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!

51% of Internet Traffic Is "Non-Human"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-all-bots dept.

The Internet 125

hypnosec writes "Cloud-based service Incapsula has revealed research indicating 51 per cent of website traffic is through automated software programs, with many programmed for malicious activity. The breakdown of an average site's traffic is as follows: 5% is due to hacking tools looking for an unpatched or new vulnerability within a site, 5% is scrapers, 2% is from automated comment spammers, 19% is the result of 'spies' collating competitive intelligence, 20% is derived from search engines (non-human traffic but benign), and only 49% is from people browsing the Internet."

cancel ×

125 comments

Obligatory (5, Funny)

Warhawke (1312723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360369)

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360385)

"2% from automated comment spammers"
Looks like more than 2% to me.

Re:Obligatory (2)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362005)

The remainder is kids in Cambodia and Mexico seeking out places to spam and sending messages manually for $0.01 per 100 spams.
Which is not automated traffic.

Re:Obligatory (4, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360435)

When the singularity arrives, it wont be the T-900 to fear, but instead incessant little gnat-bots that swarm anything with a wallet. It seems the internet is denigrating to just another platform of the one true age-old human behavior--scheming and conning to get the most precious thing you have. Your personal information and your money. And this does not surprise me--for a technological system/network created by humans will be just as full of our flaws and intrinsic 'mental' malfunctions as any non-silicon process our species oversees. Evolutionary my dear Watson.

Re:Obligatory (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360477)

That sounds a lot like the singularity in Accelerando [wikipedia.org] . Basically the computer programs end up being so much richer than the humans that the story follows some humans that run away from the solar system because otherwise they can't afford to live.

Re:Obligatory (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360801)

Perhaps. I look forward to the creation of an AI, as it will, no doubt, provide some insight that the human race has been lacking. However, that is merely a possibility -> who knows what the AI will actually be? Perhaps it will want to attend Art School...;-)

Re:Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360897)

Or even worse... become a financial programmer.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361139)

It can't be worse than a lawyer? Can it?

Re:Obligatory (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361487)

The question is, in a contest to see who could be more evil, who would win, the AI or the humans?

Re:Obligatory (3, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362109)

My guess is humans will be more evil, we are innovative in a way its hard to imagine an AI will be. It won't matter though. The AI will adapt, adopt, and iteratively improve on our ideas; using them against us so much effectively than we could ever hope to do.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360841)

While i generally agree with you, it sounds like your post-singulatarians should go get something more precious than some cash and a collection of integers and strings...

There's no point arguing about who has more food in a true post-scarcity society: everyone does.

Re:Obligatory (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362301)

Let's not forget how keen the U.N. is on being internet cops. Maybe they'll be internet traffic cops and start issuing citations.

Re:Obligatory (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360445)

the original [wikimedia.org]

Re:Obligatory (1)

Polo (30659) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361401)

I was thinking it was a good thing [wikipedia.org]

Hmmm (4, Funny)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360375)

"only 49% from people browsing the Internet." I wonder how much of that 49% is porn.

Re:Hmmm (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360463)

48.93% the other 0.06% is facebook, with 0.01% making up twitter spam.

Re:Hmmm (2)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361789)

I am the 0%.

Re:Hmmm (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360609)

Hate to bring sources into a slashdot conversation, but Sandvine's 2011 report has 53.6% as "real-time entertainment". 29 percentage points are Netflix, 10 are YouTube.
So if those numbers are correct, roughly 15% of the Internet is porn.

Re:Hmmm (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361685)

Hate to bring sources into a slashdot conversation, but Sandvine's 2011 report has 53.6% as "real-time entertainment"
[...]
So if those numbers are correct, roughly 15% of the Internet is porn.

how much of the 53.6% is real-time porn?

Re:Hmmm (2)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361759)

That sounds like US Internet traffic rather than Internet traffic as a whole. Netflix don't operate in most of the world, whereas YouTube does.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361985)

where did you get the 15% from exactly ??

Re:Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39362077)

You are conflating two different statistics. TFA is about website traffic. Since I just repeated what the article said, I will explain. This statistic is only hits to websites and where they come from. You are talking about traffic on the internet. This is a totally different number.

Duh.

But what about... (0)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360379)

... PORN?!?

Re:But what about... (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360443)

bots love porn.

Re:But what about... (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362173)

But it's got to be binary or at least ASCII. [asciipr0n.com]

Re:But what about... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360485)

... PORN?!?

It says right there in the summary: "only 49% from people browsing the Internet." Although you could argue that it's higher than that since spiders must crawl through porn too. Adding the 20% for the search spiders, we have that 69% of web traffic is porn related. A fitting number, I dare say.

Aliens! (2)

DangerOnTheRanger (2373156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360389)

I knew it!

Weak figure. (2)

hamanaka (894048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360401)

Any webmaster should already know this, probably way more than 51% for websites in existence for several years.

Re:Weak figure. (2)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360555)

Any webmaster should already know this, probably way more than 51% for websites in existence for several years.

Agreed. I was thinking only 51%? I currently toss roughly 65% of my logs out when I'm calculating how much human traffic we've received.

Its worse than that, hes a bot, Jim... (2)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362019)

Agreed. I was thinking only 51%? I currently toss roughly 65% of my logs out when I'm calculating how much human traffic we've received.

The interesting thing is that 51% is identifiable as bots. What about bots that are designed to emulate real users?

I mention that because I have written some bots that are designed to emulate users as closely as possible, so as to not be noticed by paranoid webmasters. Mine follow valid workflow scenarios, and even pause appropriate amounts of time between post backs, so I am fairly certain that they have gone unnoticed.

I don't think that I am more clever than the average hacker, so I am sure that others are doing this sort of thing, too.

Re:Its worse than that, hes a bot, Jim... (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362087)

Don't forget to randomize intervals on a bell curve depending on content size and the bot's likes (tag mesh you designate and is compared to each page's dictionary). With some fairly basic data mining you can find bots if their jumps are regular and, if you really want to (or if you have been employed to find out) which of the human clients is an executable, you can always build your own uberbots and train ML algos to match them (and in turn the malicious visitors). Tried it once, it can get complicated, especially with traffic networks that change IPs aka bots or networks of them that reset their connection on dynamic IP.

And of that 49% (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360413)

70% is porn-related.

Reading tools? (2)

stoborrobots (577882) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360417)

Which of those categories do data analysis and aggregation tools fall into?

I'm thinking of user-focused tools like RSS Readers, Stock Quote graphers, etc... They're automated non-human tools which access websites, but it's not clear how they are being categorised...

web !=internet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360419)

the article seems to be about websites, not the intetnet

Re:web !=internet (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360669)

Yeap, and that's the title of the ZDNet article, which was then copied by ITProPortal, which not only didn't add anything worthwhile, but also managed to fuck up the title.

Re:web !=internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361987)

The source of the non-news does, indeed, speak of websites and not the Internet:
http://www.incapsula.com/the-incapsula-blog/blog-2012/114-what-google-doesnt-show-you-31-of-website-traffic-can-harm-your-business

The first sign poor editorial judgement is not recognising the inaccuracy of any accounting of "Internet" traffic that doesn't include peer-to-peer traffic, e-mail, streaming media, etc. that consume most of our management or capital resources.

The second sign is that at least two technology editors repeated the HTTP==Internet mistake before the story landed on /., whose editors also made the same mistake.

That article. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360439)

Is such a huge load over advertising.

It doesn't link to any research, its simply and in house "research" after which they also suggest you that you really should use their service. So its to be taken with a grain of salt.
There is no research method described, or anything else.

Re:That article. (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360623)

Is such a huge load over advertising.

It doesn't link to any research, its simply and in house "research" after which they also suggest you that you really should use their service. So its to be taken with a grain of salt. There is no research method described, or anything else.

Yeah there is nothing in that article that tells who the fuck Incapsula is. Do they have people with doctorates and PHD's doing their "research." Or are they just pulling numbers out of their butt. Smells like a fly by night scam.

PHDs are not under oath (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360771)

Do they have people with doctorates and PHD's doing their "research." Or are they just pulling numbers out of their butt.

Could be both. This allegedly happened in some areas where researchers felt that a "controlled publication" of scientific evidence could bring more exposure to what they considered important issues... (climategate, peppered moths, Libby half-life, etc.)

Arrogance (2)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360447)

Hey, now, I know the United States isn't exactly the only game in town anymore, but you guys could be a little more sensitive.

Re:Arrogance (2, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360585)

Don't worry, you're probably part of the 49%. The 51% is primarily comprised of furries, klingons, cat videos, our robot overlords, our reptilian overlords, our reptilian robot overlords, and the welsh.

Re:Arrogance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361567)

Wot about gingers, eh?

95% of the 49% are missing a chromosome or two (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360471)

how much of that 49% is Reddit and 4chan?

Re:95% of the 49% are missing a chromosome or two (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360517)

4chan -- where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents.

Re:95% of the 49% are missing a chromosome or two (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361559)

And the FBI agents are trrrroooollllssss.

Re:95% of the 49% are missing a chromosome or two (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361727)

Awesome! - Maybe slightly expanded:

4chan - where the men are men, the women are men, the trolls are infantile, the children are FBI agents and the pedophiles are rampant - and soon on their way to jail.

Anonymous has left the building.

Re:95% of the 49% are missing a chromosome or two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360565)

Very little. Face it, those sites aren't as big as people make them out to be.

Re:95% of the 49% are missing a chromosome or two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361129)

...implying that the worthless collection of lameness that is reddit should ever be uttered in the same breath as 4chan.

Re:95% of the 49% are missing a chromosome or two (1)

findoutmoretoday (1475299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362153)

add to that 10% of the 49% are nerds and those barely count as human

More than you might think (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362259)

More than you might think. Not that those two are huge, but the same people are also everywhere else, including slashdot. Probably not so much on Facebook. Some people spend an inordinate amount of time online and have multiple personas. They spend so much more time online than most people they skew the statistics. You can't really say X% are doing A and Y% are doing B because mostly the same people are doing both.

There are fewer people online that is apparent.

Re:More than you might think (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362267)

*than is apparent

Bad Title / Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360479)

Title says 51% of Internet Traffic.
Summary says 51% of Website Traffic.

Internet != Website.

Re:Bad Title / Summary (4, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360505)

The summary is ok, but the title is completely wrong. It could well be 51% of HTTP requests, but far as 'Internet traffic", it's probably a tiny fraction of a percent.

In fact, why is it even surprising or newsworthy that 50% of HTTP requests are malicious? Anyone who runs a public web server will be able to see that pretty quickly (though as long as it's configured correctly the actual traffic will be tiny (consisting of a whole bunch of 404's).

Re:Bad Title / Summary (2)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360563)

They're not saying 50% are malicious, just non-human. I get a fairly large chunk of traffic from google's bots, which I don't consider malicious.

Re:Bad Title / Summary (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360661)

Not to mention RSS feeds, etc.

Re:Bad Title / Summary (3, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360689)

If you get a fairly large chunk of traffic from Google's bots, then you must have almost no *actual* daily traffic :)

Re:Bad Title / Summary (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360847)

Last time I checked (which wasn't recent) googlebot only accounted for about 5-6 million a day of my total traffic.

Re:Bad Title / Summary (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361003)

5-6 million of what? Unit missing.

Re:Bad Title / Summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361965)

square inches..?

Re:Bad Title / Summary (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360925)

You'd think a Slashdot poster would know the difference between the web and the Internet. Sigh.

Re:Bad Title / Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360963)

Even saying 'many programmed for malicious activity' is grossly misleading, and while they're not saying that 51% of the traffic is malicious they ARE saying that much of that 51% IS, which implies > 25% overall... And that you didn't know that before and should be worried about it, because it's somehow different to every other automated system humans run.

You might as well point out that >25% of calls recieved to home phones during a political event are automated advertisements, or that >25% of the mail sent by the US post is sweepstakes, reader's digest and other scams.

but the story is just bad astroturf for these guys: http://www.incapsula.com/. So it's no surprise.

"Security company says things insecure! Totally not a protection racket! News at 11"

Re:Bad Title / Summary (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360991)

If it's indeed http requests then the numbers start to make a little more sense. Especially the 20% from search engine crawlers is a very high number I'd say - considering that there are just a few serious crawlers around, and they won't visit a site every 10 minutes.

Re:Bad Title / Summary (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361549)

Actually if you think about it 20% from search engine crawlers would mean either the crawlers are ridiculously overcrawling, or there are just too many damn crawlers. How the hell can 1 out of 5 accesses to web sites be involved in trying to help people find web sites!? That's insane. So the real answer is not found in analyzing the data, it's analyzing the source.

Basically, some random bullshit hosting company saw a trend with its low-traffic customer websites and is now extrapolating that to the Internet in general. It's like trying to gauge worldwide automobile traffic patterns by sitting on a lawn chair in front of your house and counting cars.

if you run wordpress... (4, Insightful)

powerspike (729889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360489)

If you run wordpress for your site... It's more like 50% Bots (search engines), 40% Comment Spam, and 8% Content Scanners and 2% Visitors....

Re:if you run wordpress... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360723)

You think that's bad, try running a small wiki.

Re:if you run wordpress... (2)

fenix849 (1009013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361127)

Wordpress gets a bad rap, because bad sysadmins/developers don't keep it up to date, or enable comments but don't enable akismet.

But yeah Visitors will often be a fraction of overall web traffic to a given blog, regardless of the platfrom that runs it.

Re:if you run wordpress... (2)

powerspike (729889) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361151)

While i Agree with you, However regardless if you use akismet, or keep it up to date, if your site has any decent SE rankings, you are going to get hit big time by comment spam, and search engines. The more content you have the more you are going to get. From 7 Wordpress sites, in the last 24 hours i have received over 400 blog comments (including ones automaticlly marked as spam). It's pretty bad, and getting worse.

49% of population is male... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360519)

and 51% is female. Since no one has ever seen a female on Internet i'd say we can now explain the non-human 51%.

Re:49% of population is male... (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360915)

Perhaps you're just considering a specific country. According to Wikipedia, the overall world sex ratio is 101 males to 100 females [wikipedia.org] . At birth, the ratio is more like 106 males to 100 females, though males die earlier than females, especially in later years. (An aunt who used to be a delivery room nurse told me that female babies are generally stronger than males, so eg. a premature female has a higher chance of surviving.) Some cultures don't like girl babies, leading to infanticide or abortions, so the ratio can get artificially skewed; it also just seems to naturally vary a bit.

Re:49% of population is male... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361001)

Perhaps you're just considering a specific country. According to Wikipedia, the overall world sex ratio is 101 males to 100 females [wikipedia.org] . At birth, the ratio is more like 106 males to 100 females, though males die earlier than females, especially in their last years. (An aunt who used to be a delivery room nurse told me that female babies are generally stronger than males, so eg. a premature female has a higher chance of surviving.) Some cultures don't like girl babies, leading to infanticide or abortions, so the ratio can get artificially skewed; it also just seems to naturally vary a bit.

Re:49% of population is male... (3, Funny)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361213)

Thanks, but I prefer "This." ;)

Monitoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360523)

I swear there is so much monitoring (is my site up?)... that should at least register on the scale.

Web != Internet (4, Insightful)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360617)

Seriously. Do they have liberal arts majors writing the headlines at /. now?

Bots are people too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360657)

Do bot views count toward page views for advertising revenue?

How do they classify? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360673)

If figuring out malicious traffic was this easy, we could get rid of it!

Things I learn... (1)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360695)

Did not realize there were that many furries out there. Though, it makes sense, we make the internets go [moonbuggy.org] .

Scraper Porn (1)

countach (534280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360703)

Someone should invent porn that appeals to screen scrapers, then we'd REALLY see web traffic go wild!

Re:Scraper Porn (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360715)

Someone should invent porn that appeals to screen scrapers, then we'd REALLY see web traffic go wild!

Scrapers Gone Wild!

On second thought... maybe not.

Want some bot traffic? (2)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360741)

Try using a calendar which has next month and year links (along with every day therein) and doesnt know googlebot is coming.....gigs. seriously.

Re:Want some bot traffic? (1)

Ingenium13 (162116) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361529)

You should restrict it in robots.txt. I had to do it on my site because Google kept appending a character over and over to a variable in the URL. It would just add another character on and request again. It was a pretty weird bug and was generating gigs of traffic as well. You can also restrict Google's crawl rate in Webmaster Tools.

Executive summary (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360827)

The internet is dangerous, buy our security product.

Better link, crappy story (4, Informative)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360831)

Here's the original ZDNet blog post [zdnet.com] . It's a longer article with more detail; it's also linked at the bottom of TFA, which seems to have plagiarized it. Compare the first paragraphs:

[TFA] Cloud-based service, Incapsula, has revealed research indicating that 51 per cent of website traffic is through automated software programs; with many programmed for the intent of malicious activity.

[ZDNet] Incapsula, a provider of cloud-based security for web sites, released a study today showing that 51% of web site traffic is automated software programs, and the majority is potentially damaging, — automated exploits from hackers, spies, scrapers, and spammers.

The sentence structure and order of ideas is identical, and many phrases are the same or nearly the same. A high schooler should do better. Minor rephrasing is not sufficient.

That said, both articles are pretty much advertisements. The study doesn't appear to have attempted to actually be comprehensive (so it only used data from this one company). The point was apparently to give this cloud service provider some selling points for businesses to use their service to "secure" their sites. This story is yet another that shouldn't even have appeared on /.; shame on the editors who let it through.

Re:Better link, crappy story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361155)

, Sbobet , , , , , , , http://www.3n2.net/ [3n2.net]

Consider the source (5, Insightful)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360913)

Incapsula, a provider of cloud-based security for web sites, released a study today showing that 51% of web site traffic is automated software programs, and the majority is potentially damaging, — automated exploits from hackers, spies, scrapers, and spammers.

and it just so happens that Incapsula has the perfect solution to save you from all this... for a price. [wikipedia.org]

Don't blame me! (0)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360957)

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

not really surprising I guess (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361015)

I worked for an anti-spam provider > 90% of emails were spam some customers > 99%. That said though spam emails tend to be short, almost to the point of ridiculous. I don't remember the exact numbers but say the average email that is legitmate is about 50k (because of attachments skewing it, but still even legitimate email tends to be 5+ sentences). Along comes duffious spammer. Not only are they shooting off 10k emails per bot per hour, but they are all one sentence emails with a tinyurl link in them. The lack of size is one of the key indicators left once you remove the obvious keywords and the sending history. Kind of makes me wonder why the bots spamming other content are so chatty.

I guess if you are spamming forums you have to have a "comment" length message to send sometimes to look legitamate. You can't just say "go to http://tinyurl.com/growyourpenis [tinyurl.com] " with out being obvious. But that said why do spammers get away with it in email but not in forums? I mean someone is clicking the links in the emails because it is a large business (likely multi-billion dollar). Hmm ... I'll start running the unsuspicious botnet on the forums posting email like spam and post forum spam length content to email accounts, I'll make millions, er well a few dollars anyways.

oh and in case you are wondering (2)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361041)

Bots send short emails usually for throughput reasons. Why waste bandwidth when you are both trying to use little enough so you don't get caught and your peak email send rate is inversely proportional to content size.

Another tidbit that I'm sure a bunch of people know but is worth throwing out there: spam with images, there is a reason for that. The images round trip to the spamers servers. Usually they set it up so that your email account is tagged somehow in the url that your viewer sends to their server. So opening the email "calls home" and tells the spammer "hey I got a real email addreess" (and likely someone gullable enough to look at spam). The spammer can then add your email address to a list of "live email accounts" which sell easily for 10X what a list of unconfirmed email addresses do. So ... if you don't recognize the sender don't even open it even if it is just your webmail client. If you do expect more spam.

Re:oh and in case you are wondering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361581)

So ... if you don't recognize the sender don't even open it even if it is just your webmail client. If you do expect more spam.

What webmail client shows images by default?

'spies' collating competitive intelligence (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361047)

Guilty as charged. I admit, I've been known to check out the competition from other sites to ensure I'm not falling behind the curve. My guess is that they perform a reverse DNS lookup of their IP logs and determine that the company's network I'm behind belongs in the same industry as theirs.

I did not read the artice (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361073)

However, based solely on the title, my reaction was "No shit, Sherlock". Or, to introduce the younger crowd to an "old saw"... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor [wikipedia.org] , and ponder it well.

Then, GET OFF MY LAWN!

Isnt Human Trafficing Wrong? (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361153)

Last time I checked whenever I sent any data across the net, it was not human, but rather data.

IPv6 to the rescue (4, Interesting)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361171)

With IPv6 no more wholesale scanning of the entire global address space in minutes time looking for expliotable hosts. No more 5 minutes to ownage of unpatched PCs and the associated waste of bandwidth.

No more self propogating worms using simple algorithms to divide and conquer the global network.

In the grand scheme of things it won't help much but better than nothing.

my breakdown (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361287)

last time I had a personal website up, 60% of it was buffer overflow bots, 20% were old IIS exploit bots and 10% were slashdot scans whenever I made a post.

Really though, firewalls in the US should come with the entire Chinese, Russian, and Indian IP range blocked for incoming connections by default.

Sentience Imminent? (1)

Lord of the Fries (132154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361551)

When it gets down to the the mythical 10% that human's supposedly use of their own information processing machine (their brains), will the net mind achieve sentience?

That Explains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361629)

..most of the slashdot posts! Now I know why!

You'd think non-human share was higher (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361753)

Consider, for instance, lol cats and pedo bears. Two distinct mammals that have perplexed the likes of sir Attenborough for many office hours.

Testing the waters, we also have dramatic animals (it all began with a hamster), and the turtle kid. The latter a new breed of furry, that may prove more nuisance than entertainment.

I have a theory. (1)

Bigfield (742477) | more than 2 years ago | (#39361767)

Skynet has become self-aware.

Re:I have a theory. (1)

international_fish (2595893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362121)

I knew that some guys I talked to on the Internet are so dumb or so wise that they can't be humans

HAT NOW. (1)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362103)

HAT, ALUMINUM HAT NOW PLEASE. Who are these non humans filling up the pipes that lead into my house? ripping wire out in 3.2.1...
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...