Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: New Spam Delivery Technique |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:24:02 +0200 |
On 2007-07-20 tony barry wrote:
I think I didn't explain clearly first time. Its not the PDF attachment thats new its the delivery method. The spammer forges the sender address to anyone@mydomain.com and sends it to doesnotexist@ligitimatecompany.com.
That also isn't new, but indeed seems to be exploited more and more.
Ligitimate companys mailer receives the message finds the recipient is not on its list, crafts a 'Could not deliver mail' message, Attaches the spammers original message and sends it to anyone@mydomain.com where my catch all account receives it because the spam filter does not reject Mailer Daemons failed to deliver mail messages 'cause I want to know that.
That's how SMTP is supposed to work: once a server accepts mail for relaying and later finds he's not able to deliver it he is supposed to send an NDR to the recipient given in the Return-Path. However, since Spammers forge these addresses, it's become a bad practice to accept first and bounce later. What mail server admins *should* do is check the mail in the SMTP dialog and reject it if they can't deliver it (e.g. because the recipient doesn't exist. That way the bounce will not go to the (forged) Return-Path, but back to the sending MTA.
While typing this a thought has occurred to me. What would happen if I did not have a catch all account and my mail server also rejected the message. Would it be bounced back to Ligitimatecompany.com or to mydomain.com?
Well, first of all: you do not want to have a catch-all in the first place. Aside from that: if your MTA rejects the mail in the SMTP dialog (as it should), the bounce won't go to either Ligitimatecompany.com or mydomain.com, but back to the sending MTA.
How long would this message bounce around the internet looking for a home.
That depends on how either MTA will handle it, but since virtually every MTA does loop-detection nowadays: not very long. However, it still is a REALLY BAD idea to accept first and bounce later.
Second thought. If ligitimatecompany.com (and others) is/are receiving messages supposedly from mydomain.com (or yourdomain.com) that have a high spam score what is the likely hood of mydomain.com ending up on a spammers blacklist.
If smart people are dealing with it: void. If stupid people are dealing with it: well, all bets are off then. Regards Ansgar Wiechers -- "All vulnerabilities deserve a public fear period prior to patches becoming available." --Jason Coombs on Bugtraq
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Disabling autorun for mapped network drives, Jesse Eaton |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Vulnerability Assessment, tima |
| Previous by Thread: | New Spam Delivery Technique, tony barry |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Vulnerability Assessment, Mondai Ji |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |