Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spam Drops 1/3 After Rustock Botnet Gets Crushed

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the eggs-bacon-sausage-and dept.

Botnet 199

wiredmikey writes "The Rustock Botnet was sending as many as 13.82 billion spam emails each day before being taken down early this month by an effort headed by Microsoft in cooperation with authorities and the legal system. According to Symantec's March 2011 MessageLabs Intelligence Report, the Rustock botnet had been responsible for an average of 28.5% of global spam sent from all botnets in March. Following the takedown, when the Rustock botnet was no longer cranking out spam by the billions, global spam volumes fell by one-third. For reference, toward the end of 2010, Rustock had been responsible for as much as 47.5% of all spam, sending approximately 44.1 billion e-mails per day, according to MessageLabs stats. Since then, Bagle, a botnet that wasn't even on MessageLabs' top ten spam-sending botnets at the end of 2010, has taken over from Rustock as the most active spam-sending botnet this year."

cancel ×

199 comments

Impressive (5, Insightful)

disopaos (2029158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653682)

It's really impressive Microsoft was able to do this. They've dropped 33% of the worlds spam and they did it all alone. Microsoft deserves kudos to this. Good job MS!

Re:Impressive (-1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653718)

Now if only they did a good job in the first place. We wouldn't have this problem.

So fie on Microsoft for breaking my leg. But thanks for the trip to the ER afterward.

Re:Impressive (-1, Troll)

disopaos (2029158) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653782)

Microsoft didn't create any problem to begin with. All OS's with billions of stupid users will get infected. Microsoft acted here even if they didn't need to. What have the open source guys done that has actually resulted in both taking the whole botnets down and law action taken against the botnet masters?

Re:Impressive (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653992)

Microsoft's operating system architecture allowed users to have admin privileges, among other architectural mistakes. Defaults were made so that HTML rendering was done by default, as well. Many users were infected because of incompetence-- not by sheer numbers.

FOSS coders have the same loathing for spam and lack of prosecution that other coders do. That Microsoft has taken down a botnet is laudable. Others ought to join in, too. But first, perhaps online email services ought to acknowledge the role the play in allowing spammers to do their work. Microsoft is one of the good guys here, acknowledging abuse complaints quickly, but others like AOL and Yahoo, don't even acknowledge a complaint, let alone act on them.

Botnets are one part of the problem, but even users trying to do their very best get infected. It's less so than before XP SP2+ editions, but there are very few non-Microsoft botnet members out there. Think about that.

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654192)

I agree in part with this, but saying that there are very few non-Microsoft botnet members out there is misleading. Spam is all about numbers. If Windows users account for the vast majority of online users, then why create botnet software for other operating systems? This takes time and effort and will not likely result in an influx in spam from those systems. How may OSX users actually pay attention to the system when it asks for a username and password to install something. I agree that there are aspects that are more secure of about other OS', but a user can still log in as root/su/admin on any system to make changes, and if a malicious piece of software can convince a person to do so, they can install software that you don't want. Right now, there's just not enough benefit for spammers to do so.

Re:Impressive (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654532)

All of this is about native thru iteratively more difficult hurdles for bot makers. When an OS is inherently more simple to root and bot, the OS seems very likely to have been poorly designed.

Now that XP SP2+ inhibits this, there have been further exploits through email and browser payloads that have caused innumerable machines to become bot'd.

If you divide that out, let's look at the iPad phenomenon, where they outsell a lot of stuff, and Apple's total end-user marketshare has climbed through the roof. In the wild, I've seen exactly zero machines that have been bot'd using iOS or MacOS. I've seen all of one Linux machine bot'd-- as an experiment. I've seen rootkits on Linux servers, to my chagrin. I've had one of my critical web Linux servers get rooted, but we killed it as we watched it become injected by changing DNS.

So it's not misleading. It is what it is. It was really really easy, jaw-dropping easy. Now it's tougher. MacOS has its own foibles as does Linux. Statistics doesn't really account for the problem: bad coding and architecture do.

Nobody uses NIX open sores crap by comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654434)

there are very few non-Microsoft botnet members out there. Think about that. by postbigbang (761081) on Tuesday March 29, @12:04PM (#35653992)

The reason for that is in my subject above.

Re:Impressive (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655156)

Microsoft's operating system architecture allowed users to have admin privileges, among other architectural mistakes.

On home systems they have to let potentially inexperienced users have access to admin privileges. Vista took them away by default, but whenever some tempting piece of software says it needs someone to type the admin password most users will do it so it barely slows down the spread of trojans. The same attach would work just as well as any OS with a large home-user userbase. The weakness is not so much the OS, it's PEBKAC.

Re:Impressive (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655288)

Until XP SP2, which did the same thing as Vista, user was root/admin. A lot of software had to run as root, too, which Microsoft forced a demotion of when they changed this policy.

It's really the architecture, and irresponsibly bad QA, as well as rush to market problems.

Re:Impressive (2)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654040)

Microsoft didn't create any problem to begin with. All OS's with billions of stupid users will get infected.

Not all OSes are created equal.

Re:Impressive (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654316)

Microsoft didn't create any problem to begin with. All OS's with billions of stupid users will get infected.

So MS (or rather one of their paid shills) is blaming the users for piss poor OS security on Windows?

To give it a slightly different twist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654358)

You know what kind of answers you'll get for that one. You deserve all of them.

Here's another twist to it, one that doesn't get mentioned as often, but which would be food for thought for those free software folks who try to imitate Microsoft in every respect (with a registr^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hgconf and all that goodness):

It is in the most genuine interest of Microsoft that users be dumb

Chew on that sentence, taste it slowly. How is it? A tad bitter?

Back in the heroic seventies, one of the aspects of computer ergonomy was that it should encourage the user to learn, providing paths from newbie state to advanced state.

Nowadays all that seems forgotten. Cater to the minimum, and try to keep the users there.

I'm observing the very same trend on Free desktop environments, and that makes me really sad.

Have we lost the battle, after all?

Re:To give it a slightly different twist... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654472)

It's a matter of motivation back in the 70s and 80s and through much of the 90s, the number of computer users was small enough that you could do that, but a lot of people that make up the growth aren't motivated to learn, which is why even extremely simple things are beyond their grasp.

MS, Apple and some of the Linux distros aren't helping anybody by discouraging people from experimenting and looking to get better at it.

Re:To give it a slightly different twist... (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655202)

MS, Apple and some of the Linux distros aren't helping anybody by discouraging people from experimenting and looking to get better at it.

Yeah, sure, that's why MS give away express editions of Visual Studio for free.

Re:To give it a slightly different twist... (1)

rgbatduke (1231380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654568)

The battle to give humans actual brains? There's an actual battle?

Bear in mind that 1/2 of the world's population has an IQ less than 100. Even allowing for the Flynn effect, what that essentially means is that roughly 2/3 of the world's population isn't going to be able to learn to use complex tools, especially when they have the lazy choice of using simple ones. Either the computer provides the missing intelligence, or the user will have to do without.

In the case of MS's many operating systems post DOS (which required some intelligence to operate) they simply have done without. In the case of Apple's operating systems pre-OSX -- they also did without. Indeed, remember the adage "You can learn to use a Mac in a day, and pay for that knowledge the rest of your life". OSX retained a lot of the brainless simplicity of the GUI, but at least it does have an expert-friendly upwardly mobile path for those whose intelligence is somewhat above the mean.

Either way, one cannot blame users of Microsoft systems for its appalling security. It was insecure by design. I don't know whether or not this still is true -- MS apologists are now asserting that W7 is finally all secure and everything, something that I have little empirical evidence to validate but hey, it COULD be true and if one day I ever try it perhaps I'll find out. You know, when hell freezes over?

rgb

Re:Impressive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654536)

Uh... why would "open source guys" have a desire or initiative to kill Windows-exclusive botnets? It's Microsoft's problem.

I did brief development on a popular worm project back in 2000. Compromised *nix machines were as valuable as fucking gold. If found they were far more likely to be used for hosting needed servers. Windows bots had lots of problems: average uptimes of ~2 hours, competing malware infections (which ours attempted to remove), and IP connection count issues (500+ connections either crashed the machine, lagged it so hard the user rebooted, or made IRC servers whimper and die).

I think it's fair to say that your operating system has a pathetic reputation when even the botnet owners scorn it.

Re:Impressive (1)

smelch (1988698) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655770)

Well most of the spam is sent to linux mail servers. Bitch. Also your post is probably 100% bullshit.

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654618)

Yes. Actually I would be ok if all Windows users would be taken off the net.

Re:Impressive (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653804)

Which unrootable OS do you run?

Re:Impressive (1)

jhigh (657789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654274)

It's not about whether or not an OS CAN be rooted. Rather, it is about the degree of difficulty, particularly using a default installation. In that regard, Linux > Windows.

Re:Impressive (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654332)

It doesn't even take rooting an OS.. though it does help to prevent being removed by AV programs later... a trojan can be installed with user permissions and run by the user's desktop when said user is logged in... It doesn't take root, but helps... on non-windows OSes, most users aren't running any kind of AV scans which would make it easier.

1. Build Java(cross-platform) puzzle game/clone
2. Inject email spamming software into the game.
3. Send billions of spam...
4. Profit!

Re:Unrootable (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654354)

Amiga OS 5!

"Never heard of it? Precisely!"

Who from NIX/Open SORES has done the same? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653852)

I don't see any NIX Open SORES doing what MS has in stomping a botnet like this one out. Has anyone from the NIX or Open Sores world stomped out 30% of the world's spam?

Answer the question troll. No spin tactics, just answer it.

I predict ignoring the question, or completely doing anything he can to do some kind of "spin-CON-Troll" tactic.

Re:Who from NIX/Open SORES has done the same? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654414)

I don't see any NIX Open Source companies doing what MS has to allow a botnet like this one. Has anyone from the NIX or Open Source world needed to stomp out 30% of the world's spam?

Answer the question troll. No spin tactics, just answer it.

I predict ignoring the question, or completely doing anything he can to do some kind of "spin-CON-Troll" tactic.

Your trolling/shilling has to stop (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653732)

seriously

Your open sores NIX douchebaggishness is showing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653916)

Stop being an OPEN SORES douche already.

Agreed, 110%... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653750)

"It's really impressive Microsoft was able to do this. They've dropped 33% of the worlds spam and they did it all alone. Microsoft deserves kudos to this. Good job MS!" - by disopaos (2029158) on Tuesday March 29, @11:46AM (#35653682)

Especially vs. spam that might have contained attachments that were bogus malware in disguise to wreak havoc on you, or, spam that contained links that led to maliciously scripted websites.

APK

P.S.=> I'm for anyone that's out there contributing to the "good fight" against those types of things... apk

Re:Agreed, 110%... apk (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653884)

Don't forget about the spam that contains an /etc/host attachment. Some of them are hundred of megabytes in size.

Don't forget about childish trolls like you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653954)

See subject, douchenozzle.

HOSTS files work, others here agree (see inside) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655470)

10 proofs of where folks here like my posts on HOSTS files and how to use them to secure yourself vs. threats online (as well as speeding yourself up by blocking out adbanners and hardcoding your fav. sites into them):

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]

Heck, even 1 today, & in this very thread about this article, that was "modded up" for using a HOSTS file to blockout the worst botnet of all today imo, ZEUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]

Here's one from another user that does well using them, rated +3 INFORMATIVE no less also:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122 [slashdot.org]

---

Would you like more (like twice as many more)? I can produce them in seconds...

ANYHOW/ANYWAYS:

In any event - So much for your pitiful attempts @ trolling me, because, as you can see with concrete visible data? You are outnumbered, & badly, 5:1 thusfar... & as-per-my-usual?? Just "too, Too, TOO EASILY", with facts.

APK

P.S.=> See, in a very real way, I actually pity "your kind" online: You & "your kind" (trolls) don't offer anything worthwhile & I suspect that's because you're a miserable "ne'er-do-well", & you KNOW it...

Funny part is, even my nephew, who is 25 yrs. my junior (& CIS RIT senior now) even said to me the other day:

"Around 2004 this all started with the trolls online. It wasn't like that before then. They ruin the internet for the rest of us that used to have valid technical discussions"

I agree... you jerks are as bad as spammers yourselves... apk

Re:Impressive (4, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653786)

"Spam will be a thing of the past in two years' time" - Bill Gates, 24 January 2004.

Re:Impressive (0)

Afty0r (263037) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654006)

He was right - it is. For the people who matter.

He never said what the solution would be, nor that no-one would send spam - just that it would be a thing of the past. And for my users at work, for me, for my family it really is a thing of the past, because someone has solved the problem for me. We almost never SEE spam messages anymore - even one per week is quite alot. Despite the fact one of accounts alone gets a thousand a day.

Re:Impressive (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654110)

And for my users at work, for me, for my family it really is a thing of the past, because

All non-corporate communication is done via facebook wall posts now?

We are rapidly nearing the point where no email will flow unless:

1) One side is a spammer.

or

2) One side is a corporation or an individual acting on the behalf of a corporation.

I could see a point in a year or two where "email spam" is about as relevant to the general population as "usenet spam".

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655410)

And for my users at work, for me, for my family it really is a thing of the past, because

All non-corporate communication is done via facebook wall posts now?

damn he's caught on to a major facebook user hook stategy - migrate from facebook and these will be gone

Re:Impressive (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654290)

He failed to factor in the Hawaiians...they love that stuff.

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654522)

right :D as well as legendary 640 kB :DDD

Re:Impressive (2)

Stunky (323500) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655468)

He was right. Gmail was launched April 1st, 2004.

Re:Impressive (1)

Life2Death (801594) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655594)

I'm sure a lot of people in 2006 were using gmail, so Bill was right!

Re:Impressive (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 2 years ago | (#35656058)

In fairness, he also said that 660 ppm ought to be enough for anyone.

Re:Impressive (3, Insightful)

Evtim (1022085) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653802)

Excellent! So they can drop all attempts to regulate the bandwidth. After all we just got 30% wider pipe, did we not?

For those oh so bandwidth hungry mobile devices......

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654186)

Excellent! So they can drop all attempts to regulate the bandwidth. After all we just got 30% wider pipe, did we not?

For those oh so bandwidth hungry mobile devices......

You're confusing percentages. Let's say spam takes up 20% of the bandwidth of the world. We just gained 6% back.

Re:Impressive (1)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654226)

"Regulation of Bandwidth" and "Having More Available Bandwidth" are two separate concerns. Arguments for or against the prior should stand regardless of the latter. If only this were so.

Re:Impressive (2)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#35654808)

Unfortunately no, since spam didn't take 100% of the pipe.

Re:Impressive (-1, Flamebait)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653842)

Yes kudos to MS for this, but please stop being a filthy shill. You actually make us feel less-good about Microsoft's positive actions here with your astroturfing.

What news is better?

Microsoft Takes Down Botnet, Astroturfs Slashdot

OR:

Microsoft Takes Down Botnet

Speak with your manager, you need to get this point up the chain.

Stop being a filthy troll then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654154)

What Open SORES or NIX has done what MS has here? Answer the question, don't evade it or try "Spin-CON-Troll" tactics. Your douchebaggish trollishness is showing in your reply as well as your low brow and sloping forehead, douche.

Re:Stop being a filthy troll then (0)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654500)

What Open SORES or NIX has done what MS has here? Answer the question, don't evade it or try "Spin-CON-Troll" tactics. Your douchebaggish trollishness is showing in your reply as well as your low brow and sloping forehead, douche.

So Mr Shill is posting as AC and is getting personal and rather testy? If you don't like the view of /.ers about the security of MS products you have a few options:
A) Go post somewhere else
B) Tell your employer to get their shit together
C) Both A & B
D) All of the above

Re:Impressive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654182)

Mod parent up - it seems like almost all accounts in the 202XXXX range are MS shills. It's getting annoying.

Mod UP? MOD DOWN! He's a troll, like U (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654262)

It seems most of the other AC around here are trolls like you that are stupid enough to believe Open SORES is the way to go.

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654586)

Maybe if they didn't have a brown-nosing response ready to go as soon as the post was made, we wouldn't have noticed it so quickly...

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653974)

Yes. Now let them pay a hefty sum for every infected computer out there and then we're even.

Re:Impressive (3, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654070)

Since most of those botnet machines are running MS, I'd say, it's about time MS became involved in the fight against spam. The delivery mechanism for all this spam wouldn't exist if it weren't for Microsoft's poor record at building a somewhat secure operating system.

Can't Fix Stupid (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35654810)

Actually, MS is a highly secure OS. It is the users that are not secure. I have hundred of windows servers and been running them for years on the internet. So have many others. They don't turn into zombies. I have had several PC's, all windows none of them zombies. I have a sister who has to have every toolbar she comes across and any free software that tells her the weather or what ever. She turns a PC into a zombie in usually a weeks time. I have a neighbor, running a mac, little old lady. Found hers to be running as a zombie. Have a niece and a nephew that are constantly downloading torrents and things, all their PC's zombies. The more amazing thing, you can tell them they are zombie and explain it to them, they just don't care.

So you really need to put the blame though where it deserves users. While we are at it, I am hoping all the windows user do go buy macs. I will let you have those users all you want.

Re:Can't Fix Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655294)

Software installs only make up a small number of the age old infections. The biggest drop in Windows botnet numbers occurred because of the sudden prevalence of NAT routers in the early 2000s. Microsoft got lucky.

Re:Impressive (2)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654308)

Good job! Especially since worm-riddled broadband-connected home computers running Microsoft operating systems were the cause of the spam problem in the first place. An unreasonable man like me would view this as a problem of Microsoft's causing, and by default their responsibility to clean up. Seems as if Microsoft's shoddy programming job allowed the holes to exist in the first place, and they cynically passed the cost on to the rest of us. Sort of like how an amoral oil company should be forced to clean up its oil rig blowout without any special thanks.

Nah, that's crazy talk. Kudos to Microsoft!

Re:Impressive (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655300)

You use sarcasm, but MS really didn't create the problem. If the SMTP protocol had security from the start, spam wouldn't be much of a problem. I'm sure MS could have been more helpful sooner, but the spam problem certainly doesn't fall on their feet.

Re:Impressive (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655478)

The problem is not SMTP, the problem is infected Windows boxes cranking out millions of spams per day.

Re:Impressive (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655648)

If Windows were 100% secure, there would still be huge amounts of spam. If Windows disappeared tomorrow, spam would continue and the drop in volume would be temporary. So, Windows is not the problem. SMTP is the problem.

Re:Impressive (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655500)

So it's the problem of the Protocol that it gets billions of emails from millions of hijacked machines?

Re:Impressive (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655798)

Simple answer: Yes.

If there were no windows boxes, spam would continue. SMTP does not identify the sender. The inability to identify the sender is the single biggest vector for spam. That is a protocol problem. Not an OS problem.

Re:Impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655884)

No, but it is the protocol's problem that it passes them on.

Who cares (4, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653742)

The organized criminals who are raking in the money are well protected in their home countries so this is essentially a big game of whack a mole until people better protect their computers (good luck with that).

Re:Who cares (2)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653940)

The organized criminals who are raking in the money are well protected in their home countries so this is essentially a big game of whack a mole until people better protect their computers (good luck with that).

Agreed, kind of. Users can only do so much, especially when zero-days are frequent targets of vulnerabilities and vendors do lazy and irresponsible patching and damage control.

We need well-enforced international criminal penalties for both the spammers themselves, as well as the corporations that hire them. Remove the monetary incentive and both the motive and means drop significantly. This also reduces the overall incentive to infect others' machines as a nice side effect.

What would also be interesting is legislation holding a corporation accountable (to an extent) for damages caused by infections that leveraged their products as a vector. I imagine that would light a fire under Adobe's feet to actually patch responsibly.

Re:Who cares (2)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655328)

It would also destroy the software industy and stagnate it with the few companies that could afford the insurance or were "too large to fail" and making sure that the three companies still producing software didn't do anything new for fear of creating a hole.

Re:Who cares (5, Informative)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654162)

this is essentially a big game of whack a mole

The last couple of times a story like this was posted, I went straight to SpamCop's statistics [spamcop.net] for corroboration. You're right: the touted decrease in spam is real, but temporary. However, the yearly chart does seem to show a downward trend.

Re:Who cares (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654188)

so this is essentially a big game of whack a mole until we do something about the economic forces behind spam

There, fixed that for 'ya. No amount of patching and filtering will make spam go away - ever. Spam will continue to be sent out as long as spammers can make money by sending out spam. The only way we can ever end spam for good is to either make it too expensive to send (which would not be palatable for most users) or take serious steps to interfere with the money train that keeps the spammers paid.

Everything else is reactionary, futile, or just a feel-good step (or a combination thereof).

Re:Who cares (0)

a1Neri (1979042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654252)

The organized criminals who are raking in the money are well protected in their home countries so this is essentially a big game of whack a mole until people better protect their computers (good luck with that).

So we should do absolutely nothing to stop it, sounds like a great plan. We'll probably never stop terrorism either but you're right - lets just stop trying.

Re:Who cares (1)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654554)

I don't know why we don't start boxing in nations who do not control their spammers and hackers. Telling the USSR, just for an example, to shut down their known, easily-found spamming operations or get blackholed right off the fucking face of the planet would go a long way towards ending this stupidity.

I'm sure somewhere in the Wikileaks memos someone could find evidence that all of our world leaders are polishing each others' fucking knobs on this issue . . . sometimes I think the world is run by toddlers who've escaped the daycare.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655436)

I think you mean to s/USSR/USA/

Form letter time (5, Funny)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653762)

This same old "silver bullet" for spam is yet another lame attempt to solve an intractable problem. Here we go...

Your post advocates a:

wait, one third you say??? Holy shit, never mind! Good work!

zeus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653780)

they should take down zbot and similar. spam is just a nuisance, stealing credit card numbers is obviously much bigger problem.

ZEUS Tracker can help you then & here's how (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654066)

ZEUS TRACKER:

https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]

Add what's in there hostname-domain/subdomain name-wise into your HOSTS file, and zeus can't touch you, because you stop access to ANY of its botnet's servers or enslaved zombies.

(And, when you get IP Addresses in there rather than URL's as 99% of them are, add them in as a new firewall rule that denies access to them (either in your software based firewall OR router)).

APK

P.S.=> It works. It's what I do for myself, family, & friends until ZEUS (& other bots like SpyEye which also has such a tracker of its command & control, dropzone, etc. servers also) is "taken down", which is probably only a matter of time... apk

This is really good news... (2)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653814)

Now I can get my spam-bot service up and running with much less competition in the marketplace. Some penis-enlargement companies just don't want to spread their money around.

Re:This is really good news... (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654268)

Hmmm. Penis Enlargment. Spread. I can't help but feel there is a joke in there somewhere...

Re:This is really good news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655022)

You're really beavering for a laugh, mate!

figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35653830)

> 13.82 billion spam emails each day

astounding

Licensed copy of Windows 7 (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653838)

This outcome could have been easily prevented if they had used licensed copies of Windows 7 for their spam net.

Typo in article? (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35653890)

FTA (emphasis added):

Shortly after the news of the Rustock botnet takedown broke, Adam Wosotowsky, principal engineer at McAfee Labs told SecurityWeek: âoeWe have seen a decrease in Rustock levels, however it by no means has disappeared. This could be due to the botnet still running on old commands, or that lawsuits against botnet owners and associated hosting are proving successful. We are also expect the reseeding of botnets, such as McColo, as botnet operators rebuild their networks."

How do successful lawsuits against the botnet owners prevent the spam from disappearing?

- RG>

Re:Typo in article? (1)

wiredmikey (1824622) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655054)

Not a typo, here is an example of a recent prosecution -- http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-slovenian-and-spanish-police-arrest-mariposa-botnet-creator-operators [fbi.gov] -- Andy many more are behing hunted down Brian Krebs writes about: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/03/microsoft-hunting-rustock-controllers/#more-8707 [krebsonsecurity.com]

Re:Typo in article? (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655124)

Yes, but the quote cites recent prosecutions as a reason why the botnets have not reduced output entirely.

- RG>

The World's Biggest SpamBot: +1, Informative (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654056)

is Microsoft. [microsoft.com]

Thanks in advance.

Yours In Krasnoyarsk,
K. Trout

Note the low brow & sloping forehead (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654106)

And stupidity of the troll's reply: Indicative of why Open SORES and NIX's suck - they have idiots using them.

I've gotten less spam myself (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654100)

Went from 4-5 spam messages a day in gmail to just one today. That is awesome.

I get more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655104)

Mine has increased from 1/day to 4/day

Not for long... (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654132)

Sure the spam volume dropped, but anyone who thinks this is anything but temporary is either crazy or an idiot. Naturally as soon as one botnet goes down another one ramps up to take its place; this is exactly what the prime motivating factor behind spam - money - will do to the situation.

Re:Not for long... (1)

creamy_red (883276) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655518)

I don't know about you, but the amount of spam I'm receiving is decidedly higher in perhaps the last 2-3 months. Not sure what it is - Gmail used to be really good about catching it.

Hm. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654174)

Who else stopped reading as soon as it said "According to Symantec"?

Wouldn't it be great if the ISPs could play a part (1)

Marrow (195242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654356)

Perhaps by just informing people that their machine may be infected? Perhaps by using another medium like an automated phone call or a note on their bill that says that traffic from their computer conforms to traffic seen by infected computers? Perhaps giving them some stats each month that says: this is how many email were seen to be sent by your Internet connection; hey this is pretty high for a home computer, have you updated your virus scanning?
I do not necessary suggest that they block port 25 or insert means of cutting off users. But the users could be warned/informed of what the network was seeing.

Agreed, 110%... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35654546)

See subject-line. If anything, it'd let folks know "Houston, we have a problem!". I'd take it a step further & tell them "clean it up or you're cut off until you do" (to stop them from spreading infestors that many spam mails contain as attachments OR from link url's they contain to malscripted sites that infect them instead).

Re:Wouldn't it be great if the ISPs could play a p (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#35654696)

Does the ISP need to look far enough into the packet to see that it is SMTP traffic, or even that it is TCP?

It could be an option when you sign up though.

and they should "throttle" email traffic as well? (1)

dndk82 (875601) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655620)

it seems possible, but giving ISP the right to inspect my data doesn't sound safe to me. The prospect won't be good as they can tamper with my data header and later with the data itself. Once they can make one step onto your data, they'll go further.

Re:Wouldn't it be great if the ISPs could play a p (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655078)

fudge that. a home computer shouldn't be sending out email anyways. they should be using a business connection, the isp's mail server, or a web-based service like gmail.

MS Spam (1)

ruthless reader (1892470) | more than 3 years ago | (#35654590)

Kudos MS! Now we can expect e-mails about MS Live, Office and other MS products.

Awesome... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 2 years ago | (#35654780)

Hope that M$ continues this great venture into closing down the infected pcs or whatever they did to stop the spam, they could help the price of internet to go down if all spam ceased, and the ISPs did not have to spend extra for all that filtering....might give us cheaper internet???

Ok Apple (1)

Barlo_Mung_42 (411228) | more than 2 years ago | (#35654844)

It's your turn to do something useful.

Re:Ok Apple (0)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655152)

Any % of 0 is still 0.

secondary support for the evidence (1)

fifedrum (611338) | more than 2 years ago | (#35654890)

I work at a top 20 email provider and can concur that spam levels are down since the November, 2011. We were rejecting 96% at the perimeter back then, today we're rejecting around 73% with the same % making it to the inbox and getting marked as junk. Not a crazy reduction in spam, just a reduction in spam.

Re:secondary support for the evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35655560)

November 2011?

66% Left... (1)

Life2Death (801594) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655512)

This is awesome. Though I'm not sure totally what this means, depending on some factors, it could mean little depending on how fast spam traffic is growing (its in the billions per?)

Messenger spam is another thing I'd love to see eradicated, namely from Yahoo! as it seems to have gotten extremely bad lately and meebo isnt adept to handling it.

I noticed (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 2 years ago | (#35655544)

I noticed a drop, but it's back up now with messages telling me how my "business" is an award winner and the usual Nigerian-influenced stuff

Are people really that stupid?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...