clear that you shouldn't open/execute that file.

      How about a nice dialog that pops up when the user tries to run the attachment, warning them it's a bad idea and defaulting to "not run" ?

    5. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by David+McBride · · Score: 1

      Users tend to ignore dialogs which pop up asking them for permission. Making something that is dangerous *look* dangerous is probably better, HCI-wise, than asking for permission when the user has already made up their mind that they want to see inside that file.

    6. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by cscx · · Score: 0

      You mean like this?

      Outlook hasn't been suceptible for years. It's just that people are still running versions of OE and outlook that are 4 versions old and never updated them.

    7. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by codemachine · · Score: 1

      > I've never used AV software and probably never will - I just don't have a need, just like many other slashdotters.

      Until recently I could've said the same thing. I used to be primarily a windows 98 user, and now primarily use Linux (with a single win2k box at work). I figured you'd have to be stupid to be infected with anything - just keep your patches up to date and don't open attachments.

      Unfortunately WindowsUpdate claimed that I was all patched up when Nachi came by (but it was a lying POS). I ended up getting a variant that didn't cause any stability problems, but the virus got noticed when it scanned one of our unix servers on port 135. I had to clean up the virus and manually patch the system. Following that, I immediatly installed the AV software we use at work.

      My ideal solution would be to throw my Windows box out a window. If it weren't for one piece of Windows software that I do some development on, I wouldn't even need it. Oh well, soon I'll be able to move it off the network where it can do no more harm.

    8. Re:The user, experience and self-infection by slappyjack · · Score: 1

      Users tend to ignore EVERYTHING that isn't directly related to "what I want this stupid machine to do" and is more than about 7 words long.

      Throw a number in that warning and their eyes instantly glaze over. 50% Chance that this also causes confusion and/or fear.

      95% chance that no matter how long they sit there and stare at whatever pops up, they take no actiona to figure out what it actually is trying to tell them and they ignore it or click whatever button their mouse is closest to.

      Use the same icon in the warning more than 3 times and they get used to seeing it and it no longer does it's job as a visual metaphor.

      Basically, what it all comes down to is: We're all friggin idiots at heart.

  25. Doin ok by Judg3 · · Score: 1

    I'm using Merak Mail Server, a cheaper better engineered alternative to MS Exchange and haven't had a problem yet. Like the others, it's AV learned about MyDoom and has promptly deleted several thousand emails without a single problem.

    Now, the mail list I moderate on - that's another thing. From 6pm to 12am I've received roughly 3000 emails - and 5 where legit. MOST of them where those damn Anti-virus "Your email has a virus" bounce messages. I swear they are the work of evil. There needs to be a switch on em to the effect of "Send out virus warnings to sender, unless I receive X viruses in XX minutes." - This would really make my life a helluva lot easier.

    --
    Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
  26. I think IT management needs to be proactive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the problem of lusers clicking on whatever attachment they see needs to be dealt with at the source

    This could work:

    The sysadmin starts to send random mesages with attachments to staff, with fake email headers. If the luser runs the attached program, the program sends an email to the sysadmin, then informs the user THAT THEY SHOULDN'T RUN UNKNOWN ATTACHMENTS!. The user is reprimanded and sent for 30 minutes of re-education training.

    Follow up every few months with more random attachments.

    Do it 3 times and you're fired!

    1. Re:I think IT management needs to be proactive! by vasqzr · · Score: 1

      I just got a call from the resident moron downstairs.

      "Hey, I've gotten like 10 emails in the last hour, all with Zip files and I can't open the attachments!"

      *shrug*

    2. Re:I think IT management needs to be proactive! by shadowsurfr1 · · Score: 1

      That's what separates the people who know what to do and the morons who think they know what's going on. Must be a windows user.

  27. hmmm by XO · · Score: 1

    Lots of people are talking about how their spam filters are just automagically filtering it.. Mine isn't - spamassassin. I do have Bayesian enabled, and I have received at least 20 or 30 of them.. I've received a LOT LOT LOT more bounce emails from other places though, regarding it.. grrr.

    --
    "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    1. Re:hmmm by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      you should use you mail server to filter out attachments with microsoft executables; e.g., mime-header-checks with Postfix. I set this up during the last outbreak, and not even one of the latest virus has gotten through my postfix.

  28. Two. by repvik · · Score: 1

    I've so far recieved TWO.

    But I wonder, what solutions do people use to filter viruses? I use postfix/procmail right now... Adding a virus scan to that wouldn't hurt :)

    1. Re:Two. by gmhowell · · Score: 1
      A no brainer is a little procmail script. Can't remember the source:
      :0 B
      * ^ *Content-Disposition: attachment;
      * filename=".*\.(vbs|vsf|vbe|wsh|hta|scr|pif|com|exe |shs|bat|bas|scr|wav|eml|dll)"
      microsoftjunk
      Change 'microsoftjunk' to wherever you want to send files with the above attachments. Now that I think about it, I'm switching mine to /dev/null.
      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Two. by repvik · · Score: 1

      It's nice, but it doesn't tell me that the mail has been removed...

  29. Barely felt it at all here by SpaFF · · Score: 1

    I'm running sendmail with Mimedefang calling spamassassin and uvscan. This server sits in front of 4 exchange servers and handles incoming and outgoing mail for about 10,000 users. Spamassassin was marking the messages as spam right off the bat. An updated dat file for uvscan came out around 11PM Monday and my cronjob auto-updated it. From around 11PM Monday to 7AM Tuesday we were averaging around 200 per hour. At about 8AM until now that has jumped to about 500 per hour. For a point of reference, we average about 400 rejected spam messages and 200 tagged-and-sent spam messages per hour. So far there has been no effect on the load of the machine at all. The big virus in September (what was the name of it again...sobig?...) had a much greater effect (although the load on the linux box was still pretty low).

    --
    -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
  30. what virus? by Rei_zero · · Score: 1

    My servers are handling it without a problem... total, I have recieved 5 e-mails with the bounce notice, one with the virus itself. I get less spam every hour.

    --
    http://www.wai-con.org
  31. Make that more... by Rei_zero · · Score: 1

    make that more spam every hour :/ god I gotta stop posting on 20 sites at once...

    --
    http://www.wai-con.org
  32. No direct ill effects. by Torrenc · · Score: 1
    I've got 200 mailboxes on 4 servers (most on one server at head office, a few scattered in branches across a WAN).

    McAfee Antivirus is showing about 5% of our inbound email is infected, though I haven't dug into specifics of which viruses. McAfee SpamKiller is spitting out about another 40% as spam.

    Daily email count averages 6-10k

    The most annoying bit about MyDoom is that we're getting a bunch of "you sent us an infected email!" messages because of the fake "from" address.

  33. As a client, by forged · · Score: 1
    I got about 50 sent to various mailing lists, very few to my email address. This was in the first 4h of the outbreak, because since then our IT dept has implemented the extra signature on the email gateway to detect & strip off the virus and I haven't seen a single one.

    However I now get notification failures and bounces of people whom must have received the virus with a forged sender address (mine).

  34. Eh? by Feztaa · · Score: 1

    My servers don't care that you're doomed.

  35. Very funny by guinnessnwhiskey · · Score: 0

    How Well are Your Servers Handling MyDoom?

    Very funny, indeed.

    Dave Moone
    SCO Sytem Administrator

  36. Usage is way up... by FroMan · · Score: 1



    I got one mydooms, looks like it was a bounce from another idiot admin who sends replies to the forged email header instead of just dropping it.

    Granted my mail server is just for my wife and I, so it isn't like we get a whole ton of email anyways compared to a business.

    --
    Norris/Palin 2012
    Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  37. Mirapoint handles it well by JBird · · Score: 1

    We have just installed a new Mirapoint mail system. The frontend message router (MD450) handles anti-virus and anti-spam scanning. We started getting hit with MyDoom at at 11am local time (GMT+10) yesterday. So far over 1.5 days we have blocked about 300,000 MyDoom messages. The load on the new Mirapoint message director is minimal. Our normal message load before this was 60-70,000 emails per day.

    If this load had hit our old servers we would have been waiting a week to get any legitimate mail through!

  38. Clara.net SMTP servers floored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clara.net's SMTP (not relay) servers have been floored by it, affecting a few of our customers.

    One would have thought an ISP that's been around for awhile could deal with such virii outbreaks!

    No mention of it on their status page yet (1334 GMT) though.

  39. Exchange hasn't seen one yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [root@smtp root]# cat /var/log/maillog | grep -i ?filename= | wc -l
    316

    reject: body ?filename="hwazlp.pif"; For security reasons we reject attachments of this type. Have a nice day.


    Rejecting them before they are even transferred is definitely the best way to handle them. My site hasn't been affected at all. 316 connections is only .01% of my average daily volume.

  40. Our Results by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Due to the virus we've had:

    (780 Email accounts few mailing lists.. Qmail+vpopmail+qmailscanner+clamav)

    500Kbps more bandwidth being used by the mailserver.. Avg is 12kbps most times..

    Were blocking all normal virii attachment .scr .pif .bat .ext but one problem is it's now showing up in zip files dont want to turn on scanning for virii in those becuase of the memory hogging that will ensue and it would force me to serialize scanning of inbound emails but then busy days we'd definately queue up on that end.

    I'm about 10 sec from enabling a SPF filter http://sfp.pobox.com to reject anything not specifically listed in the spf list from that site and other spf enabled sites.. this would definately weed out many of the virii that are just flying from user pc's.

  41. Robust mail system, no problem. by Frater+219 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Yesterday, we rejected some thousands more emails than we usually process on a weekday. Our mail exchangers -- two Dell PowerEdge 2450s with Debian, Postfix, and SpamAssassin -- usually make between 30k and 45k deliveries each day, and reject between 4500 and 5500 messages as spam.

    Yesterday, we made the usual 40k deliveries, but additionally rejected 52k messages, most due to the Mydoom outbreak. Over 29k of those rejections were "user unknown"; 13.6k were based on the strings found in the body of Mydoom messages, and 3k were based on our general policy of rejecting EXE attachments based on the Base-64-encoded MZ header.

    All spam rejections (including SPEWS and Spamhaus SBL-XBL, plus content filters) totaled only 11% of total rejections.

    Maximum load average was around 2. Our mail system is deliberately overengineered, to provide "utility grade" reliability even under load a lot higher than this worm. (Think "mailbomb".) In fact, given how crappy the electrical service is here, I'd say we do rather better than "utility grade".

  42. exchange crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    here at the office, exchange crash due to the increase load. I don't know the specs of the exchange server, but it is pretty heafty. exchange still blows, but it has gotten much better.

  43. Windows User E-mail Re-Education Plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I second the call for re-education of attachment-clicking morons.

    Lock them in a room, and chain them to a chair (with hands and arms free) in front of a Windows PC with a specially modified mouse and keyboard. The PC can run nothing but a mail client (let's call it "Outlook").

    Send that PC a bunch of e-mails with bad attachments and increasingly-tempting subjects/filenames based on gender. For women: "This is soooo cute!" For men: "Britney Spears hidden cam pix!"

    Some of the sender names are people known to the re-educatee, some are ficticious.

    For every attachment the re-educatee executes, they receive an electical shock via the keyboard/mouse. The shocks get increasingly stronger. If the re-educatee does not keep their hand on the mouse or keyboard in an attempt to avoid the shock, they get a stronger one via their seat.

    The users stay in the room until they are either cured or dead.

  44. warnings and bounces by menscher · · Score: 1
    Got about 50 emails last night containing warnings (you sent a virus from an IP you don't own!) and bounces (you emailed a nonexistant user from an IP you don't own!).

    Rather pissed off at Windows lusers right about now....

  45. Univ. mail server smoking by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

    At my university, the email server has been brought to a grinding halt. Some idiotic administrator with access to the email distribution list (that goes to all the students) opened the virus, and so every student on campus got several emails with the virus.

    It's taken them over a day to start blocking it. Of course, this is the same IT "Services" that has every single incoming port either ghosted or blocked at an enormous firewall. File sharing is blocked in any direction, and the only outgoing ports open are 80, 21, and a few others.

    It's interesting to note that while areas of the campus-wide network were clogged by MSBlaster last year, the engineering department didn't even feel it. In fact, one of the sysadmins said, "We sat back and laughed." The CS and IT guys, on the other hand, were running around like headless chickens because they were totally unprepared.

    --
    Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
  46. Personnal hits by Inda · · Score: 1

    Monday 22
    Tuesday 82
    Wednesday 79

    I know I should get a new address but I've had this one a long time.

    This mass mailer definately beats all the other viruses in terms of numbers in my inbox.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  47. 13,000 copies yesterday by BillX · · Score: 1

    I am the webmaster of a computer privacy / security site. One of our most popular downloads is a utility that corrects Windows connection issues caused by adware/spyware that messes with the Winsock stack, aimed at novice users. Thus, the program's readme (containing contact addresses for our site) is sitting on the machines of millions of click-click-execute-happy newbies, AOLers, clueless managers and PHBs, and so forth.

    The worm forges an email FROM a randomish username at a randomly-selected domain TO a randomish username at a randomly-selected domain, and ours seems pretty high on the list. We had (until yesterday...) a catch-all that directed mail to nonexistant users directly to my mailbox.

    My inbox is not a pretty sight right now :-)

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  48. my server by decepty · · Score: 1
    Exchange 5.5 running on an old 500MHz Compaq ProLiant 3000
    Total Emails 1/27/04: 5526 (that's about double our average)
    MyDoom infected messages 1/27/04: 1515 (Ouch!)

    However performance hasn't degraded much overall, I only notice it because I'm the dork that monitors the damn thing... end users aren't feeling a thing.

    --
    Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
  49. My costs in defending against the MyDoom virus by Biff98 · · Score: 1

    5 minutes of my time telling my users to watch out, which they knew to do anyway.....

  50. Pretty Heavy Hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we are covered by Trend which auto updates every hour anyway, so none got through (our workstations are covered with Norton Corp as well). We do about 100K emails a day between two offices and 35 users or so on average (in and out traffic). About 2500 incoming are legitimate, rest is spam/junk.

    Our usage has about doubled, and since our exchange 2000 server is a tad older (single 800MHZ PIII, 1GB Ram, 4x36GB RAID) it's feeling it some, especially when it goes to do bulk emails to members or a quarter day softbackup to it's mirror server. I have gotten about 500 a day notices of incoming copies of that virus... went so far as to block zip attachments until it's over (seems to be less of a CPU/performance hit overall compared to active scanning since the attach block kicks first before an email is scanned).