Slashdot Mirror


Fighting "Snowshoe" Spam

Today Spamhaus announced they are releasing a new list of IP addresses from which they've been receiving "snowshoe" spam — unsolicited email distributed across many IPs and domains in order to avoid triggering volume-based filters. "This spam is sent from many small IP ranges on many Internet Service Providers (ISPs), using many different domains, and the IPs and domains change rapidly, making it difficult for people and places to detect and block this spam. Most importantly, while each host/IP usually sends a modest volume of bulk email, collectively these anonymous IP ranges send a great deal of spam, and the quantities of this type of spam have been increasing rapidly over the past few months." A post at the Enemies List anti-spam blog wonders at the impact this will have on email service providers and their customers. The author references a conversation he had with an employee from one of these providers: "... I replied that I expected it to mean the more legitimate clients of the sneakier gray- and black-hat spammers would migrate to more legitimate ESPs — suggesting that it was, in the long run, a good thing, because ESPs with transparency and a reputation to protect will educate their new clients. His reply was essentially that this would be a problem for them in the short run, because it would swamp their new customer vetting processes and so on."

27 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Snowshoe? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whoever keeps naming things with these slightly-plausible analogies, please stop.

    1. Re:Snowshoe? by djupedal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would you prefer: u e d a m IP a d i o t a t v b f

      unsolicited email distributed across many IPs and domains in order to avoid triggering volume-based filters.

      Snowshoe: spam not ordinarily wanted sent hourly occupying email

    2. Re:Snowshoe? by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      wish all the PCs that have bots running on them would just blowup.. or like the good ole day viruses; just wipe out the drives.. .eeh..

      Blame Evolution. A virus that messes too much with the host PC has a low survival rate. The most successful viruses don't do too much damage, as that keeps them a low priority with AV software, and don't cripple the infection vectors, as that helps them spread, and aren't too OS specific, as that allows them to tolerate service packs and software upgrades.

    3. Re:Snowshoe? by religious+freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like to complain about stupid Internet names as much as the next person, but I actually like the name. It's descriptive without being cutesy and isn't nearly as stupid as something like "twitpocalypse" or even "cookie"

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    4. Re:Snowshoe? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Funny
      Blame Evolution.

      Evolution?

      More likely Outlook and the colander-like OS it runs on.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    5. Re:Snowshoe? by jonadab · · Score: 3, Informative

      > unsolicited email distributed across many IPs and domains
      > in order to avoid triggering volume-based filters.

      I hereby propose we just call it "spam" and have done.

      I mean, seriously, is anybody really still worried about the old-fashioned kind of spam that was sent back in the early nineties, going out from one mail server with one IP for months on end, using an actual valid return email address from an actual valid domain owned by the senders? Have you *received* any of that lately?

      I haven't. Near as I can tell, *all* modern spam is sent by a collection of nodes distributed across many IPs on many subnets and randomly generates a new forged sender address for each message. We don't need a special name specifically for spam that's sent like that. If you just say "spam", that communicates the whole idea. Everybody who has been paying attention knows that it's sent in the described fashion these days.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  2. I represent that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a Canadian I figured I'd better look that up.

    http://www.spamhaus.org/faq/answers.lasso?section=Glossary#233

    Like a snowshoe spreads the load of a traveler across a wide area of snow, snowshoe spamming uses many frequently-changing IP addresses, domains and aliases to spread out the spam load in order to dilute recipient reputation metrics and evade filters. Snowshoers use many fictitious business names (DBAs), fake names and identities, and frequently changing postal dropboxes and voicemail drops. Conversely, legitimate mailers try hard to build their brand reputation based on a real business address, a known domain and a small permanent range of sending IPs. Snowshoers often use anonymized or unidentifiable whois records, whereas legitimate senders are proud to provide their bona fide identity.

    Some showshoers use tunneled connections from their back-end spam cannon to the spam egress IP. The back-end IP address is not in the spam headers. ISPs, you are in a position to detect those back-end spam cannons by checking where traffic flows are coming from. Remember, the tunneled connection is not necessarily on port 25. Spamhaus always appreciates such information.

  3. Greylisting! by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay okay! I heard you all the last time I brought it up. But the results are simply awesome. And greylisting is perfect against these snowshoe distribution methods. The downside might be the database filling up.

    1. Re:Greylisting! by grahamsaa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ummm, unfortunately . . . no.

      Greylisting just doesn't work in a business environment. When an e-mail is rejected with a "please try again later" response, it makes the recipient's company look bad at an organizational level. What's worse, senders may ignore these "try again" messages, or never see them at all. Greylisting doesn't work well in high volume business environments.

      --
      Facts have a liberal bias.
    2. Re:Greylisting! by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the senders' mail servers are broken, and don't deserve to have their mail read. Greylisting is perfectly acceptable, however it is slightly less than effective as more and more bots will actually retry.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    3. Re:Greylisting! by XanC · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "try again" message goes to the sender's mail server. Greylisting is performed between servers. The only perceptible result of greylisting for people is that the first time they email somebody, it might take longer than normal for the recipient to get it.

    4. Re:Greylisting! by jackbird · · Score: 3, Informative

      it is important to note that "longer than normal" can mean 24 or more hours for a surprisingly large number of mail servers. Forum registrations and the like are particularly frustrating.

    5. Re:Greylisting! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the email in question is about a multi-million dollar business deal, then I guarantee you they have a right to have their email read. Suggesting otherwise is a good way to torpedo your company's future.

      Assuming that both sides are legitimate businesses (e.g. not selling millions of dollars worth of cocaine), I'm pretty sure they would both spend the extra few dollars on a reliable email provider or a competent IT person to run an SMTP server. Email delivery can fail on the first attempt for many different reasons, so giving up after one failure is never reasonable.

    6. Re:Greylisting! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      SPF is not a form of whitelisting, it is a way of validating whitelists. It lets you whitelist domains, rather than IPs. If example.com sends you emails and you use greylisting then the first email will be delayed. If they have multiple outgoing mail servers (not unusual in a large organisation, especially one with lots of different sites) then the next email from example.com may also be delayed by greylisting if it came from a different outgoing mail server. SPF lets your greylisting software automatically whitelist all of example.com's outgoing mail servers if one of them passes greylisting. The only reason SPF 'failed' is that people started assuming that 'has valid SPF record' and 'is not a spammer' meant the same thing, which is clearly nonsense.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Greylisting! by jonadab · · Score: 2, Informative

      > When an e-mail is rejected with a "please try again later"
      > response, it makes the recipient's company look bad at an
      > organizational level.

      Only if the delay gets noticed.

      > What's worse, senders may ignore these "try again" messages,
      > or never see them at all.

      Under anything vaguely resembling normal conditions, the sending user never sees the "try again" message and never knows that there's greylisting involved. The mail server takes care of all that. All the major MTAs since the beginning of time have supported queue-and-resend, because when the internet was young mail got delayed all the time due to unreliable infrastructure.

      The problem with greylisting isn't that mail would ever completely fail to get through, but rather than mail from new senders would be *delayed*, at least for several minutes, possibly for several *hours*. Given the way email was originally designed to work, this should theoretically be no big deal, but in practice a lot of organizations won't tolerate that kind of delay in incoming mail.

      For personal email, though, it can be an attractive option. Bear in mind, recognized whitelisted senders get through right away; only mail from unknown senders gets delayed.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  4. Snowshoe spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's going to be annoying. I will never in a million years find myself in the market for snowshoes.

  5. Re:How is this different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    from the typical spambot? Any big enough botnet dedicated to send spam could have millons of nodes.

    Of course, most of those nodes are located in residential IP ranges, not meant to have mail servers usually. There are blacklists for that since a lot ago. That combined with greylisting (some spambots can handle greylistings, some not), and content filtering could reduce a lot the impact of that kind of spam.

    It's completely different. Snowshoe spam does not come from infected PCs (proxies or bots), it comes from *static* IP addresses *bought* by the spammers from ISPs. The spammers have been buying IP ranges, class Cs, directly from ISPs and filling these ranges with 'nonsense' domains, each one sending 'a bit' of spam is order to spread the load across the whole class C to lessen complaints.

  6. Re:I have a fine idea by rhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like a good idea until one of your systems gets compromised and you receive the bill for the millions of emails that were sent through it. Perhaps you should go to prison if someone uses your car without permission and kills someone too?

  7. This is not new! by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is this being presented as if it were something new?

    As early back is 2001, as an admin for an ISP, I would see what I called a "spam attack" - a large number of emails sent over a 24 hour period or so, adding up to (typically) around a million attempted emails to random addresses at the domain name(s) for which I administered.

    We used greylisting to stop these attacks, but it was *very* taxing - in a typical attack, I logged well over 10,000 source IP addresses.

    These so-called "snow-shoe" spam attacks are pretty much exactly what I saw some 8 years ago.

    Everything old is new again...

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  8. This is the next escalation in the spam war by Dutchmang · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IP reputation and RBL will always be vulnerable because the attackers just hide within the population, like guerrillas or terrorists. If you block legitimate ranges or addresses because you saw a spam come from there, it's like bombing a village because someone shot at you from one of the houses. You may kill the bad guy but you make the population REALLY mad. This is consistent with recent findings that >50% of spam actually originates from "trusted domains."

    --
    I'm looking over the wall, and they're looking at me!
  9. Re:I have a fine idea by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think a better idea...

    Stop filtering spam at all. For a whole week.

    Let the spammers break the system.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  10. No, greylisting won't help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Greylisting won't help against any competent snowshoe spam operation.

    Greylisting is useful against ad-hoc connections from botnet hosts that are unlikely to try to resend a message within in an appropriate interval. Managing resending in the botnet environment is challenging.

    Snowshoe spamming is, in some small part, probably a response to the decreasing likelihood that random, compromised, home machines will be able to deliver much spam -- a decrease that is probably partially attributable to greylisting. The snowshoe approach is very different from the malware/botnet approach. The spammer buys bulk hosting from a colo facility and set up real honest-to-god email servers on dozens to hundreds of IP addresses. Then the spammer dribbles messages in relatively low volume from these large number of IP addresses. If one of the spam servers encounters a host with greylisting, it requeues the messages to retry later just like a normal email server will because it's a normal email server. The spammer merely maintains and manages a large number of these servers on commercially hosted connections, and distributes his spam payload across them. Distributing the spam load across these many servers reduces the likelihood that any particular server will be quickly blacklisted, and if it if is blacklisted it may go dormant until automatically delisted, then start spamming again.

    Many of the bulk "bandwidth providers" don't seem to give a fuck if this kind of thing is taking place on their networks, although in the end it will pollute and devalue or render useless large swaths of IP space at these providers. I'd name names, but am not in any mood to get sued.

    Greylisting is useless for most snowshoe spam. Take it from someone who has been watching these tactics for the last couple months.

    1. Re:No, greylisting won't help by stevey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then the spammer dribbles messages in relatively low volume from these large number of IP addresses. If one of the spam servers encounters a host with greylisting, it requeues the messages to retry later just like a normal email server will because it's a normal email server.

      I agree with everything that you say, however greylisting does have value in this situation.

      The delay imposed by greylisting means there is more chance that the sending host's messages have been flagged as spam by razor, pyzor, or dns blacklists.

      That is the value of greylisting these days, rather than the fact that it drops mail from badly written spambots.

  11. Buyer beware = fraud and crime by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think you realize just how protected you are from fraud and similar crimes by the fact that they are crimes. You can knock our justice system for being imperfect, but you can't knock it for being ineffective. ('cepting the "war on drugs", of course)

    The truth is that we have a first-rate police force and criminal investigation system that is quite effective at enforcing laws of commerce - protections that provide you with a refund if the item purchased didn't work out, etc - that you use so casually, you hardly know they are there.

    And that leaves a population terribly unprepared for the wild wooly Internet, where those protections so painstakingly put into place mean almost nothing. You can talk all you want about education and eliminating the source of the problem, but it's never worked before and all of social commerce is set up to work the other way.

    So, good luck with that.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  12. We catch a lot of this via greytrapping by badger.foo · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Spamhaus article really describes one of the most frequently encountered behaviors we see by looking at our spamd logs. Each machine does not necessarily send a large number of messages (although some do, hanging on for weeks on end in extreme cases), but once a machine has tried to deliver mail to one of our published trap addresses (see the list at http://www.bsdly.net/~peter/traplist.shtml ), we keep them occupied and publicly shamed (see http://www.bsdly.net/~peter/nameandshame.html as well as the exported blacklist) for 24 hours, or longer if they keep coming. I wrote about these things in some blog posts earlier that were /.ed, and of course the generated lists are free to use, see the URLs and the blog posts.

    --
    -- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/
  13. Re:What's the problem by ErikZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm getting 1000+ spam messages a day going to my Gmail spam folder.

    Spammers are not giving up.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  14. Re:How is this different by coryking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In other words we've come full circle and are back to the days when spammers were actually hosted somewhere. Only this time in a bit more of a distributed fashion.