Slashdot Mirror
Personalized Spam Rising Sharply, Study Finds
designperfection9 writes "A new study by Cisco Systems Inc. found an alarming increase in the amount of personalized spam, which online identity thieves create using stolen lists of e-mail addresses or other poached data about their victims, such as where they went to school or which bank they use."
From the article:
The latest study was based in part on [Cisco's] ability to monitor 30 percent of all Web and e-mail traffic
I hope the journalist misunderstood something, otherwise all my fears about the NSA just got crunched.
--
iPhone Apps review site looking for bilingual testers
It's a good thing there is anti-spam legislation.
the rise in "security questions" which are essentially weaker passwords. This personalized spam proves getting to much of that info is easy. But now, so often, when I register an account, in addition to a password, there is always a "security password" to null and void that password and get back in easier.
Some of the better services let you choose your own security password, but others only have a short list of really lame ones (1st car, pet, place of birth) which is not secure at all. I make sure to put in a nonsensical random string as an extra security measure. And this just proves it fallible.
Really, at this point, who is falling for this stuff?
Even with personalization, I am getting the same "custom" messages from 15+ "female" names.When you get your forula spam message, does anyone click on them anymore?
Is there still money in spam, other than the money from selling the spam lists and spam network?
Cisco will soon be introducing a product to address this exact problem!
I received one spam email this year which was addressed to me, using my proper first, middle, and last name, as well as my old address back from when I used to live with my parents. The only place I would have volunteered this information online was the Monster job website several years back. I emailed Monster, rather furious at how lax their privacy was. They confirmed that this was their fault but were completely unapologetic.
Fortunately (I think) I never received a second email like this.
Is it really personal spamming? I've seen spam posing as bank notices for a long time. Generally, first you see them (posing to be) from the largest banks, and then over time you start seeing them (posing to be) from regional and local banks as well.
And considering how many people use online banking, it is pretty reasonable for many people to expect to see an email from their bank on occasion.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
How did they know I was looking for penis enlargement pills and cheap viagra?!?!
I use email so rarely these days that any piece of email I get which I did not directly request from the sender I treat as suspicious, no matter who sent it. So far it's been proven to be a perfectly valid policy to follow.
Personalized Spam Rising Sharply
Now I am going to be worried every time I get one of those adverts for penis enlargement
....who told them?
Poached data, eh?
And here I thought it was simply common knowledge online that I had a small penis. Go figure.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My father just kicked off a flurry of spam from his inbox, and I have been helping him to reach out to his entire address book to stop it from spreading any further. According to him:
Now that they have his email address, one that he does not want to give up, I am afraid he, and everyone on his address list, will now be the target of even more personalized spam. I hope my gmail filter catches most of everything, but I have no doubt in a few months I'll be looking for pen!s enlargement devices, v!agr@ etc.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Please do not forget to deport your paycheck from walmart to your Wells Fargo account 777-888888.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They understand it. They just don't give a shit.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
is that it will probably increase as more site are electing to run Windows.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You can't get much more personal than spam that you send to yourself. I'm apparently doing this every night in my sleep, since I can't ever recall clicking Send when I'm awake....
Of course they do, it's just that if they don't do as NSA says, then they don't get to continue to rebuild their monopoly. It be Bidness, and the constitution gets in the way of Bidness.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
There is a surprisingly simple solution to the SPAM problem but no one likes it. Charge to send e-mail. It doesn't have to be much (heck a penny an e-mail would probably suffice).
Maybe that's because understanding the constitution isn't the telcos job? Get pissed at the government. Defending the constitution is their fucking job, and they were the ones who telling the telcos what to do.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that the telcos went along with it, but you have to place the blame where it belongs - on the government people who initiated the action in the first place.
Maybe not
Explains all the one-eyed midget pr0n spam i get.
Table-ized A.I.
One sneaked through my Gmail filter last night.
"Break down walls with your massive c0ck," it said. I'm not sure what Facilities would have to say about that, but clearly this spammer knows all about me. :)
There is really no large qualitative or quantitative difference between e-mail spam and targeted ads nowdays. Both account for a lot of traffic, both are usually not appealing nor desired (targeted ads being generally more intrusive). Why does e-mail spam have a so much worse reputation? Because it's limited to a few daring advertisers I suppose (and you can't have that advertising spot!).
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Telco's do, however, have a responsibility to say "Sure, as soon as you give us a court order, we'll get right on that." If they don't, then they are waiving the right to your privacy for you, and they are just as guilty.
Warning, knife is sharp. Please keep out of children.
Yeah, all the oaths say that, but the reality is that the best parts of the document are the ones that realize that the worst defenders of that document are the guys it was written to restrain.
Its not really anyone's job to to protect the constitution, but it's sure as hell in most people's interests to do so. Even the telcos.
What are the ISPs doing about it, such as blocking relaying of spam from open or unauthorized email relays.
davecb5620@gmail.com
"The real problem is people visiting Web sites through email links, and replying to unsolicited email (from companies they recognize or not)"
..
No, the real problem is the ISPs not blocking spam from open or unauthorized email relays. And the gazillion compromised desktop PCs out there being used in botnets
davecb5620@gmail.com
Someone remind me, what is the difference between spam sent by "identity thieves", and spam sent by corporations that have "legitimately" obtained my info?
(a) When Mr. Government Man says to the person at the telco "Well, Form XYZ34B/NS3 says we don't need a court order, you just have to comply." and hands over a copy of a evidently properly signed and executed form XYZ34B/NS3 who the heck is going to say "No"? Because should anyone do that, the next is to bring out form ABC37Q/VR5 which says a failure to comply with XYZ34B/NS3 can possibly result in a 34 year prison term. Of course it is all BS, but it is BS conducted from a position of untimate authority. Upon someone that really doesn't know.
(b) In the US I am not aware of any legislation that says you have any such "right to privacy". There are some pretty weird interpretations of the 14th Amendment that when suitabily tortured seem to come up with something that sounds like a "right to privacy" in the right situations. But outside of Roe V. Wade, I've never heard of anyone in a legal sense asserting a true "right to privacy". You might get somewhere saying it is an illegal search violating the 4th Amendment, but I think they have that covered. At least that argument has been fought over already and lost as far as the telco monitoring is concerned.
Understanding the constitution is every American's job.
99% of the personalized crap is so obvious it doesn't matter.
Even the bank phishing attempts are funny. An email with my name from a bank I never have done business with is a cause for concern?
How about those from a bank I never heard of?
OK folks, how many people had ever heard of The Fifth Third Bank before they saw the phishing email? Raise your hands now.
That's what I thought.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Aren't the people that work for telcos also citizens of this country? As citizens, it is our responsibility to make sure that the government does not over step its bounds. So, I think I'll remain pissed at them too, thank you very much.
Okay, you got me there ;-)
What I mean is, when the NSA, CIA, or FBI says "Here's this official government order telling you to wiretap.", the telco doesn't know how it was obtained, they just know it's an official government order to wiretap. They shouldn't have to investigate how and why it was obtained before they comply. Not like they could even do that if they wanted to.
It's the government agency's responsibility to make sure the order is done legally and constitutionally, not the company that gets served the order.
Maybe not
The case against the telcos is based on violations of law, not constitution. The telcos violated provisions in FISA which placed specific parameters around what they are legally allowed to do (and required to obtain) in order to perform surveillance on US citizens or within US territories. The provisions are specific enough that civil damages are specified in the actual law (per incident!) to further incent the telcos to obey the law.
The government asked for something they shouldn't have, and most of the telcos (not all!) gave up something they were legally obligated to protect. As far as I'm concerned they are both fair game.
My first car was an XQ3'tt9w, my mother's maiden name is 6P$n(we.
(These being examples, don't even try...)
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Thank you for confirming my worries that your system is not secure.
Sorry, but the ISO27001 is outdated. Why? It's older than a month, so it's outdated. We're talking IT security here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Years ago I started creating online accounts with false names. Well, not false, just ones I found in the local phone book.
Then my spam filter learned that mails to those phonebook people were unwanted, because nobody I know would mail me something under that name.
Since those "personalized" spam mails are only so much personalized (i.e. name and maybe a few other tidbits), mails that were sent to my phonebook people were used as patterns to weed out other mail that actually went to my name.
The most difficult task for a spamfilter is to discriminate between wanted and unwanted mail. It gets a heck lot easier when the spammer himself gives you a sample of what you want to filter for.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The same line of reasoning was used by the military to justify the torture of (innocent) civilians at Abu Ghraib prison, but in that case only the Generals and politicians got immunity.
If there was any doubt, then they should have consulted the general public to ask them whether what they were planning on implementing was constitutionally correct. Democracy has a way of weeding out the extremes (of abuse, when it is practiced).
It's actually the job of the people to defend the Constitution. We're here to keep the Government in check.
When are they going to get personalized? I guess I don't have enough information out there, because the past few days I got about 50 messages from Hot Chicks who thought I was "hawt" and want to chat on MSN.
That's 0 for 3 for the most recent spew of spam that's getting through the filters. I'm afraid that they need more help with the personalization still. Or is it that I need more make more of my personal life available to them?
I disagree. There's a clear difference between a jovially-executed man-pile and murky-as-hell privacy laws.
I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
Also true. At least until they finally convince the voters that the only reasons to own a gun are for hunting and home defense. Then we're fucked.
I deliminate with tabs. Get used to it.
Finally we're seeing one of our fine pure inbreed slashdotters again ! ;)
I thougth we were extinct..
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
If centimeters really count, general dating rule of thumb:
1 centimeter on the Internet is 0.5 centimeter In Real Life!
conclusion: These spammers know the rule of thumb better than you do! ;)
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
It's a rule [general dating rule of thumb] not a word! ;)
Ready to be standardized by any millionaire on the world! Stay tuned!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..