Providers removing blocks on port 135?

Tue Sep 23 21:07:24 UTC 2003

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:

> The credit cards in our case were legit. They were different numbers, but 
> they were not stolen.

That would make a difference.  The credit card companies probably wouldn't 
care if you told them that the cards were being used by their customer for 
illegal activity.  Stolen, maybe.  Anything else they could probably care 
less about.

> >   They are usuaully fairly responsive when it
> >comes to them loosing money.  Secondly after I contacted the local police,
> >state BI, and perhaps the FBI (assuming no luck could be had with any of
> >them)
> 
> I am in Canada, but I know that it has been stated that the FBI will not 
> investigate computer fraud if damage is under $100,000.

I didn't realize you were in Canada.  That makes a difference.  The dollar
amount with the FBI varies widely.  I've heard over $5,000, $25,000,
$50,000, now $100,000.  I don't think there's a hard set rule.  I think it
basically boils down to the old fashioned
will-it-get-us-good-PR-with-little-or-not-work rule of thumb. :)

> I doubt a porn company with international clientele would give a toss about 
> what the local media say.

Local media would have been useful not against the spammers but against 
the local lw enforcement that refuses to do anything about it.  Since 
however your local law enforncement can't do much about (international 
borders et al) then the local media wouldn't really care.

> Local government has nothing to do with it.  It was just some dime a dozen 
> porn company.

Ditto for what I said above.  The part about being in Canada changes 
things considerably from what I was assuming.  I must have missed that 
earlier.  Still it's worked in the past in other circumstances so the 
practice is fairly sound.  It just won't work in your case.

My only other advice would involve what's suggested in man 8 syslogd under 
"SECURITY THREATS," option number 5.  Best of luck.

Justin