Deprecated: Function create_function() is deprecated in /home/hidefide/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/wr-pagebuilder/core/core.php on line 127
{"id":592,"date":"2018-06-24T16:21:48","date_gmt":"2018-06-24T16:21:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/icaruspressblog.wordpress.com\/?p=592"},"modified":"2019-04-17T11:27:22","modified_gmt":"2019-04-17T11:27:22","slug":"spam-from-web-hosts-three-times-more-likely-to-make-your-life-miserable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hidefideas.com\/blog\/2018\/06\/24\/spam-from-web-hosts-three-times-more-likely-to-make-your-life-miserable\/","title":{"rendered":"Spam from Web Hosts Three Times More Likely to Make Your Life Miserable"},"content":{"rendered":"

$\"Typical$ <\/p>\n

It\u2019s sometimes easy to assume that spam is spam, regardless of its source. In fact, most days, we don\u2019t stop to wonder where it came from. Really, who cares? It\u2019s hateful stuff, no matter if it came from the shadowy bowels of a former Soviet bloc country, the shady depths of sub-Saharan Africa, or the server farm that resides in the building down the block. When it comes to spam, we\u2019re equal opportunity haters. But maybe we shouldn\u2019t be.<\/p>\n

Considering a May report from Virus Bulletin<\/a>, maybe we should reconsider how we spread around the hatred for email spam. In a comparative report of spam blocking solutions, Virus Bulletin found that several anti spam applications got good marks. When they\u2019re blocking the nasty stuff that pushes male enhancement on us as if the world\u2019s male population had been exposed to a healthy dose of unhealthy radiation \u2013 right to the family jewels \u2013 the majority of anti spam programs are doing their job. 19 solutions achieved a Virus BulletinSpam certification, and there was even an increase in the catch rates over previous tests, according to Info Security Magazine<\/a>; but there is a notable gap in the ability to block spam that originates from web hosts. (The report can be purchased here<\/a>)<\/p>\n

According to Info Security, Virus Bulletin\u2019s anti spam test director, Martijn Grooten, said in a statement to the media that \u201ca lot of the focus in the anti-spam industry has been on botnets of compromised home PCs, and while these botnets still send a lot of spam, spam filters have become quite good at dealing with it.\u201d The problem, Grooten points out, is that \u201cvarious recent reports have suggested that spam is increasingly being sent from web hosts \u2013 many of which are compromised.\u201dThis workaround seems to be intentional, perhaps as if the spammers have discovered that their activities have a greater chance for success if they use web hosts. \u201cOur results show that this isn’t merely a shift in the way in which spam is sent, but it actually increases the likelihood of the spam messages making it to someone’s inbox,\u201d Grooten says.<\/p>\n

In the testing performed by Virus Bulletin, 64,000 spam emails were considered. More than 30% (19,449) of the emails originated from web hosts. According to Info Security, \u201cthe average email sent from a web host had a probability of 1.04% of being missed by a spam filter, compared to just 0.29% for other spam \u2013 meaning that web host-sent spam is 3.5 times more likely to bypass a spam filter.\u201d<\/p>\n

Grooten points out that both percentages are relatively small numbers, but that the overall number of emails being sent as spam is significant. \u201cOn a (very small) campaign of one million emails, this is the difference between fewer than 3,000 and well over 10,000 emails making it to recipients\u2019 inboxes. It could be the difference between a spam campaign making a profit or a loss for the spammer.\u201d<\/p>\n

The elephant in the room is the why. Why are web hosted spam emails more effective at getting through anti spam filters? Apparently, that\u2019s going to remain a mystery, at least for the moment. Info Security points out that \u201cwhile [Virus Bulletin\u2019s] research team is unsure why web hosted spam is more effective at evading filters, Virus Bulletin was quick to point out that the difference also isn\u2019t simply skewed by a small number of emails sent from web hosts that have a very high delivery rate.\u201d The report points out that focusing on the emails blocked by at least three quarters of the anti spam solutions still results in a higher penetration rate for web hosted email spam. And this disparity can\u2019t be attributed to IP blocking, according to the report.<\/p>\n

So what does this mean for those of us who, well, simply don\u2019t want or need spam in our lives? That\u2019s the $64,000 question, isn\u2019t it? If spammers realize that they can use web hosted solutions to break through the barrier \u2013 and that\u2019s an inevitability \u2013 then we can project a higher penetration rate in spam messages, perhaps a renaissance where we\u2019re back in 2005, trying to figure out how to stop the bleeding in our inboxes once again. Anti spam solutions are certainly going to be focusing on the whys and wherefores of this information, working hard to determine why web hosts are spam friendly. It\u2019s a bit of conundrum, and for the moment, perhaps it\u2019s time to dust off your user education material and warn them all over again about the dangers of spam.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"