Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1 participants
1864 discussions

Request for Whitelist
by Bitz 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

epromos . com listed at ws.surbl.org We have customers who conduct business with these folks, I googled and didn't find any spam related proof against them. Thanks, -b

2 2

JPEG flaw in Windows - URLs in emails
by Matthew Wilson 23 Sep '04

23 Sep '04

Since proof-of-concept code for the JPEG flaw in Windows has been posted online, we can surely expect at least one mass mailing exploit soon. The form will likely take the form of either: 1) A JPEG file embedded in an email message with the exploit code embedded in the embedded image. Theoretically, the exploit pattern should already be known, no matter what the encoding is, so anti-virus companies should theoretically be able to detect this already, if this method is used. 2) Because of the above, the more likely method seems to be the embedding of a URL in the message that either refers to the actual JPEG itself or refers to a webpage that loads the infected JPEG. It seems then that the only tool that could detect worms of this sort would be SURBL. And so on to my question: if I (or anyone else for that matter) submit a domain name that hosts an infected JPEG file, how quickly will the SURBL databases be updated to reflect this infection? Also, what if the exploit is multi-stage, and tries to infect actual http servers with infected JPEGs, and thousands of websites become infected...? Would it then be necessary to create a separate SURBL list for these infected domains, or could they be listed in, say, the phishing list? Thanks, Matthew Wilson

5 4

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] JPEG flaw in Windows - URLs in emails
by Chris Santerre 22 Sep '04

22 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Wilson [mailto:matthew@boomer.com] >Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:33 AM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] JPEG flaw in Windows - URLs in emails > > >Since proof-of-concept code for the JPEG flaw in Windows has >been posted >online, we can surely expect at least one mass mailing exploit soon. >The form will likely take the form of either: > >1) A JPEG file embedded in an email message with the exploit code >embedded in the embedded image. Theoretically, the exploit pattern >should already be known, no matter what the encoding is, so anti-virus >companies should theoretically be able to detect this already, if this >method is used. > >2) Because of the above, the more likely method seems to be the >embedding of a URL in the message that either refers to the actual JPEG >itself or refers to a webpage that loads the infected JPEG. It seems >then that the only tool that could detect worms of this sort would be >SURBL. > >And so on to my question: if I (or anyone else for that >matter) submit a >domain name that hosts an infected JPEG file, how quickly will >the SURBL >databases be updated to reflect this infection? > >Also, what if the exploit is multi-stage, and tries to infect actual >http servers with infected JPEGs, and thousands of websites become >infected...? Would it then be necessary to create a separate >SURBL list >for these infected domains, or could they be listed in, say, the >phishing list? > >Thanks, >Matthew Wilson > Well here are some random thoughts in no order: 1) I'm not getting web submissions right now. Something is FUBAR there. 2) Perhaps we can work something out with a third party to maintain virus type links like this? I'll email Jeff Off List as I have some other questions there. 3) Ehhh....I think Jeff is going to say something along the lines of "SURBL wasn't intended to be used like that." To which I agree, yet sadly SURBL is the tool to catch these. --Chris

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and Pr olocation data
by Chris Santerre 21 Sep '04

21 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] >Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:01 PM >To: SURBL Discuss >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] RFC: pj.surbl.org - list from Joe Wein and >Prolocation data > > >On Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 7:06:34 PM, David Hooton wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:43:32 -0700, Jeff Chan ><jeffc(a)surbl.org> wrote: >>> we thought it might be useful to make the PJ data available as >>> a separate list, at least within multi.surbl.org, the combined >>> SURBL. We'd like to get your comments on this. > >> I think having a separate list makes sense if the data quality is >> different to that of the pooled data it was previously connected to. > >>> We're also wondering whether the PJ data should be taken out of >>> WS, or left in, if we do make PJ a distinct list. > >> No point in lowering the hitrate of the superset, any >additional score >> added to a spam is better than none at all. > >>> Please comment, > >> The greater choice and control we provide SURBL users the better. If >> we have the ability to sustainably break data out like this and >> provide ongoing data quality ratings to aid score adjustments I think >> we should do it. > >Thanks for your feedback David. Does anyone else have comments >about the possibility of PJ? Making separate lists from the WS >data is a little different from the direction we've been going >lately, so it would be nice to get comments on it. We're still >somewhat undecided about whether to do it or not.... > >As you can see from the first message about this, the FP rates >of PJ look significantly lower than WS as a whole. AS usual, I'm thinking different from everyone else :) I do NOT like the idea of more lists. 1) The lists are dynamic, so FP rates will change. 2) Too many lists make it more difficult for the devs to GA and perceptron run all of them. Causing a slow down in scoring for SA and others. 3) Run a diff and find out where we have our FPs. 4) More lookups for mutli 5) Too many list options will drive some potential users away. 6) K.I.S.S. The only reason I see having more lists is if the data is specifically different throughout the whole list. ie: phishing, UC, regular spam, blog, ect.... His list data is the same kind as WS. So really....why seperate? We just keep getting our FP rate lower and it will all be good. --Chris (The devils advocate.)

6 19

Problems installing SpamCopURI-0.22
by Overdijk, Harrie 20 Sep '04

20 Sep '04

Dear SURBL Guru's, I'm still using the latest small-version of the BigEvil.cf custom rule for SpamAssassin. Because I would like to use the several SURBL 'lists' I would like to install Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22 on a - RedHat 7.3 system with - perl 5.6.1, - amavisd-new-20030616.p10 and - SpamAssassin 2.64 I already upgraded the system with perl-URI-1.32 because the previous version was way too low. However Make test fails with: # make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-linux -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1 -e 'use Test::Harness qw(&runtests $verbose); $verbose=0; runtests @ARGV;' t/*.t t/blacklist.........Can't locate Test/More.pm in @INC ... BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/blacklist.t line 3. t/blacklist.........dubious Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) t/dnsrbl............Can't locate Test/More.pm ... etc ending in: BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at t/whitelist.t line 3. t/whitelist.........dubious Test returned status 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) FAILED--7 test scripts could be run, alas--no output ever seen make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 2 If I use a 'binary' ;-) RPM package I get the error: # rpm -ivh perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22-1.noarch.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] file /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf.3pm.gz from install of perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22-1 conflicts with file from package perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64-1 file /usr/share/man/man3/Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus.3pm.gz from install of perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.22-1 conflicts with file from package perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-2.64-1 Boy, duplicate manpages... What am I doing wrong? Do I need extra perl-modules or better version to get it to install? How can I get it to run? Thanks for your help. Cheers, Harrie Harrie Overdijk, ECN, Postbox 1, 1755 ZG Petten (NH), The Netherlands. Internet: overdijk(a)ecn.nl Noisenet: +31 224 56 4597 Homenet : h.overdijk(a)hccnet.nl FAXnet : +31 224 56 8864 ICP/Postmaster/UseNet-News-manager/WWW-manager/Security-manager of ECN.

2 1

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Funniest domain so far?
by Chris Santerre 20 Sep '04

20 Sep '04

>-----Original Message----- >From: Steven Champeon [mailto:schampeo@hesketh.com] >Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:03 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list (E-mail) >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Funniest domain so far? > > >on Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 11:42:29AM -0400, Chris Santerre wrote: >> scabpickingisfun.com >> >> Can you top that? > >I love a challenge. :) > *snip* OMG! I bow down to that list! LOL. sharkswithfrickinlaserbeams.net That is priceless!!! :-) --Chris

1 0

Chinese translation help for anti-spam effort
by Jeff Chan 20 Sep '04

20 Sep '04

We've gotten a couple documents form the Internet Society of China www.isc.org.cn relating to email delivery and I'd like to request some help in translating them: http://www.surbl.org/isc1.doc http://www.surbl.org/isc1.doc The documents are some proposed email delivery standards called "Public Email Service Critereon" and a list of participating Chinese ISPs. (I changed the file names from the original non-English characters.) This contact came about as a result of my meeting the Secretariat of the ISC, Liu Liang, at the CEAS conference. We're also trying to get a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding between some Chinese ISPs and Internet companies like AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, eBay, Yahoo, dealing with the handling of spam and abuse. http://yahoo.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2004/nf20040914_6178_db065… That MoU was a result of a September ISC meeting 2004 China Internet Conference which included a 2004 International Anti-Spam Summit. While spam obviously remains a problem worldwide, I'm hopeful that some improved cooperation and communication with China to deal with spam and abuse may happen, as facilitated by ISC. In particular, we hope that any precedents created for cooperation between the MoU parties can be expanded to other anti-abuse organizations such as Spamhaus and SpamCop. Spamhaus already has some contacts with ISC, but missed this recent conference. If you can help translate these Chinese documents or know anyone who may be able to, please let me know. Thanks, Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

1 0

Additional PJ info
by Jeff Chan 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

Here's some additional info about the PJ data. Raymond is now processing about 300k spams per day and feeding them to Joe Wein for processing. This has increased the spam detection for PJ: SpamAssassin tag hits: (top 100) #1 103430 URIBL_WS_SURBL #2 101346 URIBL_PJ_SURBL #3 91324 BAYES_99 #4 90939 URIBL_SBL #5 85476 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET #6 85092 URIBL_OB_SURBL #7 81798 HTML_MESSAGE #8 67027 URIBL_SC_SURBL #9 56416 URIBL_AB_SURBL #10 48047 MIME_HTML_ONLY Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:jeffc@surbl.org http://www.surbl.org/

5 7

Additional phish/fraud list
by Bill Landry 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

This is a list that MailPolice hosts and I have been running it for a few hours and it has already flagged some phish and fraud e-mails. Here is some info about the list: http://rhs.mailpolice.com/#rhsfraud This is my configuration for SA 2.64 with the SpamCopURI plug-in: uri MP_URI_RBL eval:check_spamcop_uri_rbl('fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com','127.0.0.2') describe MP_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list tflags MP_URI_RBL net score MP_URI_RBL 2.0 And for SA 3.0 with the URIDNSBL plug-in: urirhsbl URIBL_MP fraud.rhs.mailpolice.com. A header URIBL_MP eval:check_uridnsbl('URIBL_MP') describe URIBL_MP URI's domain appears in MailPolice fraud list tflags URIBL_MP net score URIBL_MP 2.0 Bill

5 28

WS FPs: e-gold.com, home.ro
by Jeff Chan 19 Sep '04

19 Sep '04

Speaking of which, why are e-gold.com and home.ro on WS? These look like obvious FPs to me. How did they get on? Jeff C.

2 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss