Why 'sender stores message' schemes won't cure phish spams

March 19, 2009

A commentator on my recent entry brought up D. J. Bernstein's Internet Mail 2000 as a possible cure for phish spam. The defining characteristic of IM2000 is that the sender, not the recipient, stores the message; the recipient merely retrieves it when they want to read it. Let's set aside all of the practical issues with sender storage schemes and ask a simple question: will they actually work to stop phish spam? Unfortunately, the answer is no. If anything, they might make it easier.

The belief that such schemes can do anything about phish spam (and spam in general) assume that spammers will have problems finding capable hosts to hold their spam or keeping the hosts available. In the case of phish spammers, this is demonstrably false; much phish spam today is sent from compromised servers (ones that already send legitimate email) and we know that they often go unfixed for significant periods of time. Nor will the spamming be any more noticable; an ISP or company that fails to notice the volume of outgoing SMTP messages now is not likely to notice the same network volume from notifications and message retrievals.

(Since the compromised servers are legitimate email senders to start with, their 'mail access' is not going to be blocked by firewalls and the like any more than firewalls are blocking their outbound SMTP traffic today.)

Nor will the load of people retrieving their phish spam crush the server; these days it is almost trivially easy to make highly scalable software that serves static or mostly static content, especially when the content is small enough to fit into RAM. (The web server world provides you with lots of examples to steal from.)


Comments on this page:

From 80.34.171.71 at 2009-04-07 07:54:06:

I'm not very fond of your answer.. I mean, most today's (and probably tomorrow's as well) spam is from botnets, normal PCs infected with tojans/malware and used as a big mass to send spam. In a IM2000-like scenario, obviously senders need to be identified by some mean (some kind of MX equivalent?) and it's something not so easy in a distributed botnet scenario.

Vide

By cks at 2009-04-09 16:24:48:

I don't think that 'sender stores' stops botnet spam, as I can see a number of solutions for botnet spammers:

  • they can act like phish spammers and compromise a few actual servers to host the message stores.
  • they can create their own domains with MX-equivalent records that point to machines in the botnet (already done today for so-called 'fast flux' spam website hosting).

If the ISPs won't allow customer machines to be used as message stores, spammers will react the same way that they react to ISPs not allowing direct SMTP from customer machines today; for example, they can start relaying through the ISP.

Written on 19 March 2009.
« An obvious thing about dealing with web spider misbehavior
Why the ideal IPv4 to IPv6 transition is impossible »

Page tools: View Source, View Normal, Add Comment.
Search:
Login: Password:
Atom Syndication: Recent Comments.

Last modified: Thu Mar 19 22:57:27 2009
This dinky wiki is brought to you by the Insane Hackers Guild, Python sub-branch.