Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Larry Sheldon

On 10/26/2015 22:16, Randy Bush wrote:

now that the number of messages discussing the spam has exceed the
number of spam messages, perhaps we can get back to work and hope that
the list admins have learned something.


A couple of factoids that might be useful in realizing the hope.

The mail handler at Cox cable correctly binned about 600 of them--I 
don't remember setting relevant customization, but I can check if 
anybody cares.


And I found messages reporting the problem Saturday.  And one that said 
the problem (as my failing memory wants to believe) started about a 
month ago.



--
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)


Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Randy Bush
now that the number of messages discussing the spam has exceed the
number of spam messages, perhaps we can get back to work and hope that
the list admins have learned something.

randy


Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Alan Buxey
There's also probably a large number of people gnashing their teeth that all of 
these compromised sites have been so readily identified by a very basic spam 
scam. A massive waste of opportunity for real black hats

alan


Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Rob McEwen

On 10/26/2015 3:25 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:

What's the exploit that corrupted the sites?
...
All the sites that I checked (without the added suffix) seem
legit.  But maybe they are spammer sites?  How do we know?



Most involve wordpress vulnerabilities that a spammer exploited, where 
the spammer then installed their spammy content on someone else's 
otherwise legit website. (other vulnerabilities happen too.)


NOTE: Anyone using wordpress need to be vigilante about keeping it 
updated (and associated plugins updated)!


That makes these particularly hard to blacklist because they always 
involve SOME amount of "collateral damage" (though often a small and 
well-justified amount) AND the same algorithms that help URI/domain 
blacklists to not have FPs, likewise often (and often mistakenly) 
prevent many of these from getting blacklisted... which explains why 
many of these were not on very many URI or domain blacklists.


--
Rob McEwen




Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread William Allen Simpson

On 10/26/15 1:10 PM, Pablo Lucena wrote:

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:


Can we please get a filter for messages with the subject "Fw: new message"
???



​So far I've dealt with it via Gmail's 'mute conversation' setting somewhat
effectively.​


Gmail was smart enough to put those addressed directly to me
into the spam folder -- and let those via nanog through.  It's
been trained well!

Let's look at this as an opportunity.  We have a relatively
small set of websites that have been corrupted with additional
links (presumably unknown to the owner), that then redirect
one or more times.

What's the exploit that corrupted the sites?

Have the site owners been contacted?

All the sites that I checked (without the added suffix) seem
legit.  But maybe they are spammer sites?  How do we know?



Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Royce Williams
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Pablo Lucena 
wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Can we please get a filter for messages with the subject "Fw: new
> message"
> > ???
> >
> ​So far I've dealt with it via Gmail's 'mute conversation' setting somewhat
> effectively.​
>

Unfortunately, the 'mute conversation' feature only works for threads that
are in the inbox. I filter all lists into their own subfolders, reserving
the inbox for real people.

So the 'mute conversation' feature is useless for most conversations that I
actually want to mute.

Royce


Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Randy Carpenter

I have to hand it to EdgeWave (with whom I have a very tumultuous love/hate 
relationship) for catching this flood from the very first message.

thanks,
-Randy

- On Oct 25, 2015, at 12:22 AM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
wrote:

> Can we please get a filter for messages with the subject "Fw: new message"
> ???
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373


Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Josh Luthman
I did the same with Gmail.  Has the words - listid:nanog@nanog.org and
matching subject.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Marcin Cieslak  wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> > Can we please get a filter for messages with the subject "Fw: new
> message"
> > ???
>
> I have this in my $HOME/.procmailrc:
>
> :0:
> * ^List-ID:.*nanog.nanog.org>
> * ^Subject: Fw: new message
> nanog-junk
>
> 355 pieces since I put this rule (only two or so missed).
>
> Marcin
>


Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Marcin Cieslak
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Josh Luthman wrote:

> Can we please get a filter for messages with the subject "Fw: new message"
> ???

I have this in my $HOME/.procmailrc:

:0:
* ^List-ID:.*nanog.nanog.org>
* ^Subject: Fw: new message
nanog-junk

355 pieces since I put this rule (only two or so missed).

Marcin


Re: The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Pablo Lucena
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Can we please get a filter for messages with the subject "Fw: new message"
> ???
>
>
​So far I've dealt with it via Gmail's 'mute conversation' setting somewhat
effectively.​


The spam is real

2015-10-26 Thread Josh Luthman
Can we please get a filter for messages with the subject "Fw: new message"
???

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373