I am looking for ideas to stop the spam created by compromised Windows
PC's. This is not about the various worms and viruses replicating but
these boxes acting as open relays or open proxies.
There are valid reasons not to run antivirus software, coupled with
clueless users, this
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:43:39 -0600 (CST), Adi Linden wrote:
I am looking for ideas to stop the spam created by compromised Windows
PC's. This is not about the various worms and viruses replicating but
these boxes acting as open relays or open proxies.
There are valid reasons not to run
Force all SMTP outbound connections from users thru a SMTP proxy. On that
proxy, force users to do SMTP Authentication; I've heard only once of a
spam
code that will use the user's configuration info or dispatch e-mail thru
them. Even if they do, you can rate-limit messages/hour, unique mail
- Original Message -
From: Adi Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 3:43 PM
Subject: Stopping open proxies and open relays
I am looking for ideas to stop the spam created by compromised Windows
PC's. This is not about the various worms and
Gregh wrote:
Optus in Australia have taken the line of blocking port 25 to anything at
all excepting contact with their own servers. Seems to work. Some pissed off
customers with their own smtp progs etc but my guess is that this would fit
your bill.
Earthlink and many others have been
NANOG Digest wrote:
It would help if systems would only execute code that is signed
properly. This would make malware traceable. However the current way of
getting your code signed is in many cases too costly for the casual open
source developer so people are used to running unsigned or
Well, it seems to work relatively well when it comes to motor vehicles...
Oh, sure, there are still lots of morons driving unsafe poorly-maintained
vehicles around, but I'm sure there would be WAY way more if traffic laws
(and inspection requirements, etc, depending on your jurisdiction) went
Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
On Friday 06 February 2004 20:43, Adi Linden wrote:
There are valid reasons not to run antivirus software,
And they are?
With the exception of my BBS (still running) and until 2 weeks ago I
hadn't run any av software on my machines (now I run clamav via
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:03:22 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gu=F0bj=F6rn_Hreinsson?= [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Maybe we should first have laws that prohibit making and selling computers
without firewalls? In this context I should be fine making cars without
This is going in the Very Wrong Direction.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wouldn't recommend trying to expand it to prohibit making and selling
computers that are insecure, since no computer is 100% secure, and there's
no objective secure enough standard - closest you will get there is
probably Dell's offer to ship machines pre-hardened to
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 20:27:11 +0200, Petri Helenius said:
It would help if systems would only execute code that is signed
properly. This would make malware traceable. However the current way of
getting your code signed is in many cases too costly for the casual open
source developer so
Force all SMTP outbound connections from users thru a SMTP proxy. On that
proxy, force users to do SMTP Authentication; I've heard only once of a spam
code that will use the user's configuration info or dispatch e-mail thru
them. Even if they do, you can rate-limit messages/hour, unique mail
Adi Linden wrote:
There are valid reasons not to run antivirus software,
Robin Lynn Frank
And they are?
Some Mac and *nix users (not me) think their platform is invulnerable,
therefore there is no need to run anti-virus software as it costs money
and consumes CPU and memory.
Michel.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:43:39 -0600 (CST), Adi Linden wrote:
I am looking for ideas to stop the spam created by compromised Windows
PC's. This is not about the various worms and viruses replicating but
these boxes acting as open relays or open proxies.
There are valid reasons not to run
At 12:00 AM 2/7/2004, Adi Linden wrote:
There are valid reasons not to run antivirus software,
And they are?
P90w/32MB running Win95 used for email only...
Odd... When that was a state of the art machine for which I paid $3k+ in
1995 (IRC) I used a CLI virus scanner and before I opened
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adi Linden wrote:
|There are valid reasons not to run antivirus software,
|
|And they are?
|
|
| P90w/32MB running Win95 used for email only... or insufficient finances
| to purchase anti virus software... to name a couple.
Products such as Clam-AV
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Robin Lynn Frank
Sent: February 7, 2004 12:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stopping open proxies and open relays
On Friday 06 February 2004 21:00, Adi Linden wrote
Vivien M. wrote:
Now, if hooking up an unsecured computer to a network was
punishable by a $1000 fine, and law enforcement somehow
had the staff to prosecute all offenders (or a
representative sample), I'm sure everybody would agree
that suddenly they'd be able to afford antiviruses.
It's
-Original Message-
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 7, 2004 12:43 AM
To: Vivien M.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Stopping open proxies and open relays
Vivien M. wrote:
Now, if hooking up an unsecured computer to a network was
punishable
Not to be argumentative, but by that logic, I guess it is okay to drive my
1948 Ford which doesn't have brakes if I don't have the cash to fix it.
This is a matter of opinion. While this was my initial first thought, I
can't agree with it. An old PC is by no means a threat to others. The
Vivien M. wrote:
The day a couple of grandmothers get taken away in
handcuffs because a script kiddie took up residence
in her computer is the day a few people will wake
up to the fact that computers need regular maintenance...
Indeed, but a) won't happen b) even if it could it would be
If stricter laws on computers forced even 50% of people to start caring a
little more, wouldn't that be progress? The day a couple of grandmothers get
taken away in handcuffs because a script kiddie took up residence in her
computer is the day a few people will wake up to the fact that
-Original Message-
From: Adi Linden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 7, 2004 12:54 AM
To: Vivien M.
Cc: 'Michel Py'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Stopping open proxies and open relays
If stricter laws on computers forced even 50% of people to start
caring
I have no objection to the electric chair for script kiddies
an interesting position. and how do you feel about folk who
violate rfcs?
randy
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: February 7, 2004 1:10 AM
To: Vivien M
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Stopping open proxies and open relays
I have no objection to the electric chair for script kiddies
an interesting position. and how
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 01:09:42 EST, Randy Bush said:
I have no objection to the electric chair for script kiddies
an interesting position. and how do you feel about folk who
violate rfcs?
The Hague has tribunals for crimes against humanity... :)
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
26 matches
Mail list logo
