<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Terry Zink &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Terry Zink on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2008, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2008-11-11T16:28:00-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> Wall Street Bailout: Could Learn a Thing or Two From Botnets (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081111_wall_street_bailout_botnet_lesson</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081111_wall_street_bailout_botnet_lesson</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, at this point, the government is well on its way to bailing out Wall Street from its own incompetence, putting taxpayers on the hook for $700 billion. The worst part is that as Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson puts it, "You're worried about taxpayers being on the hook? Well, guess what? They're already on the hook!" I read that and said "Aw, crap..." Anyhow, Wall Street should maybe learn something from botnet operators. For you see, botnets are not just for sending spam anymore. The bots have diversified their holdings... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20081111_wall_street_bailout_botnet_lesson">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-11-11T16:28:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> CNN Spam Outbreak Quickly Morphing Into a New Breed (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/88184_cnn_spam_outbreak</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/88184_cnn_spam_outbreak</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This past week we have been seeing some heavy CNN spam -- that is, spam in the form of breaking news stories from CNN.com... These all look like legitimate news stories, and indeed, they probably are taken straight from an actual CNN news bulletin (I don't subscribe so I wouldn't know). Indeed, the unsubscribe information and Terms of Use actually link to actual CNN unsubscribe pages. However, if you mouse-over all of the news links, they go to a spam web page wherein the payload is either a spam advertisement or you click on another link to download a file and flip your computer into a botnet. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/88184_cnn_spam_outbreak">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-08-10T15:05:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Coders, Crackers and Bots, Oh My! (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/coders_crackers_bots</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/coders_crackers_bots</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There are more than just blue, black and white hat hackers. There are a few more types of folks out there that don't fit into the above categories. This article is taken from <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/cyberwarfare_101_black_hats_white_hats_crackers_and_bots">Stratfor</a> with some commentary by myself... Many of the hackers described in my <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/black_hats_white_hats_crackers_bots/">previous post</a> are also coders, or "writers," who create viruses, worms, Trojans, bot protocols and other destructive "malware" tools used by hackers... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/coders_crackers_bots">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-07T08:11:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Black Hats, White Hats, Crackers and Bots (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/black_hats_white_hats_crackers_bots</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/black_hats_white_hats_crackers_bots</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One of the other web sites I subscribe to is <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/">Stratfor</a>. It's a global intelligence website and doesn't really have much to do with spam. But I like politics so I read it. They have some articles which you can get for free, but the better stuff you have to pay for. About two weeks ago, they ran a three-part series on Cyberwarfare. The first article was the title of this post, which you can access <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/cyberwarfare_101_black_hats_white_hats_crackers_and_bots">here</a> (requires registration). In the article they described different types of cybercriminals and not-so-criminals which they referred to under the umbrella as "hackers." <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/black_hats_white_hats_crackers_bots">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-05-07T07:45:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> IP Addresses and Personally Identifiable Information (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/82225_ip_addresses_personally_identifiable_information</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/82225_ip_addresses_personally_identifiable_information</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't normally cheer for Google when I don't own shares in the company, but this time I will make an exception. Alma Whitten, Software Engineer at Google, today <a href="http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-ip-addresses-personal.html">posted </a>to their Public Policy Blog that IP addresses shouldn't be considered Personally Identifiable Information (PII). This is not a problem in the United States but it is in the EU, and if the EU actually were to legislate this it would most definitely affect Microsoft and Google's business functionality in the EU... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82225_ip_addresses_personally_identifiable_information">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-02-22T17:16:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Circumstantial Evidence of Yahoo's CAPTCHA Being Broken (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/82169_yahoo_captcha_broken_spam</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/82169_yahoo_captcha_broken_spam</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A couple of weeks ago, I read an <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20080118/tc_cmp/205900620">article</a> on Yahoo that some outfit in Russia claimed to have broken Yahoo's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA">CAPTCHA</a> for creation of new email accounts. Another blogger <a href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001001.html">wrote</a> that it was unlikely that the spamming outfit had achieved 100% success at breaking the CAPTCHA. Yet, in the past couple of weeks, I have noticed something that would seem to confirm the theory... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82169_yahoo_captcha_broken_spam">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-02-16T08:30:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Microsoft's Offer to Buy Yahoo: An Anti-Spam Point of View (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/82311_microsoft_yahoo_buyout_anti_span</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/82311_microsoft_yahoo_buyout_anti_span</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Last Friday, Microsoft made an unsolicited offer to buy Yahoo for $31 per share, representing over a 50% premium from Yahoo's then-share price. As an employee working for Microsoft in Exchange Hosted Services (i.e. spam filtering), I'd like to comment on this buyout offer. Leaving aside the question of whether or not this is a good deal for shareholders and what Microsoft's true motivations are for buying Yahoo (namely, to become the number 2 player in the search market), I'd like to look at it from an anti-spam point of view. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/82311_microsoft_yahoo_buyout_anti_span">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2008-02-03T22:58:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Spam Kings: Book Review (Part 2) (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/711269_spam_kings_book_review_2</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/711269_spam_kings_book_review_2</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'd like to continue on in my review of the book Spam Kings (read <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/711269_spam_kings_book_review_1/">part 1</a>) and make some more comments, particularly regarding the antispammers. One thing that I really liked about the book is learning the history of some of the spam tools. I was never a participant on NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email; a USENET newsgroup which discusses e-mail spamming), that was before my antispam time. But I was intrigued by its history. People would gather together and discuss spammers and tools for stopping them, and sometimes spammers would stop by and the flame wars would ensue. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/711269_spam_kings_book_review_2">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-11-26T09:56:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Spam Kings: Book Review (Part 1) (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/711269_spam_kings_book_review_1</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/711269_spam_kings_book_review_1</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A few months ago, I purchased the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Spam-Kings-High-Rolling-Hucksters-Enlargements/dp/0596007329/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195890495&sr=8-1">Spam Kings</a>, but only recently managed to get around to reading and finishing it. In case you've never read it, it chronicles the stories of some spammers and the anti-spammers who fought them. These anti-spammers are not people like myself in industry; rather, they are users who have received spam who hunt down the source of the spam and work to bring them down. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/711269_spam_kings_book_review_1">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-11-26T09:45:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> Do Spammers Change Their Tactics Based on Recipient Verification? Yes, They Do (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/7101914_spammers_tactics_recipient_verification</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/7101914_spammers_tactics_recipient_verification</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Or, to be more precise, it sure looks like they do. I wrote on another <a href="https://blogs.msdn.com/tzink/archive/2007/10/15/publicly-available-spam-tool.aspx">post</a> on a publicly available spam tool, and I mentioned that I came across a page that allowed people to verify whether or not an email address is actually live. The question naturally arises: do spammers clean up their email contact lists based upon whether or not the address is legitimate? Spammers would have an incentive to do this... Do we actually observe spammers changing their sending patterns? I believe that we have evidence that they do. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/7101914_spammers_tactics_recipient_verification">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-10-19T14:39:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
		<item>
			<title> How Spammers Get Around SPF (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/782012_spammer_get_around_spf</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/782012_spammer_get_around_spf</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sender Policy Framework (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework">SPF</a>) stops novice spammers but not the professionals, says Spammer-X, a retired spammer who has gone into a lot of the details in his book, <em>"Inside the Spam Cartel"</em>. The best way to beat SPF is to join it... First, Joe Spammer rents a dedicated spam host in a spammer-friendly location, like China. Next, he registers 100 domain names, and each domain is registered under a fake name and address. Next, DNS entries for each of the hosts are set up, including a valid pointer record (PTR), an MX record and reverse DNS entries for each domain... <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/782012_spammer_get_around_spf">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2007-08-20T12:36:00-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>