Slashdot Mirror


One Man's Fight Against Forum Spam

JWSmythe writes "Free Internet Press has an interview with 'Random Digilante,' an anonymous hacker who has been taking over forum spammers' email accounts, and notifying forum operators to delete those accounts. It looks like his reasoning is sound, and his methods are safe, where he won't hurt any real users."

19 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Predicted future news: by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 3, Funny

    Forum spammer sues vigilante, gets both arrested. Vigilante does more time.

  2. So silly.... by catbutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Forum spam is best solved with good forum software. A good karma system is probably the best solution. I've never seen spam on slashdot (unless I dig through the low rated posts).

    1. Re:So silly.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bad karma? Rush to fast? Increase karma size with v1agral! Bomb woman womb and be king! Souper special deal at RealFarmacee.cm!

    2. Re:So silly.... by catbutt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You really believe that the reason that slashdot wouldn't have spam if people were able to post spam on slashdot and have it reach more than a few eyeballs?

      Anyway, slashdots system isn't perfect, and is designed to do more than kill spam. Regardless I think it works fairly well for what it does.

      For eliminating spam in forums and comments, all you need to do is this:

      Give the readers the ability to mark comments as spam with one click, and, as long as the reader has a decent history of not abusing the priviledge, the message will disappear immediately.

      This isn't that hard, but to do it well isn't trivial either. Probably best done by a company like Disqus where it is their business.

      There would need to be some checks and balances, where a person can get reported for erroneously marking something as spam. The system needs to be scalable, so that the admin of the forum doesn't have to deal with much, as all the work is done by users, and there is a checks and balances system to determine how much to trust users.

      The nice thing is that over time it reduces the incentive to bother spamming the forums, since (typically) the first person who sees a message, eliminates it. Also, on a system like disqus, where you have a global identity with some history, it could be smarter about how prominent to make posts if the person has no history of posting without being marked as spam.

    3. Re:So silly.... by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me know if you find a good karma system. I have been on /. for years, have never posted anything remotely spammy, have attempted to participate in discussions... so why is my karma set at "bad"? I have no idea what, if anything, I can do about that and because of it my comments never appear in any discussion threads. It is likely nobody will ever see this unless, as you say, they dig through the low rated posts. Not that I'm bitter.

    4. Re:So silly.... by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I, and lots of other people, read at -1. Don’t assume that just because you’re starting at 0 nobody will read your post; Anonymous Coward posts at 0 by default.

      If you want to get your karma back up, here are a few things to keep in mind. They may or may not help, but hey, it’s free advice.

      Post early. Don’t post often. Make sure you aren’t just repeating someone else’s post. Funny doesn’t give you karma. Funny+Troll burns karma quickly. Sometimes it’s what you say. Sometimes it’s how you say it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:So silly.... by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have been on /. for years, have never posted anything remotely spammy, have attempted to participate in discussions... so why is my karma set at "bad"?

      Well, it seems that you've only submitted 5 comments in the last couple of years, so you're not exactly participating in a lot of conversations. Thus, you're not really "improving" (term used loosely) any of the comment threads, and therefore not receiving any good karma.

      Not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely surprised you didn't realize this.

  3. Re:Illegal by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Informative

    He’s thought of that already, and seems to have his case made. RTFA.

    RD: If I were taking over an account that was created by a human being who actually cared to contribute to my forums, yes that would be illegal.

    FIP: Are you concerned about the possible legal consequences of your actions?

    RD: Here is the reasoning I use, and I know that a lot of people argue it.
    Especially now that I have a few dedicated forums whose only reason for existing is that they capture the login credentials of forum spammers, my feeling is that they're not people, they're robots. Xrumer [a forum spamming software] is a 100% automated process. The human has to set up the email address where the responses get sent for things like confirming your account by clicking on a link, but everything after that is done by the software. No human being is harmed by what I do, only a piece of software. If they cared, they would pay attention to the fact that these accounts are getting taken over very regularly by me. They don't. They just set up new accounts and start over.

    It's hard to feel "bad" about taking these accounts over. All I can tell you is that I have never taken over any account that was not very obviously being solely used repeatedly to auto-register to forums. In fact by the time I get to them it's obvious that the spammer only set them up from 1 - 6 days prior to me taking it over. There are no human-written messages in any of these accounts. I certainly would not have gone so public with this activity if there had been. Only purely automated messaging has ever been present in any of these, and I have enough hard data to back that up.

    Basically he claims that since a robot registered the e-mail accounts, you aren’t infringing on any person’s rights.

    I doubt that it’d fly, actually, but who knows.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  4. I was banned from Free Republic by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I created an account and was banned almost immediately.

    They have extremely vigilant forum monitors who will bring the banhammer down for the slightest offense.

    My offense? I insinuated that gays might be able to serve in the military just as well as straights.

    1. Re:I was banned from Free Republic by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many sites develop groupthink. Slashdot certainly isn't immune.

      Free Republic takes it to a higher level and eliminates any dissenting voices by deleting their posts, banning their accounts from posting, and logging their IP address so that future accounts created at that IP are automatically banned.

      Forum spam is a different story, of course. But the thinking behind it is the same. These are posts that are not welcome on this site, therefore we must eliminate them.

      Of all the sites I've visited, Slashdot (and perhaps Kuro5hin) has the best system. Posts are never deleted, and even posts modded to -1 can still be read by those interested. There is the pink page of death and other nasty bits that I think /. could get rid of, but on the whole this site caters to its posters very well.

      That said, the groupthink is still very obvious.

  5. Re:Illegal by Quothz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you do what you want based on what you feel is right, we might just not have any laws at all. There is a reason why the laws are created by the society as whole and not a single person or a group with single interest.

    So, just as an analogy, if the police decided to stop enforcing laws against auto theft, you believe it would be wrong for others to do so. I don't think that holds water. What this guys is doing is indeed illegal, but not immoral; when our government is unwilling or unable to enforce or prosecute laws it becomes incumbent upon non-sanctioned individuals to protect society by doing so. The simple fact is that the government is not able to even begin to scratch the sheer volume of spam, nor is it interested in going after spammers unless it can wrench a large settlement and some headlines out of the deal. If we wish to preserve the Internet as a medium for the exchange of ideas, some of us must take action to protect it from those who exploit it at a very real, monetary cost to innocent people.

  6. Spammers are getting good by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone who deals with forum spam on a daily basis, I'm rather surprised at how intelligent the spambots are becoming.

    Of course there's always the blatant, obvious spam (99% of which are video encoding tools for iPad, iPhone, etc). But I've recognized two other types of very covert spambots.

    First one will take fragments of sentences from previous posts in the topic and regurgitate them. At first glance it seems on topic, but closer inspection reveals the post doesn't make sense and is just portions of others' posts.

    The second type uses a database of sentences harvested from other websites, and attempts to post a sentence that matches keywords in that topic. Usually I can spot those because they aren't exactly on topic to the thread. I've also seen these modify various throw-away words, like adjectives and articles, so the sentence isn't an exact copy of the original source.

    Now the key thing with both of these kinds of spambots is that they do not include any links initially. A couple weeks after posting they come back and change their signature, which results in spam links appearing under all of their previous posts.

    I've also noticed that the vast majority of spambots use yahoo.com email addresses, so yahoo's captcha must be weaker than gmail / hotmail.

    Now on the topic of this story, I don't quite understand. The forums I moderate have a few spambot accounts created daily (using recaptcha and custom implemented captcha). So it's not like there's just a couple spambot accounts causing all the trouble. Over the course of a month it around a hundred different accounts. So I don't see how this hacker is helping anything going after accounts one at a time manually.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Spammers are getting good by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First one will take fragments of sentences from previous posts in the topic and regurgitate them. At first glance it seems on topic, but closer inspection reveals the post doesn't make sense and is just portions of others' posts. ... A couple weeks after posting they come back and change their signature, which results in spam links appearing under all of their previous posts.

      For another example of this exact thing, just look at slashdot user clint999.

      http://slashdot.org/~clint999

      Last post was yesterday... it’s still active. Funnily enough it almost always posts exactly 30 min. after the hour, but not every hour.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  7. Re:Illegal by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, his other point was, who’s going to complain? the robot?

    Chances are the human operator doesn’t even know what happened to the account, the robot just flags it as deactivated and asks the human to feed it more accounts. They probably don’t have any way of telling that somebody hacked the account and closed it vs. e-mailing the e-mail provider and having it shut down properly.

    Of course the main question (in my mind, at least) is why spammers are registering forum accounts with the same password they used to register the junk e-mail account that they’re registering under...

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  8. Example "advanced" spam by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a specific example of what I'm talking about. Here is a post made to my forums in July 2010:

    You can choose ‘Micro-ATX’ size motherboard for your HP. That limits the possible range of motherboards deals you will find. My advise is to buy a case that fits full ‘ATX’ form factor motherboards and go from there, many choices. It is depending on money and what you want if your building a good rig for gaming multimedia etc and don't buy a case with power supply. Please choose a separate power supply.

    Now here is a post from another website made in 2009:

    Your HP case (the cheapest part of the pc!) takes a ‘Micro-ATX’ size motherboard.

    That limits the possible range of motherboards\deals you will find. (look for a motherboard\processor package)

    Now you are already buying ‘a whole new computer’ except the case, why stop there? (unless you want the small form factor)

    My advise (thats why your here!) is to buy a case that fits full ‘ATX’ form factor motherboards and go from there, much more choice.

    Depending on money and what you want if your building a good rig for gaming\multimedia etc DON’T buy a case with power supply, they are usually sh*t (cheap\unreliable). Choose a case, choose a separate power supply (after research!)

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  9. Re:Illegal by Pteraspidomorphi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think you're right, but is it more illegal than spamming? I believe the kind of spam sent by these people/bots is illegal in the United States and several other countries (though I'm not american, so I may be wrong). The sender is hiding his identity, deliberately getting around spam prevention systems and offering no method for opting out. So we're dealing with criminals here, and what is law enforcement doing about it? Random Digilante writes in his blog that he contacts ISPs, who would normally be expected to investigate these people (who inclusively break the ISPs own terms of service), but they usually do nothing. So while the taking over of e-mail addresses registered by criminals for the sole purpose of breaking laws and annoying the hell out of everyone may not be exactly nice, shouldn't you save your indignation for the actual spammers, their customers, ISPs, law enforcement agencies and lawmakers? Or for people who are out in the streets embezzling, scamming, mugging, kidnapping, raping and murdering?

  10. Re:Illegal by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Funny

    What this guys is doing is indeed illegal, but not immoral; when our government is unwilling or unable to enforce or prosecute laws it becomes incumbent upon non-sanctioned individuals to protect society by doing so.

    Bruce, we've been over the five stages of grief a million times: I keep telling you, you're stuck at Anger and you need to move on.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  11. Re:Illegal by gorzek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But he is doing this on other people's sites. Including mine, coincidentally. I already have spam filtering methods in place. Spambots can register but they can't do much of anything. I "trap" them quite effectively.

    I'm rather annoyed that he is breaking into spambot accounts on my site and sending me messages to deactivate their accounts. I don't need to deactivate their accounts--they are well-contained already. His "helpful" messages wind up being a greater irritant to me than the spambots themselves. I don't need you to tell me how to run my site, thanks.

  12. Make a filter by improfane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Make a filter that detects his notifications and deletes the account automatically.

    He is trying to help and he is fighting.

    What are you doing about it? You're not helping anyone except of course protecting your advertising on your site.

    --
    Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,