Discuss

discuss@lists.surbl.org

1862 discussions

Fw: heads up, massive phishing going on.
by Kevin A. McGrail 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

>From a guy I trust and work on anti-spam algorithm's who also works at Network Solutions: The system running here detected a rash of ebay and paypal phishing earlier today and it is still going on. Hope this info can help find and stop it before someone gets damaged. Here are the IP addresses of the mail servers sending them and the sites they point to. 84.0.191.93: http://61.8.248.242/paypal/ 211.207.71.179: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 222.121.181.227: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 82.155.149.110: http://61.8.248.242/paypal/ 81.153.23.110: http://61.8.248.242/paypal/ 66.169.92.212: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 68.161.50.212: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 220.77.245.178: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 220.77.180.56: http://ebay-loginpage.com 12.207.38.75: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 61.223.193.166: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 85.137.184.131: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 211.212.84.200: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 24.147.168.88: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 143.107.228.233: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 24.175.96.61: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 24.175.96.61: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 80.99.29.32: http://ebay-loginpage.com/ 199.222.69.90: http://211.92.164.43/paypal/login.html 66.163.169.223: http://62.14.104.42/popcond/cgi-bin/webscr/cmd_login/submit/login_cmd/login… 66.163.169.227: http://62.14.104.42//popcond/cgi-bin/webscr/cmd_login/submit/login_cmd/logi… 66.163.170.7: 62.14 one 218.71.219.118: http://61.8.248.242/paypal/ 201.3.200.130: http://200.126.231.52/verify/paypalDLLUPDATE/index.html 81.154.223.105: http://61.8.248.242/paypal/ There are too many, here are all the ip addresses so far. Except for the paypal one, nearly all of them point to that ebay-loginpage link.: 12.207.38.75 143.107.228.233 143.107.228.233 161.67.47.158 161.67.47.158 172.193.163.214 194.126.113.99 201.132.84.249 202.160.31.55 207.14.190.25 210.124.50.122 211.204.200.248 211.207.71.179 211.207.71.179 211.212.84.200 211.238.88.66 213.10.229.235 218.20.62.11 218.52.113.198 218.52.113.198 218.74.7.184 219.74.51.148 220.117.95.86 220.117.95.86 220.75.20.2 220.77.180.56 220.77.245.178 220.91.135.89 220.92.95.169 221.143.218.203 221.220.115.241 222.116.57.65 222.121.181.227 222.136.148.24 222.209.126.58 222.248.162.59 222.97.136.193 222.97.136.193 24.12.180.41 24.12.180.41 24.132.102.192 24.136.234.85 24.136.234.85 24.147.168.88 24.147.168.88 24.161.195.248 24.171.68.170 24.175.96.61 59.189.82.23 59.19.143.13 59.23.88.148 61.110.240.238 61.223.193.166 61.84.102.163 61.91.197.226 65.184.247.8 66.169.92.212 67.163.166.132 68.161.28.204 68.161.50.212 68.59.7.246 69.250.34.189 80.131.76.88 80.48.131.35 80.8.64.78 80.99.29.32 81.153.23.110 81.9.129.170 81.9.129.170 82.123.168.1 82.155.149.110 83.145.180.107 84.0.191.93 84.121.40.154 84.94.184.172 84.94.192.145 85.137.184.131

3 3

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] Fw: heads up, massive phishing going on.
by Chris Santerre 28 Apr '05

28 Apr '05

>-----Original Message----- >From: Kevin A. McGrail [mailto:kmcgrail@pccc.com] >Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:41 PM >To: SURBL Discussion list >Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] Fw: heads up, massive phishing going on. > > >Can't send them for privacy reasons as they are addressed to users :-( > >> Submit a few samples of those to SURBL so the target URL gets listed. >> Also feed them to the ClamAV people (http://www.clamav.net/). >> >> ClamAv now has anti-phishing rules in its virus scanner and >recently I've >> seen its blocked phishes outnumber the blocked viri. Added all the IPs to black.uribl.com server. Thanks for the heads up. Chris Santerre System Admin and SARE/URIBL Ninja http://www.rulesemporium.com http://www.uribl.com

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters
by Chris Santerre 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:00 PM > To: Chris Santerre > Cc: 'SURBL Discussion list' > Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters > > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 1:13:01 PM, Chris Santerre wrote: > > >>PS: up til now, I've been feeding domains to Chris S.; what > do I need > >>to do to submit these directly? > > > Steve means since I don't update SURBL anymore, what does he do? > > > Bret was correct: > > http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi > > is the only place. > > > The uribl.com submission page should be up soon. Its > different from the > > SURBL. Allows for quicker additions. > > Hmm, are the other people (besides yourself) who were helping > with the public submissions into ws.surbl.org through > http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi still going to be > helping with that? I can't speak for them. I removed myself from submissions the day I left SURBL. > If not, perhaps the SURBL submission page there > should go away, or people directed to use SpamCop instead. Thats your choice. I never intended to take it down. > > Note: I hope at least the SURBL lookup page there will still stay > up. Many people find it useful. Why on earth would you think I would remove it??? I would never recommend that unless you did something completely ridiculous....like saying baseball is better then Ice Hockey :) --Chris

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters
by Chris Santerre 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: Doc Schneider [mailto:maddoc@maddoc.net] > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:01 PM > To: Jeff Chan; SURBL Discussion list > Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters > > > Jeff Chan wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 6:46:22 PM, Chris Santerre wrote: > > > >>But the thought never > >>crossed my mind to remove. Why would it? I still love you > like a long lost, > >>twice removed, step cousin that used to steal my bike ;) > > > > > >>Or are you just asking about the "choice" part? I meant its > your choice if > >>you would like to leave it up or down. I'm sure the group > would go either > >>way. If you have less people handling submissions and want > to tell ppl to > >>report to SC, that might be good. > > > > > > We'll I'd say leave the submission page up, and definitely leave > > the checker page up. > > > > I have basically no visibility on the SARE side of things, > > so I don't know if they have people handling submissions. > > Maybe someone from SARE can address this. > > Jeff, > > Rest assured there are a few SARE ninjas involved with SURBL and also > doing additions to ws. I happen to be one of them! > > And as far as removing the link from rulesemporium... I, for > one, would > pitch a fit! Now see! There you have it! :) You don't want to see Doc pitching a fit. Its bad enough he would be throwing ninja smoke bombs and deadly darts. But he's also highly medicated! He might get out the dym-mak (Death Touch!) It would be just like the time Ninja Bob got into the Saki closet! Ninja Fred is still healing! --Chris (Run ninjas-----RUN!)

1 0

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters
by Chris Santerre 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:53 PM > To: 'SURBL Discussion list' > Subject: Re: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters > > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 5:52:27 PM, Chris Santerre wrote: > >> From: Jeff Chan [mailto:jeffc@surbl.org] > > >> Hmm, are the other people (besides yourself) who were helping > >> with the public submissions into ws.surbl.org through > >> http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi still going to be > >> helping with that? > > > I can't speak for them. I removed myself from submissions > the day I left > > SURBL. > > >> If not, perhaps the SURBL submission page there > >> should go away, or people directed to use SpamCop instead. > > > Thats your choice. I never intended to take it down. > > Acutally I would think it's the choice of the people who run the > rulesemporium.com site. If that's not you, then who is it? Yup. In everyone of my projects, there is a group. I can, and have, been overruled in a heartbeat. Frankly, I think a few of those guys like to do it for fun. I know I enjoy it when they do it :) So yes, there would have had to have been a vote. But the thought never crossed my mind to remove. Why would it? I still love you like a long lost, twice removed, step cousin that used to steal my bike ;) Or are you just asking about the "choice" part? I meant its your choice if you would like to leave it up or down. I'm sure the group would go either way. If you have less people handling submissions and want to tell ppl to report to SC, that might be good. I'm here to help. Seriously...I am! Stop laughing! --Chris (I'm joking. I still like Jeff. Much more when BF2 comes out!)

3 2

More xs.surbl.org stats
by Owen, Daniel 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

I'm impressed with the FP rate so far. 4/26/05 total e-mails: 7641 total strikes: 1066 (14% of total e-mail) spam strikes: 1066 ham strikes: 0 total messages marked as spam (all rules): 4679 (61.2% of total e-mail) total messages marked as spam (all rules) also marked by XS: 1041 also in: URIBL_AB_SURBL: 254 URIBL_OB_SURBL: 911 URIBL_SC_SURBL: 565 URIBL_WS_SURBL: 707 URIBL_JP_SURBL: 1004 NOT in any one of the above: 48 (4.5% of total XS strikes) This email contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the person to whom it is directed and intended. Any reproduction, dissemination or other use of this email by anyone who is not the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, you should advise the sender immediately and delete the email from your mail box.

1 0

RFC: How to use new data source: URIs advertised through CBL-listed senders
by Jeff Chan 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

We've been working for a few weeks with the folks at CBL to extract URIs appearing on their extensive spam traps that also trigger inclusion in CBL, i.e. zombies, open proxies, etc. What this means is that we can get URIs of spams that are sent using zombies and open proxies, where that mode of sending is a very good indication of spamminess since legitimate senders probably don't use hijacked hosts or open proxies to send their mail. For anyone not familiar with CBL, here are a few words about it. IP addresses of compromised senders like zombies and open proxies end up in cbl.abuseat.org and xbl.spamhaus.org, which are widely used to block spam senders at the MTA level. Experience with this RBL shows it to be very accurate and useful indicators of compromised senders with a low false positive rate. Many systems and networks find these RBLs useful to block on, with good results. http://cbl.abuseat.org/ One of the goals of looking at URIs appearing on the CBL traps in messages also triggering CBL inclusion is to get listings of new URIs into SURBLs sooner. One of the valid criticisms of SURBLs is that there is too much delay between the time a URI is first used and it gets listed in SURBLs. This is a problem with RBLs in general, and it means that the targeted senders (or URIs) have a window of time before detection and list inclusion where they can send unhindered. One advantage we have with SURBLs is that the hosts mentioned in spam URIs tend to be longer-lasting than the compromised spam senders. In other words URIs are often somewhat more "durable" indicators of spams than zombie IP addresses. Zombie usage is often rather fleeting and in the minutes to hours range, where URI usage can be in the days to weeks range. Therefore if we can find URIs sent by zombies, we can potentially "bridge the gap" and get new URI hosts blacklisted sooner. In that sense they work together with and improve the effectiveness of RBLs like CBL by creating a longer-lasting and more persistent view of some of the same types of messages that get caught by RBLs, by taking a closer look at the content of those messages, specifically the sites they advertise. An aspect of the CBL URI data that makes them potentially very attractive as a new data source for SURBLs is that the CBL traps are very extensive and specifically focussed on and correlated with zombie and open proxy detection. As such, it's somewhat orthogonal to other existing SURBL data sources which are manual lists, user reports, or smaller, but still rather substantial *spam-focussed* traps. As a new data source, CBL URIs could therefore complement our existing sources quite well due to its size and differing composition, thus hopefully increasing the overall detection performance of SURBLs in general. Like most URI data sources, the main problem with the CBL URI data is false positives or appearance of otherwise legitimate domains. For example amazon.com is one that appears frequently. This does not mean that amazon.com is using zombies to send mail, or that the CBL traps have been deliberately poisoned, but that spammers occasionally mention legitimate domains like amazon.com in their spams. FPs aside, the CBL URI data does indeed appear to include other domains operating for the benefit of spammers or their customers. These are the new domains we would like to catch. Our challenge therefore is to find ways to use those while excluding the FPs. Some solutions that have been proposed so far are: 1. Counting trap appearance volume and taking the top most often appearing URIs. 2. Including domains and the infrequent IP that are already in other SURBLs. This is useful as a confirmation of a zombieness dimension of existing SURBL records. 3. Including domains that resolve into sbl.spamhaus.org as NS, MX or web host records. 4. Excluding records already in our somewhat limited whitelists. In fact we have an existing program which takes a combination of the first four to produce a list, but the output of that program is not yet published in SURBL form. We may put these in the 128th-bit position of multi.surbl.org to begin testing, but looking at the data there are probably still too many FPs to put it into official production use. Consider some of the additional possibilities below which are not currently being done, and let us know if you think it may be useful to start publishing the above data. 5. Including domains that resolve into the IP space of manually reported URIs, for example from the SpamCop spamvertised site data used in sc.surbl.org and ab.surbl.org. 6. Doing regular (probably nightly) manual review of SURBL additions and whitelisting FPs that appear. (This should probably be done regardless of any new data sources.) Obviously we can't check every new domain that appears on SURBLs, but we could set up criteria to flag checking, such as domain registration older than 90 days, non-inclusion in SBL, few NANAS reports, etc. Some kind of rating engine using those or other criteria could be applied to new listings to flag manual review of some of the more likely FPs. We would not automatically whitelist these, but flag them for further checking. CBL URI data may well represent a useful new data source, but the best way to determine that may be to start using them. However I'd like your comments on some of the above FP mitigation ideas and any new ideas anyone may have for that purpose before we put these new data into production. Therefore please speak up if you have any ideas or comments, Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."

8 23

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] russian pill-pushing gangsters
by Chris Santerre 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

> >PS: up til now, I've been feeding domains to Chris S.; what do I need >to do to submit these directly? Steve means since I don't update SURBL anymore, what does he do? Bret was correct: http://www.rulesemporium.com/cgi-bin/uribl.cgi is the only place. The uribl.com submission page should be up soon. Its different from the SURBL. Allows for quicker additions. Yes these domains were already added to URIBL.com's lists :) --Chris

2 1

russian pill-pushing gangsters
by Steven Champeon 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

One (and possibly two) of my domains are being joe'd at the moment, and I'd like to submit the following domains to SURBL: amotusfemmf .com jocosehnajj .com unbungkanbe .com uigurimfif .com eremichnmnl .com editehkce .com revertalmgd .com tanachklgmj .com vadymbicm .com burtonabdea .com dutchibabd .com akimbomjmcm .com phudleaj .com Thanks, Steve PS: up til now, I've been feeding domains to Chris S.; what do I need to do to submit these directly? -- hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/account_manager.html join us!

3 2

RE: [SURBL-Discuss] "surgically" blocking certain redirectors
by Chris Santerre 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

>-----Original Message----- >From: Rob McEwen [mailto:rob@powerviewsystems.com] >Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:56 AM >To: 'SURBL Discussion list' >Subject: [SURBL-Discuss] "surgically" blocking certain redirectors > > >Jeff said: >"It is possible to blacklist nina.18.to but not 18.to if nina >is owned by >spammers but 18 is not." > >Why not then add certain redirectors to the SURBL lists where >the redirector >is deemed to NOT be found in hams? Specifically, I'm referring >to situations >where we could list redirect.somedomain.com but NOT list somedomain.com > >Rob McEwen There will be a SARE ruleset out shortly that will tag these redirectors. You can then score to taste. The Ninjas do it again!! --Chris

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss