Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:24:47 -0600 From: "Brian Kelsay" [email protected] Subject: Fighting a spam fire with a DDoS To: [email protected] Message-ID: [email protected] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
This method looks like it is being accepted by the general public. I only hope that something positive comes about from it and not just more net slow-downs in the long run.
Spammers get taste of their own medicine
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cd592a7a-433e-11d9-bea1-00000e2511c8.html
Brian Kelsay
This idea didn't sound like a good one the first time I heard about it years ago, and it still doesn't now.
-- Warning: rambling rant aimed at no one in particular follows --
There is a finite amount of bandwidth out there, so why do we want to use up even more of it?
It's funny when people use terms like "business model" in relation to spammers because it paints a picture of spammers as clean, intelligent, well-organized business professionals which I think is rather inaccurate. Rather, I see spammers as a very untidy bunch of no-account hoodlums of various shapes, sizes, and dispositions. *Some* spammers might be dissuaded by a DDoS campaign, but since DDoS and spam are only marginally different (i.e. they're both floods of useless crap data that drastically reduce your efficiency), I really doubt it's going to have much impact overall. In any case, even assuming some best case scenario where the DDoS actually targets the right computers (it won't) and the spammers have a miraculous Grinch-style change of heart (they won't), there's still this basic problem: there's always a fresh crop of young teenagers who can send out boatloads more spam as an effective DDoS/annoyance/way-to-get-back-at-the whole-world.
So... I really don't think DDoSing spammers is a good idea. It's just a modern form of childish vigilante-ism and one that I don't expect to be particularly effective.
=====
[ on the far reaches of OT-land ]
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:38:27PM -0800, Isaac C. wrote:
There is a finite amount of bandwidth out there, so why do we want to use up even more of it?
I think the goal is to use up the finite bandwidth of those who are abusing our email clients and our time. Our time is definately finite. Atleast mine is. =)
It's funny when people use terms like "business model" in relation to spammers because it paints a picture of spammers as clean, intelligent, well-organized business professionals which I think is rather inaccurate. Rather, I see spammers as a very untidy bunch of no-account hoodlums of various shapes, sizes, and dispositions.
If you put what spammers do in terms of a business model, it doesn't necessairly make them out to be clean cut business professionals.
Spammers are out to make a buck the cheapest way possible. Mass email is the cheapest form of advertizing. It's cheaper than free (read that again). The ones who 'pay' for email are those who spend 2-5 seconds hitting the delete button. You could argue that those along the Internet path also pay, and that is true.
The problem lies because people actually click on the links and pictures or open up the email, and some of them actually buy from these people. They don't send spam to annoy or to get back at the world. They are out to try to make a quick buck.
there's still this basic problem: there's always a fresh crop of young teenagers who can send out boatloads more spam as an effective DDoS/annoyance/way-to-get-back-at-the whole-world.
Nor are spammers just teenagers in dark, musty basements.
So... I really don't think DDoSing spammers is a good idea. It's just a modern form of childish vigilante-ism and one that I don't expect to be particularly effective.
I don't really like the idea of a DDoS either, but teergrubing is effective. Cost them *their* time, and *their* CPU usage at SMTP time.
People who actually buy things from the spammers are the ones who are costing us. It reminds me of a sig I see on this list about a village missing an idiot. =)
Just food for thought on a Wednesday night. Back to your regularly scheduled LUG mail. =)
Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Isaac C. Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fighting a spam fire with a DDoS
This idea didn't sound like a good one the first time I heard about it years ago, and it still doesn't now.
I have to agree with you on this one. The thoughts I share here aren't very original either, considering I've snagged 'em from /. (and gave this guy one of my mod points for the day as well.) I think we will ALL suffer if this sort of thing continues.
Dustin
******** Shameless /. Copy/Paste ******** There we go again... (Score:3, Insightful) by arnoroefs2000 (122990) on Wednesday December 01, @03:32AM (#10961515) (http://www.wikipedia.org/)
Your company advocates a () technical ( ) legislative () market-based (x) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it (x) Microsoft will not put up with it (x) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats (x) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud (x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (x) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
-
Dustin Decker -
Isaac C. -
Jeremy Turner