If you thought the Internet was not the wild west

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    thingy, Jun 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. thingy

    Matty F Guest

    Surely there is something that can be done when for example xtra
    gets tens of thousands of BNZ phishing emails over a short time
    from a particular server. Xtra are already identifying most of
    those messages as spam, so why don't they bounce them back to the
    sending server with a suitable rejection message?
    Matty F, Jun 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Anybody with a sufficiently large bot-net can do a major d-dos attack, this is
    nothing new. It's always been frowned upon on the internet to retaliate - in
    other words launching dos attacks or spam attacks against spammers. And that
    is, de facto, what that Israeli 'security company' were doing: they were
    running an operation that was d-dossing spammers with 'unsub' messages.
    Very questionable, i.m.o. Understandable, but questionable.

    So someone got even. Heh - and they didn't have the skills to beat it.

    It seems there is a florishing business going on, out of Russia, to blackmail
    American online betting businesses by threatening them with d-dos attacks.
    Looks like Blue-Whassaname fell foul of someone who had connections to that

    Peter Huebner, Jun 13, 2006
  4. thingy

    Justin Guest

    Thing, You do realise this is old news, don't you?
    Justin, Jun 13, 2006
  5. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Mostly it is not from a particular server or even a small group, it is
    mostly bot nets, 10, 20, 30,000 broadband machines that have been
    hacked, so a block is just not practical.

    Also it is one thing to tag an email and another to block it, no one can
    guarantee that a tagged spam is a spam....we have taken the risk that
    anything of 98% or over is blocked with a return message on initial
    connect....we did this after careful analysis of the 98+ to make sure
    there were no false positives and then we did a return deny so a remote
    admin could see and tell us they were legit.....been great for 6+ months
    no complaints.....cut our spam 50%....since November....

    Xtra cannot really do that, it would need buy in from all of its
    customers. can you imagine the legal consequences if a customer loses a
    job or contract because xtra blocked an urgent mail?

    As it was we had 12 people who said no v the 5000 who said yes, so
    because we could, those 12 get everything the rest see 98%+
    blocked....that software is not cheap.....


    thingy, Jun 13, 2006
  6. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Less than a month old.....what I noticed as interesting was the in your
    face I will kill the Internet if you try and stop me spamming, first
    time I have seen something so blatent....hence I thought I would post it...


    thingy, Jun 13, 2006
  7. thingy

    thingy Guest

    No, but such a blatent out there, spoil me making money as a spammer and
    I kill the Internet is way out there....it shows people are more than
    prepared to do it, within this context, how safe is e-business and

    It's always been frowned upon on the internet to retaliate - in
    Yes, and in effect no one should be under the illusion that there are
    enough people out there prepared to destroy and seem to have no fear of

    So we enjoy our freedom as long as we are prepared to allow illegal
    activites to continue and flourish....

    Not exactly a good state of affairs.


    thingy, Jun 14, 2006
  8. Well now, I think Mr Hacker from Russia was way overestimating his powers
    For starters, these attacks CAN be beaten off, it just takes money: lots of
    pipes/bandwidth and some very high powered equipment plus expertise.
    It's generally cheaper to pay off the blackmailers as I understand it.

    But take down the internet? He's dreaming. His bot-net would be affected, n'est
    ce pas? ISPs and trunk providers can take a look at their logs and start
    shutting down affected connections, even whole IP ranges if they want. Oh,
    inconvenience, slowdowns, gridlock, yes - but shut down the internet -
    muahahaha. I recently was on the 'receiving end' when Iconz's main upstream
    provider was hit with a d-dos attack: it slowed things way down, but it didn't
    manage to crash everything. There are backup providers, redundancy ... this is
    one of the advantages of this chaotic structure - there is no heart that you
    can slip a knife into ;-)

    Anyway ...

    regds, -Peter
    Peter Huebner, Jun 14, 2006
  9. thingy

    thingy Guest

    There sort of is a "heart", distributed attack against major backbone
    routers....as for shutting down, if you have hacked hosts over lots of
    ISPs and IP subnets then shutting down is actually going to be very
    hard....By the time you have shutdown there is not much left....our spam
    attacks are very widely distributed.


    thingy, Jun 15, 2006
  10. thingy

    SchoolTech Guest

    It's the flipside of the unregulated freedom that everyone tells us the
    internet should be. No one can control it whatever it's used for - good
    or bad.

    In effect the internet is supposed to be libertarian. Now, a lot of
    people think that libertarians are kooks - yet having a libertarian
    internet is supposed to be a good thing. Hello?
    SchoolTech, Jun 18, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.