Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Claim "Effectively Perfect" Spam Blocking Discovery
A team of computer scientists from the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, CA are claiming to have found an "effectively perfect" method for blocking spam. The new system deciphers the templates a botnet is using to create spam and then teaches filters what to look for. "The system ... works by exploiting a trick that spammers use to defeat email filters. As spam is churned out, subtle changes are typically incorporated into the messages to confound spam filters. Each message is generated from a template that specifies the message content and how it should be varied. The team reasoned that analyzing such messages could reveal the template that created them. And since the spam template describes the entire range of the emails a bot will send, possessing it might provide a watertight method of blocking spam from that bot."
Sure, it will work "perfectly" for about 2 days, until the spammers change their methods to work around it. This is an arms race; there is no "final solution" (although modifying the email protocol to allow authentication of the sender's address would be a big help.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
1. Mash up dubious quality meat. 2. Insert into can.
And since most devices will download updates and things automatically, new templates could be discovered and pushed out as well. I'm sure there will be some work around that the spammers will figure out, but hey, I'm up for most anything that will cut down/stop/prevent spam. I am also still a fan of the 'kill them until they die from it' club when it comes to spammers.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
So it still needs to see a certain volume of spams in order to figure out the template. Then it reacts to the template. Then when the spammers figure out it's uncovered the template, they change the template. Spam will exist until the fundamental nature of e-mail operation changes.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
A team of hackers from Russia are claiming to have found an "effectively perfect" method for countering spam blocking technology. The new system deciphers the templates Spam Blocker is using to filter spam and then teaches spam generators what to write.
I don't believe any spam filter that advertises 100% accuracy, especially one claiming to do it by figuring out the spam email 'templates'
Sure, I'll bite:
This group advocates a:
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. The idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to the particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about them:
(X) Sorry dudes, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and they're a stupid people for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0les! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I am officially gone from
Err, what if I, as a corporation, blew out a spam that effectively incorporated a template unique to that which my largest competitor uses in their newsletters or customer communiques (or at least close enough to get my competitor blacklisted far and wide)?
(it would take a shedload of doing, but certainly not impossible, and if it could be done, would make for one hell of a cheap and easy DoS).
Heuristics is great and all, but go too deeply, and I can see it opening up a small but pretty scary can of worms.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
As long as there is money to be made in spam, spammers will continue to send spam. This "discovery" does nothing for that. Indeed it just dedicates more CPU time to trying to identify spam, which is just another way that internet users shoulder the cost of the profitability of spamming.
I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it - spam is an economic problem. Until something is done to address the money that spammers make, they will continue to find ways around these "effectively perfect" "discoveries".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I, too, have designed a flawless spam filter. It works under similar principles, will filter 100% of incoming spam, will generate 0 false positives, and it's super easy to use:
if(is_spam(message)) { delete_message(message); }
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
As a researcher in the academic side of the Information Security field, I can't help but notice a significant increase in the level of puffery and misleading promotion of research results. Self-promotion obviously isn't new, it's just that as the amount of newspaper-assisted promotion increases, the level of accuracy has dropped significantly. And more importantly, researchers seem much less apologetic about it. It's generating some real blowback.
The best recent example I can think of is Vanish, a cryptographic system for "destroying" data that was proposed out of University of Washington. It's not just that the system was broken a few days after it was presented, it's that this relatively minor result got more press than all of the perfectly legitimate crypto-systems research that was going on at the time. In fact, during the same time period a guy named Craig Gentry solved a major open crypto problem --- namely, how to compute on encrypted data --- and it got a fraction of the press coverage.
Not that I'm saying these researchers specifically asked to have their invention described as an "effectively perfect" solution to preventing spam --- which I guarantee you 100% it is not --- but that by going out on a University-encouraged PR junket, they've more or less encouraged this kind of coverage. This kind of stuff is damaging; people should describe their work as what it is. They've developed a technique that is highly effective at filtering /current-gen/ spam generators, in the lab. It won't stop all spam, and it's not effectively perfect, since spamfiltering is by nature an arms race. But of course that's not how it's going to be presented. In the long run this'll just make people more jaded with our field.
Furthermore, bad will always win because good is dumb.
Note that the "good guys" revealed their methods immediately after discovery, which means the "bad guys" can start looking for a workaround. The "bad guys" won't make the same slip.
Had there been no spam filters, we'd all receive about the same amount of e-mail spam as we receive in the postal mail world.
I can't imagine what you base that statement on. Real-world junk mail is limited by the fact that it costs money to print and mail junk mail. Neither applies to spam.
Spammers aren't just competing with spam filters. They're also competing with each other for attention. Even in the absence of spam filters, the spammers would continually seek new ways to get more of their spam into your inbox than their competitors.
In fact, they might well invent the spam filter, with a deliberate back door so that their spam sails through while their competitors are dropped.
As a co-author of this work, I should be clear that we never suggested that we have a perfect spam filter per se, simply a new tool that has the benefit of being orthogonal to existing techniques. For _existing_ botnets, our filters are extremely good, but the paper is also quite clear about the variety of ways that spammers might try to evade the approach.
Since 95% of email is spam, just block it all.
No one will notice the statistically-insignificant 5% false positives.
Effectively perfect, no. If nothing else, for certain classes of spam(especially phishing) the money or perception of money can be good enough to keep actual humans at the keyboard.
/dev/urandom, is that you both need to peddle whatever it is you are peddling and look vaguely like a human constructed message. If the researchers can, in fact, target messages that bear signs of being generated from a given template, the spammers will be forced to be looser in generating messages from templates(which increases the risk of garbling beyond comprehension, or being flagged by filters looking for highly non-human output) or step up their game in terms of natural language synthesis.
However, the reason you use templates, rather than word salad or the first 100kb of
Not in the same level of detail; but, when your business model is spamming, you inevitably end up sending thousands of samples to loads of ill-vetted email addresses, some fraction of which are either being operated as spamtraps, or are in the possession of users annoyed enough to forward samples on.
Your algorithms can, and often do, remain secret(unless one of your black-hat buddies cracks one of your cracked machines); but you'd be a lousy spammer indeed if the results of your technique weren't widely available.
Asshatitude always applies because you can never anticipate the next step in asshatitude evolution. They will always find new and innovative ways to be asshats.
Spam filtering isn't very hard, if you see the email for a large number of accounts, as Gmail does. The one characteristic that spam must have is that it's sent in bulk. The commonality across receiving email accounts gives it away. The only hard part is recognizing the commonality, which is already working rather well. This is just a new technique for recognizing commonality.
Recognizing spam for a single account is tougher, because you don't get to see the "bulk" property.
Now suppose my account were compromised and you got this exact message from my personal email, where the jpeg is a Viagra ad. There is absolutely nothing there for your spam blocker to latch on to, unless it parses the content of the jpeg itself. Anyway, blocking stuff like this would lead to unacceptably many false positives.
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
Has anyone ever suggested all of these? The government offers a contract and clears the legislative barriers to a company making vigilante robots which would hunt down and kill the families of all spammers while making the spammers watch?
Assuming these robots can fly, have powerful metal claws, and cannot be stopped, I can't see any problems on your checklist.
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
() Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
() Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Nope. None there.
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
There are currently laws expressly forbidding the construction and operation of mass murder machines, but that's why I suggested we get rid of those laws.
( ) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
I do realize some wouldn't trust the company controlling the deathbots, which is why -I- would be the governing authority once they were operational. You can trust me because I promise to only kill you if you're related to a spammer.
how about the spammers using fragments from Gutenberg books ? Or fragments from blog posts ? ... What is spam, after all ? I am trying hard to send David Horowitz the the spam bin, but then the guy manages to get out of it after a while ... I have tried unsubscribing, tried "spam"-ing him, even tried to beg him to let my mailbox live peacefully ... for me it's spam, for him it is enlightening the dumb masses and the work of his life ...
Spam isn't kosher anyway!
I think you're forgetting that the criminals who run botnets aren't as worried about damaging the normal operation of the Internet as the rest of us might be.
We start detecting their templates; they start making their templates more and more flexible. We chase, giving our filters broader and broader definitions of "bad" email. Clever spammers start sacrificing the percentage of thier mail that's coherant just to increase the output range of their templates, forcing the template-recognition filters to get looser. Eventually the filters become useless because they can't pick out every variation that could come from a template without also capturing a lot of legitimate messages.
Or something else happens that renders the filters useless. THe point is - yes, it's a win in that it fights techniques used today. No, it is not the grand victory proclaimed by the headline.
The truth is that spam has been successfully fought by filters without compromising legitimate email. Furthermore as Paul Graham had stated, spammers have been forced to yield in smaller text-based messages or in-line images.
In particular,
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
Possibly but the probability of losing legitimate email by modern heuristics is (proven) smaller than the probability of accidentally deleting it when it is mixed with spam.
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
They do, sometimes without their knowledge
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
They would lose more without filtering. See 1st argument.
(X) Asshats
How ?
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
And also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
This isn't the mid 90s anymore.
(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
The practicality of heuristic filtering (SpamAssassin etc) is proved by its transparency. Even old e-mail clients such as Outlook 97 can filter out email marked by X-Spam headers. Gmail and the rest of the privacy traders do it for you automatically.
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
Run it locally. Mozilla Messaging does.
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
Age old forms copied from the newsgroups can't be used as arguments anymore. Time to be creative again!
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
But cutting down their profit is.
Your post advocates a
() abusive
(x) checklist
() clever
(x) tired
approach to mockery. It won't work because
(x) the joke is too old
(x) nobody has the patience to read the whole thing
() we are above that
I could bet a nice sum of money that if you give a traditional, learning spam filter 1000 e-mails sent by the same bot and flag those all as spam, it can then recognize the bot's further e-mails as spam.
If that were true, then by now Thunderbird's filter would stop missing all the Russian spam I get. I have no idea what the spam says, as I don't know Russian, and I never get legitimate mail in Russian; all the Russian spam I get appears very similar in format and length. I'm quite certain that Thunderbird has had over a thousand such e-mails marked as spam over the last few years, and yet it consistently fails to flag them.
Point being: traditional learning filters are not sufficient.
This is anecdotal evidence, YMMV, etc etc.
I originally posted it here in 2002. Note how dated it is (e.g. no smartass comment about CAPTCHA).
Some mathematician (I forget who) had his graduate students send back cards with forms like these to people who sent in attempted proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem.