Re: Black Frog: Next Generation Botnet, No Generation Spam FightingMatthew Elvey – May 29, 2006 11:54 PM PDT
Gadi, thanks for sharing your insights.
I hope you won't take this the wrong way, and I know about some of the good anti-abuse work you do, but can you provide verifiable evidence of your claims, e.g. that Blue Security did not hurt more than one spammer?
I've read several posts elswhere making disparaging claims about Blue Security that turned out to be clearly false, so I think it's important that defensible allegations be strongly defended.
Hearsay is worthless in this environment - as trustworthly as the From: of an email.
Oh, and I'm not saying Blue Security's scheme was a good idea either. I haven't use it.
From what I recall, Blue Frog filled out forms of spamvertised websites, and emailed spamvertized dropboxes. How did it attack domains, per se, which you claim it did?
Are my ADDITIONS IN CAPS to your comment below inaccurate?
"BLUE SECURITY'S SO-CALLED attacks reached servers spammers had already moved from HOSTED BY COLO PROVIDERS NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE WELCOMED SPAMMERS IN AS CUSTOMERS.
Their attacks did reach hacked machines which hosted other sites MANAGED BY WEBHOSTS NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE WELCOMED SPAMMERS IN AS CUSTOMERS. Their attacks reached ISP’s NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE WELCOMED SPAMMERS ON AS CUSTOMERS with other users NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO USE SUCH DISREPUTABLE ISPs..."
Just to drive the point home, let me point out that there are major ISPs that make a LOT of money knowingly hosting spammers, and to protect those profits, I've seen some regularly pretend to be good guys and engage in active disinformation campaigns to discourage and frustrate potentially effective antispam efforts.
I also wonder why Blue Security croaked, while some other efforts have survived and withstood attacks just as dogged. I suspect their staff weren't as skilled, or weren't getting the defensive cooperation of other efforts, not that the attacks were unprecedented: it's not like Blue Security was the biggest attackable roadblock to spammers efforts.
I welcome my doubts being proven unfounded; fire away.
Gadi, thanks for sharing your insights.
I hope you won't take this the wrong way, and I know about some of the good anti-abuse work you do, but can you provide verifiable evidence of your claims, e.g. that Blue Security did not hurt more than one spammer?
I've read several posts elswhere making disparaging claims about Blue Security that turned out to be clearly false, so I think it's important that defensible allegations be strongly defended.
Hearsay is worthless in this environment - as trustworthly as the From: of an email.
Oh, and I'm not saying Blue Security's scheme was a good idea either. I haven't use it.
From what I recall, Blue Frog filled out forms of spamvertised websites, and emailed spamvertized dropboxes. How did it attack domains, per se, which you claim it did?
Are my ADDITIONS IN CAPS to your comment below inaccurate?
"BLUE SECURITY'S SO-CALLED attacks reached servers spammers had already moved from HOSTED BY COLO PROVIDERS NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE WELCOMED SPAMMERS IN AS CUSTOMERS.
Their attacks did reach hacked machines which hosted other sites MANAGED BY WEBHOSTS NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE WELCOMED SPAMMERS IN AS CUSTOMERS. Their attacks reached ISP’s NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO HAVE WELCOMED SPAMMERS ON AS CUSTOMERS with other users NEGLIGENT ENOUGH TO USE SUCH DISREPUTABLE ISPs..."
Just to drive the point home, let me point out that there are major ISPs that make a LOT of money knowingly hosting spammers, and to protect those profits, I've seen some regularly pretend to be good guys and engage in active disinformation campaigns to discourage and frustrate potentially effective antispam efforts.
I also wonder why Blue Security croaked, while some other efforts have survived and withstood attacks just as dogged. I suspect their staff weren't as skilled, or weren't getting the defensive cooperation of other efforts, not that the attacks were unprecedented: it's not like Blue Security was the biggest attackable roadblock to spammers efforts.
I welcome my doubts being proven unfounded; fire away.