my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Getting Even with Spammers & Pop-Ups

Author Topic: Getting Even with Spammers & Pop-Ups Zach McQuaid Film Handler Posts: 37 From: Erie, Pennsylvania, USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 09-18-2004 02:56 AM                     Quick question: How much would you guys pay for a piece of software that would Recognize SPAM Email as well as POP-ups and return the favor by automatically sending a "signal" that shuts down the SPAMMERS or the POP-UP senders entire Web Server? Firewall, motherboards and all, this sucker tears it right down like a Doberman on a Lincoln log house. Of course it's actually a "virus" and not a "signal", and of course I couldn't put "virus" on the packaging, but you get the drift. I'm looking to rid the net of these types of 'evil-doers'. The beauty of it is to my knowledge, it technically wouldn't be illegal would it? Does spamming and pop-ups warrant complete demolition of a web server? I think so, but what about you guys?  |  IP: Logged Aaron Sisemore Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day! Posts: 3061 From: Rockwall TX USA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 09-18-2004 03:06 AM                     I hate spam as much as the next guy and would like to see spammers hung by the gonads and such, but in all technicality wouldn't the software you propose be committing 'denial of service' attacks (which are violations of practically all ISP's terms of service rules and likely illegal to boot) and even property damage (if you intend to damage a remote PC) upon the spammers? IMO, by doing so you are lowering yourself to the spammers' level... Fighting fire with nuclear weapons might not be the solution in this case. Just my .02  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-18-2004 03:19 AM                     quote: Zach McQuaid The beauty of it is to my knowledge, it technically wouldn't be illegal would it? Does spamming and pop-ups warrant complete demolition of a web server? I think so, but what about you guys? I'd love it just as much as anyone to be able to get even with spammers and malware developers. But here's the rub in your plan. More than likely your reciprocal attack would probably just take out some innocent user's computer and never affect the real attacker. Most spam and virtually all malware comes from spoofed addresses. The best way to fight this stuff is in the way the greedy, corporate infected government refuses to do so: follow the money. The FBI, CIA and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies could find many of these miscreants pretty easily. But they don't feel like doing it. A good amount of this spam, and even some of the malware, is coming from politically connected companies and/or interests. Corporations also don't want the government doing anything along the lines of charging spammers and malware writers with civil rights violations. Corporations want the flexibility left intact to be able to invade your privacy and play loosely with your personal information and sell it to others. Coming down hard on black hat crackers might interfere with their corporate plans.  |  IP: Logged David Buckley Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 525 From: Oxford, N. Canterbury, New Zealand Registered: Aug 2004 posted 09-18-2004 07:38 AM                        Certainly if you were to attack a computer in the UK, you would be transgressing the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and offences under this Act are extraditable. You as the creater of the tool may be OK, but the user of your tool could certainly carry the rap. Bobby is 100% on the money - spam exists because people make money from it. Fix that, and most spammers will lose interest. And the can-spam act is well named, it facilitates spamming legally. Where I differ from Bobby is that I dont regard hijacked DSL computers as innocent, but the very root of the current spam wave. Anyway, an extract from the Computer Misuse Act 1990: 3.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if- he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing- to impair the operation of any computer; to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data. (3) The intent need not be directed at- any particular computer; any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised. (5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 09-18-2004 12:06 PM                     quote: David Buckley Where I differ from Bobby is that I dont regard hijacked DSL computers as innocent, but the very root of the current spam wave. While I have plenty of disdain for users who recklessly run their PCs without any means of security, that in no way at all justifies attacking their machines specifically. The key thing missing from an end user's "zombie" machine is intent. Without explicit intent from the user of that machine to do harm, you really have no justification at all in attacking that machine. Even more hazardous, with all the headers spoofed and spoofed again, when you conduct the attack you may just hit a totally uninfected machine not at all part of the problem. For a better illustration on the use of intent in criminal prosecution, consider some of the more emotional trials that have happened over the past couple years. One lady in San Francisco was charged with 2nd degree murder when her dogs killed a neighbor in the hallway of their apartment building. The murder charge was thrown out by the judge because there was no intent on the part of the defendant. Consider the more recent event in Alaska involving a man watching a DVD movie while driving. His vehicle crosses the centerline and collides with another car, killing both its occupants. Stupidly, the court in Alaska charged the man with 2 counts of murder and didn't back down from the charge. Thanks to lack of intent, the man is aquitted. We walks where others would have certainly been convicted of manslaughter. I've made this accusation before, and I'll repeat it again: The virus and spam problem is not with machines of end users; the blame lies in the extremely stupid problem of servers refusing to deal with the problem on their end. I am not alone in holding this opinion. Many computer industry experts have echoed this sentiment. Guys like PC Magazine's John Dvorak say there is absolutely no hope of making any progress at all in the battle against spam and viruses if the job is to be left up to the end user. The work must be happening on the server end. Unfortunately, only small mom and pop shop ISPs seem to be interested in taking an active role in fighting spam and virii. All the big outfits are only too happy to take passive approaches and sit on their thumbs. There are several different camps that want the environment of mail servers to continue to be a free for all. The multi-billion dollar anti-virus software industry doesn't want things to change. They want every user paying $50 or more per year for the illusion of safety on their machine. These guys are politically connected, and with the way our government chooses the interests of corporations over that of citizens those software companies will make mail server negligence continue. Some elements of the advertising industry don't want things to change either. They need as much of their spam, so cheap to produce, to get through to as many computers as possible. The advertising industry is pretty well connected politically too. Finally, you have the computer geek camp who want the freedom to be able to e-mail anything they want, no matter how harmful the file may be. I just flat out disagree with that totally. There's lots of things that are totally illegal to send through physical "snail" mail. The same should be true for known malware. Every mail server should scan it and upon detection delete the attachment immediately. If I have to ship something potentially hazardous to someone, I must go through special steps to do so. The same should be true for users wanting to send virus collections to someone. Burn the shit to a CD and send it snail mail. I expect computer security problems and the increasing deluge of spam to get worse and worse while virtually nothing continues to be done on the server end. It is laughably pathetic.  |  IP: Logged Zach McQuaid Film Handler Posts: 37 From: Erie, Pennsylvania, USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 09-20-2004 08:29 AM                     Well I definitely considered that this would affect some poor soul who just wanted to check his email. On the other hand, I never really thought about the whole "interfering with the governments money" bit. I believe, wholeheartedly it would work, simply from word of mouth. If for instance you knew that one of your email forwards was going to make it to my computer, ultimately shutting yours down... chances are, you wouldn't send the forward. The idea is similar, just substitute email forward for SPAM and pop-ups. That was really the drive behind the program.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.