Kenneth Porter wrote:
There can't be, because the password must be recovered to submit to the
remote authentication system.
Paul Russell suggests on the MIMEDefang list that the ratware could
simply pop up a password dialog. Many users will just enter their
credentials, not understanding why th
--On Thursday, February 03, 2005 1:43 PM -0500 Rob McEwen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even though that may be correct in theory, isn't there one-way encryption
involved for these passwords? (you know, the kind which can't be retrieved
by anyone, only reset). But even if that is not the case, regul
Kenneth Porter said:
>If you know how the password is stored, you don't even need to launch
>Outlook to actually connect to the ISP server. The same vulnerability would
>also work with Thunderbird; you'd just need to know how to extract the
>saved password from the Mozilla profile.
Even though
--On Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:38 PM -0500 Rob McEwen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I couldn't tell from the article... but are SMTP Servers which REQUIRE
password authentication for sending immune from this particular type of
spam? Or does the system somehow route the spam through a person's
o
At 02:49 AM 2/3/2005, Jeff Chan wrote:
> The only problem I see with the tactic is the ISP itself is likely to deal
> with the infected users pretty quickly, instead of dragging their feet,
> since the spam will now be bogging down their servers, instead of
bypassing
> them.
And the answer is: s
One area where this might cause additional problems (even for those who
successfully block ALL these spams) is tarpitting settings. Basically, many
servers will place the IP address of the sending server into a tarpit if
that server just got finished attempting to send X number of viruses or
spams
On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, 6:20:50 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> At 09:11 PM 2/2/2005, Shane Mullins wrote:
>>Here is a link from ZDNet warning of a spam increase. I can't wait to see
>>SA smat it down.
> Hmm.. so zombies are going to start using the legit mailserver instead of
> acting as a d
Sounds like the pc's will act like a smtp server. But they were very vague.
Shane
- Original Message -
From: "Rob McEwen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: spam warning from zd net
I couldn't tell from the artic
he Swen virus,
however, did -- it just wasn't a generic spam proxy.
- --j.
> Rob McEwen
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shane Mullins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:11 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: spam warn
oo bad the article wasn't more technically specific)
Rob McEwen
-Original Message-
From: Shane Mullins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 9:11 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: spam warning from zd net
Here is a link from ZDNet warning of a sp
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:20:50 -0500, Matt Kettler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm.. so zombies are going to start using the legit mailserver instead of
> acting as a direct delivery... Hmm.. Well, we should see the DUL RBL hits
> drop off pretty fast. Won't affect SURBL hits though.
Or see legit m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matt Kettler writes:
> At 09:11 PM 2/2/2005, Shane Mullins wrote:
> >Here is a link from ZDNet warning of a spam increase. I can't wait to
> >see SA smat it down.
>
> Hmm.. so zombies are going to start using the legit mailserver instead
> of acting
At 09:11 PM 2/2/2005, Shane Mullins wrote:
Here is a link from ZDNet warning of a spam increase. I can't wait to see
SA smat it down.
Hmm.. so zombies are going to start using the legit mailserver instead of
acting as a direct delivery... Hmm.. Well, we should see the DUL RBL hits
drop off pre
Here is a link from ZDNet warning of a spam
increase. I can't wait to see SA smat it down.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5560664.html?tag=nl.e589
Shane
14 matches
Mail list logo
