Slashdot Mirror


New Spam Zombies Use ISPs' Mailservers

RMX writes "CNet's reporting that the new spam zombie PCs are no longer acting as their own mailservers, but cooperate with the ISPs' recommendation that instead of running your own mail server, to use theirs instead."

13 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Many ISP mail servers get blacklisted now? by enosys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will many ISP SMTP servers get automatically blacklisted because of this?

  2. Re:Simple solution by kerrle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or the bots could ignore that, and just send out with the default mail settings - most users would have OE set to remember password, so no real gain there.

  3. can we expand the war on terra to include spammers by trolluscressida · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would love to see a Special Ops unit bust down the walls of a spammer's house, beat him, gag him, beat him again, send him to Guantanomo Bay for eternity, and than C-4 the spam servers.

    Everyone should write their congressmen requesting this.

  4. Email Meltdown my ass by mg2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If we just switched to a secure email system (SSL/TLS, or whatever), a lot of these dumb problems would go away.

    Yes, I know some mail clients don't support this functionality, but come on. Name one of the modern clients that won't do it. Thunderbird, Mail.app, Eudora, Outlook ... they all know how.

    I suppose then you just have to convince users. This, though, should be the easiest part:

    Dear User,
    This email is to notify you that your neighbor has been recieving your monthly e-bank statements and password confirmation emails because you are stubborn and insist on using insecure email protocols.

    Incidentally, we'd like to thank you for your subscription to DAILY LESBIAN ACTION MAIL!!!1

  5. Re:violation of ISP contract? by xtrvd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Telus, my ISP in British Columbia (Canada) already takes a fairly agressive stance on this situation. In the past few years, they have realized that their clients are idiots and will open up any attachments they get in their email clients, even those great ones with .scr's from v1agra@sh0p0ur31337store.ch.

    In order to stop their networks from becoming ridden with viruses, they simply closed off the accounts of whom ever was infected. Sure people complained, but in the end, there were more people that were satisfied since their computer only needed to be infected with one virus for them to notice. Instead of having a computer with 20+ self-propagating viruses, the user only had one when they realized they needed it fixed.

    Joe User's seem to ignore popups and slow-downs of their computers as long as they can still connect to the internet and check their AOL email. As soon as they're disconnected, they will call up the ISP and find out how to get their computer fixed.

    If these ISP's can take the same stance against zombies becoming spam servers, it shouldn't be long until Joe User is forced to learn how to use a firewall to protect himself from being disconnected.

    As soon as we have ISP's that are *more* responsible for the content going through their networks, we'll have a better internet.

  6. We're winning by SiliconEntity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the best sign yet that we're winning the war on spam. This is exactly what measures like SPF were designed to induce - forcing zombies to go through the ISP rather than sending mail themselves.

    Now all the ISPs have to do is to filter and detect sudden jumps in email traffic. It will be easy for them to detect systems which have been infected. This will catch the small number of users who suddenly start running high volume email lists from their home systems, but those cases will be few enough that they can be dealt with manually.

    This is the beginning of the end for the zombie spam problem!

  7. Re:violation of ISP contract? by CrackerJack9 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would be great, but for some of the same reasons Joe User isn't already securing his PC is because he doesn't know where to start, let alone how to finish.

    Let's say the ISP tells him to run ZoneAlarm (firewall for PCs), he will most likely end up just saying "Allow always" to any suspicious programs requesting internet access, or "Deny always" and he'll just have to call the ISP back to figure out why Windows can't open any TCP/IP connections....it's a great fix on paper, but I think there are a lot of other factors that need to be considered before you assume you can "just tell them to become computer security experts"

  8. Re:Unnamed processes by rusty0101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That presumes that the process name will be pre-defined. We already have viruses that generate a new name for their executable, or library, and use that name to modify the workstation or server's database to automatically launch it each time the computer is rebooted. If this virus also is generating spam, it will be run with the process name of the executable or library, and at best you will see a process name that you don't recognize. Considering the fact that a significant percentage of the population of computer users do not even know how to bring up the task list, much less know what each process that normally runs is, is named, or does, telling them to kill off any process that looks like 'libraryname0.dll' is not going to be particularly helpful.

    Your best bet is to find a personal firewall that asks you if application x is allowed to generate network traffic. Hopefully the firewall will tell you more, such as the type of traffic the application is attempting to generate, but even that can be more information than a general user is prepared to try to asses.

    If your firewall tells you that 'tobmaps.exe' is trying to send e-mail to your isp's mail server, you might tell it no, don't allow that sort of traffic. If it tells you that 'tobmaps.exe' is attempting to connect to login.yahoo.com via http, you might inadvertantly allow it, even though login.yahoo.com is the first step towards sending e-mail through Yahoo.

    In most cases however you can probably tell your personall firewall to block all traffic to any IRC network, unless you speicifically approve the app, and know what you are doing. Of course over time spambots are going to move on from IRC channels to Instant Messaging services, to various p2p applications, if they haven't already.

    Saying 'kill off any process named xyz-abc.exe' is all well and good, but is probably going to be a one shot solution to a small subset of the people infected with a spambot.

    -Rusty

    --
    You never know...
  9. Re:Eh? Because... by kd3bj · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why didn't they think of it earlier?

    Because I suspect it doesn't work as well. It's pretty easy for an ISP to notice 100,000 emails from one sender pumping through their SMTP server, but relatively difficult to notice those mails when sent directly through the net. Also, outgoing servers are often set up with throttling.

    Of course, nowadays, ISP's have no excuse in either scenario. There are plenty of network monitoring tools that will notice spamming.

  10. Re:violation of ISP contract? by ErikZ · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Yep. And the great thing about having a licence to use a computer is the immense power it gives the government over you.

    Piss off someone in power? Take away your licence.

    Mistakenly accused? Take away your licence until you clear things up.

    Go up against the latest policial hotbutton that no one takes seriously? To make it serious, they come up with a new punishment. Take away your licence!

    A licence to operate a computer is a horrible, horrible idea.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  11. Re:Simple solution by mcc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Otherwise, two problems could be solved in one fell swoop: ... use Pine

    But then they would have a third problem.

  12. RFC 2476 by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have a lot of customers that go on the road ... They just leave the SMTP set to us, and we have secure logins. Voila. Oh, but we can't use port 25 because a lot of ISPs block it.

    You're using SMTP AUTH over TLS on port 587/tcp per RFC 2476, right? ISPs have fewer legitimate reasons (if any) to block 587/tcp out than 25/tcp out.

  13. Re:violation of ISP contract? by rawg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, the police should take your car away if you leave it unlocked. You must live in California.

    Personally I would rather see it this way; if your car is doing something bad, then it should be stopped and not allowed on the road until it's fixed. IE leaking oil on the road, lots of smoke coming out of it, or parts falling off.

    If your driving down the freeway with a 300 feet of linked banners attached to the back of your car, then you should be stopped. Even if you didn't attach those banners to it.

    --
    The above is not worth reading.