Weird distributed spam attack
Jacob M Wilkens
lists at ipbrothers.com
Wed Nov 20 14:42:27 UTC 2002
We just recently started using GatewayDefender's Business service. So far,
I've only received about 1 or 2 spam a day -- down from nearly 40-60. Not
bad in my estimation.
From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:16 AM
To: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: Weird distributed spam attack
> > Unless, I missed the posts about this,.. I just
>> (and still am experiencing) a distributed spam
>We get these almost continually....
Yep... same here.
>it is incredibly depressing to look at the logs. Backup-only MX here
>see upwards of 10K messages on bad days, mostly attacks of that type.
yep same here... before we ducked for cover (see below) I could grep
800 megs of just "REJECTED" out of our maillog file (two per day).
To make it even more depressing we were only getting harvested on
about two dozen of the several thousand domains we run MX for.
>Some of the domains chosen for the attack are ridiculous (are 4
>valid addresses really worth that effort?).
Well, they don't know that until the dictionary the domain do they? <Sigh.>
>I have come to the conclusion that distributed dictionary attacks
>will eventually get the goods. Sure you can reject by pattern match
>on ainet.us for this case, but that's not going to help when someone
>with a large network of spambots sets up a job that:
>1) uses completely random from addresses, subject lines and message content
Correct. That is exactly what we have seen.
>2) uses an attack algorithm to distribute the load so you only see
>any given source IP every other day
Yep. My list of "attacking IP's" was several thousand deep before I gave up.
>I suspect that this type of attack is currently ongoing, underneath
>the obvious noise of the cruder tools.
yes. We started seeing it (moderate volume) in July of this year. By
August it was equal to "regular" client traffic. By early-October is
was kneecapping our mailservers.
Managing the "ignore" list started to become a full-time job, so we
surrendered and started using an external blocking service. (see
below) Before that we tried filtering at the router(s) and
maintaining "ignore" lists on the servers, but it broke all sorts of
things you *want* to have happen with secondary mail servers,
especially the ones we have off-site.
>The only solution I see for the service provider is to recommend
>their subscribers choose long, complicated usernames not likely to
>be found in a dictionary.
That doesn't do *anything* to stop the attack, it just hides the user
from being harvested (easily.)
It managed to find a couple of my weird addresses though, so while
you can run, you can't hide forever.
>If anyone has better thoughts as to defense for the above scenario,
>I would love to hear it.
We have been offering Postini <http://www.postini.com> "spam & virus
filtering" to our clients since May. They offer a service that
detects, and blocks/ignores the originating harvest spambots. They
call it "ActiveEMS"... we tried it on our own domain (one of the
first targeted) and we saw it drop like a rock. So we made it
"mandatory" for our clients now... they can opt-out of the filtering,
but we still hide our mailservers behind theirs, even if our client
opts out. That way, the client's *domain* stays protected, but they
can read all the spams their hearts desire.
It *still* does some wonky stuff with secondaries, so I might have to
buy (grumble) their services as secondary MX spooling.
>I used to believe that running a catchall alias was an effective
>deterrent until the b*st*rds started sending complete spams and not
>just RCPT TO.
In fact, in this scenario the catch-all is like pouring gasoline on
the fire without some giant water tank on the roof to... oh, wait...
wrong thread. Sorry.
The only clients we haven't moved to Postini are those with
"catch-all" addresses. Those break under Postini... well, they don't
really "break" accept the bank, as clients get charged per-address.
We are spreading clues as much as we can to discourage catch-alls. I
hope to have all but the completely entrenched converted by year-end.
Then we just have to wait until they get harvested... then they'll
change their mind.
We have one client, who owns close to 50 domains... all with a
catch-all going to his *one* address. He went from getting maybe 30
spams a week to several hundred a day... just because a single domain
was harvested by these attacks.
>The only alternative I see is a blacklist populated by some type of
>distributed detection system... if enough of us under attack
>contributed 550 unknown user logs, there should be an easily
>definable threshold for human error.
Interesting alternative... the hard part is making it work. How does
it face the spambots, but still not refuse actual legit mail traffic
coming into your primary MX? What is the threshold where it
recognizes an attack from the normal traffic and start feeding the BS
to the Bots?
I have about 4 gigs of 550 logs to contribute.
>With all the spam I get, maybe mlewinski isn't such a bad idea for
>username after all.
Totally OT, but a nice bonus with Postini was re-acquainting myself
with somebody I knew from a Network Manager's user group (ANMA) I was
in back in the early 90's. The salesdroid at Postini introduced me to
my "install engineer" and it was a guy who was the pres of the Bay
Area chapter... when I was the pres of the Northwest one. We both had
a good laugh. Small world.
Chuck Goolsbee V.P. Technical Operations
digital.forest Phone: +1-877-720-0483, x2001
where Internet solutions grow Int'l: +1-425-483-0483
19515 North Creek Parkway Fax: +1-425-482-6871
Suite 208 http://www.forest.net
Bothell, WA 98011 email: cg at forest.net
More information about the NANOG