Category Archives: Reputation Systems

The Big Drop: medical to zero in SpamRankings.net

A surprise in the July SpamRankings.net rankings: US medical rankings all went to zero by 14 July. World medical rankings went from hundreds and thousands to near zero between 17 and 24 July.

That’s in rankings from CBL data. PSBL shows much less data for medical organizations, yet nonetheless the same effect in both world and U.S. medical rankings.

No other rankings showed such a drop.

Did medical organizations actually clean up their act? Or did they just manage to whitelist their netblocks at CBL and PSBL?

Either way, it looks like they noticed SpamRankings.net.

-jsq

“botnet herders can add it to its spam-spewing botnet” —Fahmida Y. Rashid in eWeek.com

This reporter spits out a string of alliterative language that labels the problem that SpamRankings.net helps diagnose.

Fahmida Y. Rashid wrote in eWeek.com 8 June 2011, UT Researchers Launch SpamRankings to Flag Hospitals Hijacked by Spammers:

“Poor security measures are generally responsible for employee workstations getting compromised, either by spam or malicious Web content. Once the machine is compromised, the botnet herders can add it to its spam-spewing botnet to send out malware to even more people. The original employee or the organization rarely has any idea the machine has been hijacked for this purpose.”
That’s a pretty good explanation for why outbound spam is a proxy for poor infosec.

-jsq

Krebs on SpamRankings.net

Brian Krebs wrote on his blog, Naming & Shaming Sources of Spam:
A new resource for spotlighting organizations that are unwittingly contributing to the global spam problem aims to shame junk email havens into taking more aggressive security measures.

SpamRankings.net is a project launched by the Center for Research in Electronic Commerce at the University of Texas at Austin. Its goal is to identify and call attention to organizations with networks that have been infiltrated by spammers.

Andrew Whinston, the center’s director, said the group initially is focusing on health care providers that appear to be infected with spam bots. “Nobody wants to do business with a bank or hospital or Internet hosting company that has been hijacked by spammers,” Whinston said. “It’s an environment in which user data can be stolen or compromised.”

The rest of his writeup quotes me quite a bit, and everyone knows I’m quite shy, so please go read his blog!

I will add that May data is live now on SpamRankings.net. Also, organizations that do better over time may want to brag, as has happened with a couple of U.S. organizations in May.

Here’s Krebs’ final paragraph:

I applaud this effort, and hope that it gains traction. I remain convinced that the Internet community would benefit from a more comprehensive and centralized approach to measuring badness on the Web. There are many existing efforts to measure reputation and to quantify badness online, but most of those projects seek to enumerate very specific threats (such spam or hacked Web sites) and measure the problem from a limited vantage point. What is lacking is an organization that attempts to collate data collected by these disparate efforts and to publish that information in near real-time.

-jsq

Our Friend Unfairly Maligned in London’s Court

Many of you are concerned as am I about our friend who has been hauled into court in London and unfairly maligned for the “crime” of distributing some government communications that he got from an anonymous source. I know our friend also has been a bit playful out of wedlock, and even had a son that way, but I don’t see what that has to do with the matter at hand.

Our friend represented his agency in the matter of procuring and forwarding the communications “as a public act, dealing with the public correspondence of public men.” His accusers were having none of it:

Into what companies will the fabricator of this iniquity hereafter go with an unembarrassed face, or with any semblance of the honest intrepidity of virtue? Men will watch him with a jealous eye &em; they will hide their papers from him, and lock up their escritoires. Having hitherto aspired after fame by his writings, he will henceforth esteem it a libel to be called a man of letters…
His accusers made him out to be a vindictive destroyer of public confidence. He had “forfeited all the respect of societies and of men” and was not a gentleman, rather a common thief.

I am happy to hear our friend has been released by the court in London, although two days later he was fired from his job as deputy postmaster general of North America. Continue reading →

Outbound Spam Ranking Experiments

Should Uganda Telecom be counted as a Belgian ISP for outbound spam rankings?

Which matters most: history, topology, business headquarters location, or some other criterion?

These are some questions that come up in designing experiments in rolling out a reputation system for outbound spam. More on this in the RIPE Labs article (8 Nov 2010), Internet Reputation Experiments for Better Security.

Such experiments can draw on fifty years of social science research and literature, first crystalized as Social Comparison Theory by Leon Festinger in 1954, that indicate that making personal reputation transparent changes personal behavior. More recent research indicates that the same applies to organizations. Using anti-spam blocklist data, it is possible to make E-Mail Service Provider (ESP) behavior (banks, stores, universities, etc., not just ISPs) in preventing or stopping outbound spam transparent, and this paper is about experiments to see how the resulting reputation actually changes ESP behavior.

-jsq

Organizing the Cloud Against Spam

In RIPE Labs, here’s a paper on Internet Cloud Layers for Economic Incentives for Internet Security by the IIAR Project (I’m the lead author). Anti-spam blocklists and law enforcement are some Internet organizational layers attempting to deal with the plague of spam, so far reaching a standoff where most users don’t see most spam, yet service providers spend large amounts of computing and people resources blocking it.
The root of the ecrime problem is not technology: it is money.
Continue reading →

Quis custodiet ipsos medici?

Internet security is in a position similar to that of safety in the medical industry. Many doctors have an opinion like this one, quoted by Kent Bottles:
“Only 33% of my patients with diabetes have glycated hemoglobin levels that are at goal. Only 44% have cholesterol levels at goal. A measly 26% have blood pressure at goal. All my grades are well below my institution’s targets.” And she says, “I don’t even bother checking the results anymore. I just quietly push the reports under my pile of unread journals, phone messages, insurance forms, and prior authorizations.”

Meanwhile, according to the CDC, 99,000 people die in the U.S. per year because of health-care associated infections. That is equivalent of an airliner crash every day. It’s three times the rate of deaths by automobile accidents.

The basic medical error problems observed by Dennis Quaid when his twin babies almost died due to repeated massive medically-administered overdoses and due to software problems such as ably analysed by Nancy Leveson for the infamous 1980s Therac-25 cancer-radiation device are not in any way unique to computing in medicine. The solutions to those problems are analogous to some of the solutions IT security needs: measurements plus six or seven layers of aggregation, analysis, and distribution.

As Gardiner Harris reported in the New York Times, August 20, 2010, another problem is that intravenous and feeding tubes are not distinguished by shape or color: Continue reading →

What we can learn from the Therac-25

What does Nancy Leveson’s classic analysis of the Therac-25 recommend? (“An Investigation of the Therac-25 Accidents,” by Nancy Leveson, University of Washington and Clark S. Turner, University of California, Irvine, IEEE Computer, Vol. 26, No. 7, July 1993, pp. 18-41.)
“Inadequate Investigation or Followup on Accident Reports. Every company building safety-critical systems should have audit trails and analysis procedures that are applied whenever any hint of a problem is found that might lead to an accident.” p. 47

“Government Oversight and Standards. Once the FDA got involved in the Therac-25, their response was impressive, especially considering how little experience they had with similar problems in computer-controlled medical devices. Since the Therac-25 events, the FDA has moved to improve the reporting system and to augment their procedures and guidelines to include software. The input and pressure from the user group was also important in getting the machine fixed and provides an important lesson to users in other industries.” pp. 48-49

The lesson being that you have to have built-in audit, reporting, transparency, and user visibility for reputation.

Which is exactly what Dennis Quaid is asking for.

Remember, most of those 99,000 deaths a year from medical errors aren’t due to control of complicated therapy equipment: Continue reading →

FireEye’s Ozdok Botnet Takedown Observed

FireEye coordinated a takedown of botnet Ozdok or MegaD, on 5-6 Nov 2009, with cooperation by many ISPs and DNS registrars.

Good show! What effects did it have on spam? Not just spam from this botnet; spam in general.

Botnets and spam volume

This graph was presented at NANOG 48, Austin, TX, 24 Feb 2010, in FireEye’s Ozdok Botnet Takedown In Spam Blocklists and Volume Observed by IIAR Project, CREC, UT Austin. John S. Quarterman, Quarterman Creations, Prof. Andrew Whinston, PI CREC, UT Austin. That was a snapshot of an ongoing project, Incentives, Insurance and Audited Reputation: An Economic Approach to Controlling Spam (IIAR).

That presentation was enough to demonstrate the main point: takedowns are good, but we need a lot more of them and a lot more coordinated if we are to make a real dent in spam.

The IIAR project will keep drilling down in the data and building up models. One goal is to build a reputation system to show how effective takedowns and other anti-spam measures are, on which ASNs.

Thanks especially to CBL and to Team Cymru for very useful data, and to FireEye for a successful takedown.

We’re all ears for further takedowns to examine.

-jsq