Slashdot Mirror


Lycos Anti-Spam Screensaver Brings Down Spam Sites

ChairmanMeow writes "According to BBC News, the screensaver released by Lycos Europe that targets spam websites has been a bit too successful at targeting spam sites, bringing down two sites, with a third responding intermittently, and raising concerns that the screensaver amounts to a DDoS attack against spam sites. Of course, spammers deserve to be punished, but will DDoS attacks against spam websites help to curb the problem of spam?" While the screensaver allegedly throttles back when a site slows, it would seem it's being a bit overzealous.

11 of 715 comments (clear)

  1. DDOS? Or manual takedown? by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How do we know that the spammers didn't just take their servers offline in response to the attack?

  2. Not a DDOS by renehollan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    People voluntarily chose to run this, no? It isn't like there's one person using a bunch of machines (with or without their owner's permission) to launch a coordinated attack.

    Rather, it's a bunch of people coordinating their requests for information. At worst, it's civil disobedience (though not directed at government) or an organized, peaceful protest.

    I had a similar idea a while back, where people supportive of a cause could voluntarily elect to permit their computers to engage in simultaneous activity coordinated from a single point. It's cool to see this.

    --
    You could've hired me.
  3. Re:Hmm. by k98sven · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Using a DDOS on spammers is kind of like sending an arsonist to burn down the house of a murderer...

    Yes, but you'd have to make that mass-murderer. Which means all the difference, I'd say.

    A spammer targets millions of people who have to put up with their junk in their mailboxes and on their networks.

    A DDOS attack is thousands of people targeting a single individual.

    Besides, if thousands of people are independently of each other voluntarily accessing these particular sites, then there's no crime in that. (AFAIK, you can't be convicted of 'conspiracy to disable an internet server through requests')

    I don't generally condone vigilante justice, but this is no more criminal behaviour than what thousands of Slashdotters engage in every day. Only with a different aim.

  4. Re:Bad? No way. by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think my screensaver has quit attacking, it just fades to gray with the text "stay tuned" at the top.

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  5. Who died and made Lycos vigilante of the Net? by discord5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hey, I like the idea of punishing spammers, but Lycos is playing a game that's very dangerous. They're doing DOS-attacks (by proxy) on servers, and where I live that's actually a crime. While sending lots of unwanted e-mail will get you a slap on the wrist, DOS'ing a machine without written consent actually gets you jailtime. Where is the liability here when someone installs this screensaver? Is the end-user responsible for the DOS, or is Lycos responsible?

    Another point on this is that this only brings more traffic to the Internet. I know, what's a few measily packets when people are leeching torrents like mad, but still. While this effectively disables spammers for a while, remember that you can't fight fire with fire (or SYN with SYN in this case).

    And what about machines that accidentally get on the list of machines to be abused? Hey, I know that in theory only bad guys get on the list, but I've had enough customers actually get on an RBL while they don't spam.

    This is dangerous ground we're walking here, and sooner or later someone is going to call their lawyer. The ISP that provides internet access for the spammer perhaps, or perhaps even the spammer who knows that where he lives sending spam is nothing compared to DOS.

  6. Re:Worrying by ookabooka · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You are absolutely right. Drawing a line will become a problem. I personally hope that Lycos continues this program, and that someone eventually sues. The government needs to step in and solve the spam issue. With lycos going all vigilante, it forces the government to address what it has long ignored. In my opinion, if the government sees a certain site protected under the law such as freedom of speech, then you cannot spam it. If it finds a site's business practices unethical and/or tries to shut it down, let the populus help. My main concern is for overseas spammers, where our government has no control. In the end, you could have the user select what they wanted to "attack", afterall, it is their bandwidth they are "legitimately" using.

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
  7. Re:Quick! by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Art of Sense is the only one of those that still loads. Text from the front page.

    "Welcome to Art Of Sense Studio by Alvi Siren.

    Special note: We are an innocent victim of Lycos anti-spam program and our lawyers preparing a lawsuit against it."

    Does anyone have any SPAM from these guys to debunk that claim?

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  8. A few bits of info.. by BawbBitchen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lycos is not auto-grabing the urls from the spam. It is having someone open the spam, verify it is spam, verify the end link url for the Viagra or such. Only then is the site added to the target list. Lycos has said that they are not trying to take down the site but cost it money. Seems that they did not write their software right to take into account that everyone and their grandmother hates the spammers and would install it. So a few spam sites went down. I am of the opinion that this is a good thing. They should change their software so it does DoS the site. Having been/worked on large networks I can say that a DoS will 99% of the time only affect the hosting company and the people that sell them the pipe and most likely only at that pipes termination. (Also it is not a true DoS in the sense that the software request the page and completes the transaction!) And I say so the fuck what!?! The hosting company should get screwed for hosting the spammer.

    It is about time we (the collective geeks) do something real about spam. Sure I have SA and all that installed but it is a pain, cost us money (time and hardware). Spammers should be shot. Spammers website should be hacked and cracked and trashed. The companys that knowingly host them should get the same. Their are no laws or police that can fix this chaos we call the Internet. It is up the the users to handle the shitheads.

    It is time to declare ALL OUT WAR SPAMMERS. Let our motto be "Victory or....NO CARRIER!!!"

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Re:Hmm. by HybridJeff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, its like telling evreyone on your street to take their own ads and drop them in the mailslot of the advertising company. If I drop off off one add it isnt my probalem that 200 other people did the same thing too. Or 2000, or 200,000 other people.

  11. Re:Bad? No way. by Geminus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The really bad people are the ISPs. I know some folks at MCI and AT&T... they know their customers are spammers, but as one MCI rep said, "They pay." Some ISPs would be shut down due to a lack of revenue if it weren't for these little providers harboring these SMDs (Spams of Mass Dissemination) I say we should call nato and organize a fact finding investigation. Now let's liberate some servers!