Link Logger
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
 ·Shaw
| reply to psloss
Re: Messenger Spam on 1026 - Bad News Kids
For an example of performance, to send a spam message via Net Send it might take a couple of seconds to send a message, but by using this new technique you can send several thousands of messages per second given the availability of bandwidth and CPU. So we are talking many orders of magnitude of performance increase by using this new method and hence why this traffic is increasing on suspected Services.exe ports as spammers let lose with a much faster gatling gun, as they are no longer limited by performance factors they do not control as with using Net Send.
Blake
--
»www.SonicLogger.com - Logging Software for SonicWall and 3Comhttp://www.LinkLogger.com - Logging Software for Linksys, Netgear and Zyxel |
|
psloss
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Alpharetta, GA
| reply to Link Logger
said by Link Logger  :
I would be willing to bet that filtering of UDP port 135 (how many ISP are filtering UDP port 135, as compared to TCP port 135) was just a small factor in spammers switching to this new method, as the real motivator is out and out performance. As you mentioned yourself we have seen this traffic before MSBlast came out so spammers were switching before UDP port 135 filtering started. ISP's will be unable to filter UDP port 1026 traffic so once again the bad guys ultimately win out in the end, because they are free to adapt.
Good point about the filtering, although I'm not sure what you mean by "performance"...the mechanics of sending the packet to one port versus another (or multiple ports) seems fairly similar...what do you mean by "performance?"
Thanks,
Philip Sloss
--
(Thanks, anonymous!) Feedback? e-mail: stuff@lupwa.org |
|
