[webforum]Who would spam a sneakemail?
[email protected] (John E. Malmberg)
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.spam.spamcop.help |
|---|---|
| Organization | Encompasserve |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On the web forum thingy, there is a discussion on how a spammer could have come up with a sneakmail address. I can not post there during the day, mainly because I can not remember my password and lynx is a bit cumbersome with using that forum. The original poster, a Jank1887 is stating that they are using a web mailer. Depending on what browser that Jank1887 is using, they may be giving quite a bit of control of their local system over to who ever sends them e-mail or spam. The Web mail site may be listed as "Trusted", which generally means that the content that it displays may be permitted to run scripts and even binaries linked to or contained in the e-mail. Some web mail providers require this lowered security level just to log into their service because they use a browser run script for the login process. In addition, with the web mail services that I have seen, there is no way to disable the automatic opening of external links, which give the spam sender a great deal of information about the sender and their network. And with some browers, there is a known exploit where a website can use the internal FTP facilty of the browser to locally run network scripts against other servers. DSBL.ORG has a web page that if you visit it with a vulnerable browser it will cause it to be listed on the DSBL.ORG, and it is trivial to craft an HTML e-mail that will automatically visit that web page. As the browser does not realize that it is running a script, disabling scripting on the browser is not a work-around. The Mozilla family of browsers is reported not to be vulnerable to this exploit. Some others have patches available. On the other hand, there is a claim that the systems both on the sending side and the receiving side could not have had a virus or other malware harvest the e-mail address because they were up to date on the virus scanners. That is not a defense. Any system that needs or user that depends on a virus scanner to keep it clean can never be assumed to be clean of infections, spyware or other malware. Virus scanners only target discovered viruses, and spyware scanners only target mass distributed spyware, and both are going to be at least 4 to 8 hours behind a new variant coming out. Neither type of scanner is going to be effective against malware that has not yet been detected in mass distribution. Some firewalls may block or detect some of the activity. And if the system containing the harvested addresses can automatically access files from other systems through the LANMAN protocol that are vulnerable to viruses, then the virus or malware does not have to infect the system containg the harvested addresses for it to be able to read the hard drive and harvest the contents. Just having the LANMAN protocol in common can be enough if a system makes any connection through the LANMAN protocol to a host running malware. That exploit is past it's 10th birthday now, and the only defense is still to have a firewall blocking the LANMAN protocol between the two machines. The only defense against a malware infection is to have the system locked down so that scripts and binaries can not be installed with out a the knowledge of the user, and that system must not be able to automatically initiate LANMAN connections to possibly infected systems. -John [email protected] Personal Opinion Only