Slashdot Mirror


Fortune 1000 Companies Sending Spam, Phishing

An anonymous reader writes "The Register takes a look at spam touting everything from Viagra to phishing sites being sent from Fortune 1000 networks. Oracle was found to have a machine pushing out a PayPal phishing scam, and BestBuy had a system sending thousands of spams a month. The Washington Post's Security Fix blog also is tracking this story, finding stock spam being pumped from ExxonMobile and from American Electric Power, among others. Another machine at IndyMac Bank was the source of spam touting generic prescription drugs. From the story: '...an IT engineer with American Electric Power, said the stock spam came from a bot-infected computer belonging to a contractor at one of its power generator plants.'"

26 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Ratio of broadband vs dial-up by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once you consider how many americans are supposedly still on dial-up it stands to reason that some portion of the zombie bot-nets will be hosted on corporate americas computers instead of in the home.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
  2. maybe by mastershake_phd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well laws havent stopped spammers or botnets yet, maybe big companies suing them for millions (or billions) in damages will, couldn't hurt.

  3. Companies can restrict outbound port 25 connects. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, home users aren't the whole problem.

    But why aren't these companies correctly firewalled? Why do they allow machines other than their email servers to make outbound port 25 connections?

    Why aren't their logs monitored? Wouldn't this be easy to spot?

    Even with the resources of the biggest companies, their people cannot keep their machines clean or even stop them from sending spam. Who knows what else. A spam zombie can just as easily log network traffic, passwords and anything else on their wires.

  4. ExxonMobile by biocute · · Score: 5, Funny

    finding stock spam being pumped from ExxonMobile

    This is no spam, this is an actual stock push you insensitive clod!

  5. Re:Companies can restrict outbound port 25 connect by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would you NOT allow outbound port 25? Thats a ridiculous restriction. The office I work at has plenty of people who *GASP* check their personal email from work. When they send replies, their SPF/DomainKeys/Whatever-using ISP requires them to use the proper SMTP server. As it should be.

  6. Defense in depth. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those are the biggest companies that should be able to afford the best security measures.

    You know what? With a couple of old boxes and Linux you could setup a smaller company so that this would never happen.

    Use Linux as your firewall and restrict any outbound SMTP connections to your email server.

    Use Linux and Snort to monitor crap on your network.

    Use Linux as your DHCP/DNS server and lock down the IP addresses by the MAC addresses. Yes, this is labour intensive. But it will allow you to keep all your regular machines on one sub-net and all other machines (laptops and such) on a different sub-net. That way you can put a few more restrictions on those machines. And a bit more monitoring.

    That way you have multiple points at which you can become aware of a problem. And multiple points where an attack will fail.

  7. They have usernames/passwords, right? by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Port 25 is usually for server to server SMTP transmissions.

    If you're an end user, you should have a username/password and be using port 465 or 587 (or whatever your email admin setup).

    That is why companies should block outgoing port 25 connections from everything except there own mail servers.

  8. Re:Companies can restrict outbound port 25 connect by Curien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well boo hoo for them. If I set network policy, I wouldn't allow people to download foreign e-mail. If the user's just getting e-mail froma POP connection, you lose the ability to check it for viruses, spam, phishing schemes, etc. Basically, you might as well let people plug laptops right into the enterprise LAN (you're NOT doing that, right?). If they want to receive e-mail at work, they should have it sent to their work address (perhaps via auto-forwarding).

    Scan every e-mail at the SMTP server. Scan every download at the proxy server. Protect your network. A little bit of latency isn't going to kill anyone.

    --
    It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
  9. Make them pay! by Tijaska · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If corporates host boxes that pump out spam, sue them! Their firewalls shouldn't allow emails to flow out of their networks except from one of their approved mail gateways, which should require user authentication before accepting mail, and which should apply reasonable limits like 300 emails sent per source IP address per day, except for the corporate's own spam machine (a.k.a. marketing). Corporates should be held accountable for choosing cheesy software that allows viruses to take over their boxes, and for failing to protect them with their own firewalls, to the extent that this is possible with cheesy software. Let's share the pain, and over time it will percolate back to the prime source of cheesy software.

  10. I guess by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Funny

    As long as it wasn't the computer controlling the inanimate carbon rod, we should all be okay, right?

    --
    What?
  11. That's inbound. I'm talking outbound. by khasim · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are correct. All of those paths could lead to a workstation on your network being compromised. And you have great suggestions on how to protect them.

    But I wasn't originally talking about inbound connections. Blocking the outbound connections would cut off the spam coming from your network.

    How those machines got infected in the first place is a whole other series of discussions. And one that we really should have sometime. Preferably involving Linux and Free software at the critical points (allowing for Windows workstations).

    1. Re:That's inbound. I'm talking outbound. by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I was in college a couple of years ago, we had a couple of computer labs. The one I am going to talk about was a mac based lab completely consisting of old world macs. What they did to limit the amount of damage that a root kit could do and make it harder for large amounts of malware to get on there was this:

      In addition to the normal security setup each computer had an additional program on it. The function of the program was to reset the contents of the computer to that of a default image every single time it was rebooted.

      While that is not at this point in history enough on its own as some things can apparently now get into the firmware and it does nothing to prevent malware getting on between boots, it does make it that much slower for any sort of spyware or spam programs to get on there as well as limiting the stay in most cases to under a day.

  12. Re:Big surprise by Frogbert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This got me thinking. How many users are out there that know their computer was infected or screwed with while they were visiting a porn site, and are too afraid of getting fired (for looking at porn) to tell IT that something is wrong.

    Food for thought.

  13. Re:Not suprising to me by Bonker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, frequent laptop-toting business travelers (almost universally salesmen) also have more limited access to their local IT techs.

    For example, I've worked fairly frequently with a poor lady who was a salesman for a remote market. She lived there rather than near my office. Her email account got suspended at least once a week due to the fact that her laptop had syphilis, gonorrhea, warts, crabs, and just about every virus and worm known to man.

    Phone walk-throughs just didn't help with this lady and the local ISP (mandated by accounting) blocked any ports that could be used to remotely administer her machine. Finally we had her fed-ex it to us for cleanup, wipe, and reinstall of a fairly-well locked down windows system with our (accountant selected) workstation antivirus app.

    This cycle continued four or five times. Her Antivirus app somehow got disabled and her machine became Typhoid Mary. She shipped the Laptop back and we tried to lock it down as securely as possible.

    Ultimately, we discovered that an internet cafe she frequented was infected with a particularly nasty spam-bot worm that our particular antivirus app didn't catch (An AnnaK variant, IIRC). We used this as evidence to override the accountant's selected cheapo antivirus with something that worked a little better.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  14. Re:Never attribute to malice... by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it a lot more likely that their Windows boxe(s|n) just got zombified?

    You're probably right; spammers are among the most aggressive attackers and most of the F1000 have large distributed networks where a (hopefully) small number of systems are going to be vulnerable at any moment. On the other hand, these companies can and do pay for high quality and high capacity pipes. They are also far less suspect as a source of spam, and the ISPs will certainly be reluctant ($$) to take unilateral action to deal with suspect traffic (as some do with their residential customers.)

    For all of these reasons F1000 hosts are many times more effective as spam zombies than your average asymmetric DSL host, so I have no problem with people exposing carelessness or neglect among these companies. They have the resources and talent to prevent this sort of abuse. If they're not, a little bad press might help. Earlier today we all learned that some 40+ million credit/debit card accounts got downloaded from commercial IT systems. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those same companies have a long history of unwittingly contributing bandwidth to spammers.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  15. These same guys INVENTED spam.. by burnitdown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the old days, they used to mail it to you. Yeah, on paper. And then you had to throw it out, and 800 billion tons of it are rotting in a landfill somewhere. The Fortune 1000 contains some of the people least concerned about the environment, or your spam-free virgin mailbox.

  16. Re:Companies can restrict outbound port 25 connect by db32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I seriously hope you are being sarcastic. If I ran across a firewall admin on any corporate network allowing outbound 25 from anything but the corporate email servers I would suggest canning their asses in a heartbeat. It is just stupid on so many levels. First of all checking personal email from work should be on the top 10 things of "you aren't allowed to use the corporate network for this", beyond that, outbound 25 has precious little to do with that anyways, unless they are running an email server on the corporate network in which case that should be #0 on the list since #1 assumes that your employees aren't stupid enough to use your corporate resources to run personal servers, either way a good firing would fix that in a hurry. Honestly, since most corporate networks these days are using exchange boxes, they shouldn't even really be allowing outbound 25 from ANYTHING on the internal network. A good admin will have a secured relay be it part of the firewall or a sun box or something other than allowing the win/exchange boxes from talking directly to the net.

    You can argue morale issues until you are blue in the face, network security should trump that in 99% of those cases. The enterprise network exists for the sole benefit of the enterprise. Personal email, instant messages, myspace, what the hell ever, has a risk that FAR outweighs any potential benefit. If your employees can't leave their email/myspace/im friends for 8hrs a day you should probably find employees who can. There is plenty of websurfing around that doesn't involve grotesque breeches of security to keep people entertained while they are being productive. If the company is paying you so little that you can't afford your own internet access you should probably find a new job.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  17. Reminds me of when I first started my current job, by BurningFeetMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The PC hadn't been turned on in about 6 months. Apparently the dude who I was replacing was into Russian brides and err, certain types of ethnic pr0n, and had got the sack for various dodgy reasons 6 months prior to my instalment. Anywho, in the 6 months that this computer was un-manned, my company installed Norton across all other PC's.

    My 2nd day was interesting, when I first turned on the computer. EVERYONE who had the Norton running detected all sorts of network worms and virusiis's (:P) the second I'd booted into Win XP. I thought,
    "Oh crap, here we go. Time to clean up this mess..."
    and began a search for *.jpg. Kapow, tonnes of hairy pr0n, selected all and shift deleted.

    Next, it was time to install the company antivirus software, which was Norton. The next couple of days were spent trying to free my infected system of all sorts of goodies. I started by enabling the Norton Mail Monitor, and oh my, how funny!

    "Scanning out going mail, Scanning out go-Scanning out going mai-Scaning out g-Scan"

    The WHOLE screen filled up with Norton "scanning out going mail" boxes, like, 100's of them. This was my first job outside of the IT industry, and a big WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD for me. So yes, what's the point of my story? Well, Russian brides are hairy. OH, and not all companies have IT departments, let alone competent IT staff who can source and cease zombie machines from operating.

  18. (contractor at one of its power generator plants) by colfer · · Score: 2, Funny

    D'oh!

  19. Good bye erection dysfunction by RealityNews · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Register takes a look at spam touting everything from Viagra to phishing sites being sent from Fortune 1000 networks. So I will finally be able to get viagra from reliable Internet sources? God bless you, capitalism!

    Corrupt
  20. Actually, here's the complementary thought by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This got me thinking. How many users are out there that know their computer was infected or screwed with while they were visiting a porn site, and are too afraid of getting fired (for looking at porn) to tell IT that something is wrong.

    Food for thought.


    Actually, here's another thought for you: how many got pwned by other means, but are affraid that some "lusers are idiots" type will blame it on porn? I've only skimmed through the thread and I already see two blanket generalizations to the effect that, respectively, (A) infections come from porn surfing, and (B) the user is lying through his teeth if he's saying otherwise.

    The fact is, there are so many ways to get pwned today, it's not even funny. Email attachments, trojan programs packed as some cutesy screen server or utility you can download, phishing-like schemes where you're sent to a page chock-full of IE exploits, warez sites (tend to be worse than porn as infection risk goes), spyware serving ads with exploits in them, or rarely a genuine site or ad provider getting pwned and helping spread exploits (don't assume that _only_ spam zombies can possibly ever get installed when security is breached), etc.

    Yes, you can say that they should have known better, but it's still not porn. And it sometimes comes with the endorsement, real or faked by a trojan who took over a friend's address book, of someone they know. E.g., every company has a wiseguy or two setting up some jokes mailing list and forwarding there anything he receives, indiscriminately, including links to other sites. And by indiscriminately, I mean here one even managed to forward a couple of business emails to that list.

    Then there are malicious insider jobs. There are cases of sheer idiocy on the part of some techie or programmer or PHB. (You can occasionally read advice even on /. to the effect of leaving a backdoor to some client's machine so you can remotely debug it, for example. Or insecure stuff left in programs just on the assumption that noone will know it's there.) Etc.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Actually, here's the complementary thought by lukas84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, that the whole story is two sided.

      It's very hard to maintain an open attitude when working in IT. Especially when you're doing Internal IT only (i mostly work for our customers, and do our internal IT as a side job).

      People fuck up, and are afraid of the consequences when they fucked up - thus they will try to find something else to blame.

      IT People fuck up too, and are afraid of the consequences when they fucked up - thus they try to find someone else to blame.

      The consequences are that Users and IT People don't trust each other. And this is bad, very bad.

      IT is something to make your users more productive, and help them to get their work done faster. A restrictive policy usually won't help you with that. My company has a very open IT policy - and i think it helps with both morale and problem resolution.

      We even allow our employees to plug their own laptops into the company network. Yes, it's risky. But the problems incurred and benefits reaped are a better than properly securing this (e.G. buying 802.1x switches and segmenting clients into VLANs according to their identification).

      Remember - IT is an internal service to make the company work better. IT is not an end, it's a means to achieve an end faster. You as an IT guy should think about "how do we get our employees to be more productive" and not "how do we restrict them as much as possible so that i can sit around and read dilbert all day long".

  21. Is the corporation centralized? by br00tus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It is easy for me to see this for a number of reasons.

    1 - Is the entire corporation's IT department centralized? HP is a F1000 company - is HP and Compaq's computer networks fully merged? Or for Citigroup, is the old Citicorp network fully merged with the Travelers network? Or were Travelers Salomon Brothers and Smith Barney networks merged before that? And so forth. Wal-Mart's corporate network is probably standardized, but a lot of companies are the resut of many mergers over the years. Or some companies are just of a type where different divisions are very different so there is no or not much centralized corporate IT.

    2 - Does the corporation have a global network? Global multi-national corporations have computers all over the world, and it can be hard to have a standard network in New York, Tokyo and London (etc.) New York and Tokyo may be solid, but London may be open to problems etc.

  22. Re:Companies can restrict outbound port 25 connect by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can argue morale issues until you are blue in the face, network security should trump that in 99% of those cases.

    That's a classic example of IT narrowmindedness. If the employees no longer care, no technical measures will secure your data. Security is everybody's business, not just yours. People will naturally protect that which they care about. No morale = no security.

    As you seem to be from the school of "a good firing will fix anything". Hopefully for your own sake your boss wises up and uses a 'good firing' to adjust your attitude, because I doubt anything else will penetrate that skull.

  23. Re:Never attribute to malice... by MooUK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sending email by porpoise sounds like a fun idea...

  24. Re:Companies can restrict outbound port 25 connect by db32 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IT narrowmindedness? Sure, whatever, I am so sick of users justifying the most insane bullshit on the network and then crying about the IT department being enforcing such harsh restrictions. Go buy your own internet access and expose your home network to whatever you want, not mine. Then on top of this its the IT departments fault when the secretary has installed 18 random mouse cursors and other malware crap and her computer runs like shit. While doing contract work I almost watched a woman get fired on the spot for that crap because they kept having to call my company in and send me out to bill them for something like $70/hr to come and fix this womans PC. Finally the boss asked me what it was and I told him she has all this garbage installed and every time I remove it she puts it back on and then I have to come back out and fix it. So...she was costing her company hundreds of dollars in support because she just HAD to have the puppy theme for IE and all the puppy cursors.

    Further, since I have frequently worked on secure networks, if I catch you doing something stupid you are likely to get reprimanded and depending on the level of stupid fired, if higher up the chain catches you, or something bad happens due to your nonsense...you are looking at fired or jail. So in fact when dealing with sensitive networks that is the method because it isn't fun and games, its business, and the corporate network doesn't exist for your amusement. There is plenty you can do to kill time with a solid network with good policy, that doesn't involve installing a bunch of BS, or allowing IM/Email/etc. Unless you haven't been watching the news, data exfiltration is a major issue, and most problems are inside jobs.

    I seriously don't understand this IT narrowmindedness crap that keeps coming up. Users expect their IT department to protect them. They follow the logic of "if I can do it then I must be allowed to do it and it must be ok" A good IT department lays down solid policy and enforces it. Security is everyones business, but its the IT departments job. You can bet your ass the first time something goes wrong the IT department is going to be answering alot of questions about "why didn't you have something in place to prevent this".

    Exposing your network to user stupidity has nothing to do with morale. People cry this morale bullshit when trying to justify poor policy or poor behavior when its just a failure to do their job or take security seriously. We have had IPTV on the network for ages, you can watch any number of TV channels fed through the network. Live TV, and not sucking down precious internet bandwidth. But people will still bitch and moan about wanting streaming media so they can watch whatever stupid clips they find on myspace that have driveby malware installs and other such exploits and then when a good admin blocks myspace people like you will cry about how aweful and draconian it is to protect your network from threats when the users want to expose millions of dollars of equipment to risk.

    I invite you to go deal with a melissa "virus" type cleanup, not even really a virus, user must interact with it and it still spread like wildfire and caused millions in damages on just the few networks I supported at the time. (In fact almost watched a guy get fired on that one too for causing the loss of 2GB of marketing images). Even better, go deal with a real virus that can spread on its own because some dumb bastard clicked on cool_mp3.scr from his webmail that he shouldn't have been using. A real outbreak costs an insane amount to contain and most of the time it could have been prevented by good policy and enforcing that policy.

    My responsibility is to the security of the network, not the whim of the user.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.