[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 61, Issue 6

Peter,
You are being the victim of a swindler. He is passing himself off as a well-known lawyer, Mark J. Silberman, to take your money.
If you make contact - munged (at) gmail.com - you will know how he acts.
Report to antispam_gdnoc at 189.cn.
Marilson
From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net 
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:00 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net 
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 61, Issue 6

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: New on RIPE Labs: Reasons Dynamic Addresses Change
      (Ramakrishna)
   2. What's the point in this type of spam ? (peter h)
   3. Re: What's the point in this type of spam ? (ox)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 06:41:43 -0800
From: Ramakrishna <ramapad at cs.umd.edu>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] New on RIPE Labs: Reasons Dynamic
Addresses Change
Message-ID:
<CAAYmKkJ3DjUf7bd9pUktFwr8QjV3QtNAWMF41VzTeFbqskE4kQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> ok... so first of all the address changes within DTAG and most other
german SOHO DSL providers, from what i heard back then, goes back to the
days of dialup... a couple of years ago they apparently still were
forced by law (or something) to also offer DSL on a 'charge per time
use' basis, and also disconnect virtual channels every once in a while,
something to do with anti-competition to the telephone dialup network..
which apparently is why most german dsl providers still do that.

Ah, thanks for providing the historical context for why German DSL
providers change addresses so frequently. I am skeptical, however, that
there is a law requiring German DSL providers to disconnect virtual
channels 'every once in a while' because I asked several German colleagues
about such a law and they were unable to find one (I would be delighted if
you can point me to one!).

> secondly... if your authentication and telling users apart has anything
to do with layer 3, your authentication method is just crap, not well
thought of, etc.

There are other use-cases for IP addresses as end-host identifiers that I
outlined in my post (such as counting the number of users in a system by
counting the number of distinct IP addresses). I am personally interested
in measuring outages by pinging IP addresses belonging to residential CPEs.
My premise for detecting outages is that an address that sends responses to
active probes is alive and well, and that a previously responsive address
that has stopped responding to probes could be experiencing an outage. This
premise is incorrect when I am pinging a dynamic address that has been
withdrawn from the CPE; thus, I would love to analyze dynamic reassignment
behavior across ISPs.

I agree that using IP addresses for identifying users for authentication
purposes isn't ideal but sometimes, IP addresses are the easiest way to
identify users. Other times, they are the only ways to identify users. For
example, if one is defending against a DoS attack, the most straightforward
and efficient approach is to blacklist that IP address temporarily. How
long that address can continue to remain in the blacklist is the question
that we aim to answer.

> as for wikipedia, it also leaks ips all over the place. (basically
inciting users to ddos each other,although probably a less common result
than with IRC.)

Well, wikipedia is only one example of a well-known company that employs IP
address based blacklists. In private conversation with Google and several
content-delivery networks (including one where I interned earlier this
year), I learned that IP addresses are very much a part of host-reputation
systems. So although IP addresses as end-hosts isn't ideal, it's a common
assumption and our work shows that the assumption can actually even be
valid for weeks at a time in North American ISPs.

Cheers,
Rama
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ramapad/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20161119/0ffe4c0a/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 19:01:43 +0100
From: peter h <peter at hk.ipsec.se>
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] What's the point in this type of spam ?
Message-ID: <201611191901.44498.peter at hk.ipsec.se>
Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"

The last days i have been sent a number of these threats, they come from 
different addresses ( stolen computers ) but contain no links or attatchements.

Is the goal to harass the gmail user ( it's munged by me to protect an innocent person )


Received: from 14.145.207.224 ([113.68.244.108])
by ipsec.se (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id uAILTOwC091474
for <peter at ipsec.nu>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 22:29:32 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <201611182129.uAILTOwC091474 at ipsec.se>
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (mark.silberman78 at gmail.com@177.205.66.120)
by 113.68.244.108 with ESMTPA; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 05:29:22 +0800
From: m-**-.-munged-78 at gmail.com
To: peter at ipsec.nu
Subject: You are hacked!
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 05:21:56 +0800
Content-Type: 
X-UID: 5404
X-Length: 910

Your email peter at ipsec.nu has been hacked and spam is sent to all your contacts!
If you don't have a lawyer, you may contact me at 
<munged>@gmail.com

Best Regards,
M**-
m**-.-munged-78 at gmail.com

-- 
        Peter H?kanson   

        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
        ( Det ?r billigare att g?ra r?tt. Det ?r dyrt att laga fel. )



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2016 07:53:34 +0200
From: ox <andre at ox.co.za>
To: peter h <peter at hk.ipsec.se>
Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] What's the point in this type of spam ?
Message-ID: <mailman.2.1479639602.27612.anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 19:01:43 +0100
peter h <peter at hk.ipsec.se> wrote:
> The last days i have been sent a number of these threats, they come
> from different addresses ( stolen computers ) but contain no links or
> attatchements.
> Is the goal to harass the gmail user ( it's munged by me to protect
> an innocent person )
>

There is not a single one of the trillions of spams that are senseless.

All spam has a reason to exist and no spam is ever senseless - not even
a single one...

There are a few goals with your spam as it is rich with possibilities.
The vast majority of spam only has a singular goal and your spam is
rich in possibilities :)

The most obvious is to confuse/poison (some/basic) anti spam systems:
> Received: from 14.145.207.224 ([113.68.244.108])
> Received: from unknown (HELO localhost)
> (mark.silberman78 at gmail.com@177.205.66.120) by 113.68.244.108

My software handles any headers that deviate from the expected with extreme care
as there are only a limited number of reasons why headers are different than expected 

Other goals (and their are many with your example of Shotgun spam
(named after shotgun weddings) 

Goals may be to solicit a relationship with victims, cyber criminals are finding 
it more challenging to open dialog and engage with shotgun victims

It may be to target the @gmail account holder, to receive spam that
Google will allow as it will be from other victims (think denial of
service or just to attack/assault a gmail account holder)

and of course many other reasons

hth

andre

 

> 
> Received: from 14.145.207.224 ([113.68.244.108])
> by ipsec.se (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id uAILTOwC091474
> for <peter at ipsec.nu>; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 22:29:32 +0100 (CET)
> Message-Id: <201611182129.uAILTOwC091474 at ipsec.se>
> Received: from unknown (HELO localhost)
> (mark.silberman78 at gmail.com@177.205.66.120) by 113.68.244.108 with
> ESMTPA; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 05:29:22 +0800 From:
> m-**-.-munged-78 at gmail.com To: peter at ipsec.nu
> Subject: You are hacked!
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 05:21:56 +0800
> Content-Type: 
> X-UID: 5404
> X-Length: 910
> 
> Your email peter at ipsec.nu has been hacked and spam is sent to all
> your contacts! If you don't have a lawyer, you may contact me at 
> <munged>@gmail.com
> 
> Best Regards,
> M**-
> m**-.-munged-78 at gmail.com
> 




End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 61, Issue 6
********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20161121/183ecc21/attachment.html>