ietf-asrg
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 7. Best Practices - DNSBLs - Article

2003-08-11 16:11:35
At 10:44 PM +0200 2003/08/11, Markus Stumpf wrote:

 Don't know if this qualifies for a BCP ...
 We use our own DNSBL. We do also use other DNSBLs but the messages are
 tagged only. This tagging is used as a decision aid:
   if we get spam and the IP is listed in other DNSBLs as well, we add
   it to your own DNSBL right away.
 this saves some work.

How do you determine if you get a "spam" from a particular IP address? Is this done in any automated way, or just any time a user complains?

 I have the impression DNSBLs get abused for finding open relays.

Some do. However, I suspect that it's mostly the ones that are oriented towards open relays anyway, and for them would it really be "abuse" in that sense?

 Motivation: checking IP  ranges for relay open mailserver or open
    proxies is a time consuming task and you need email addresses to
    receive the relayed messages at.
 Strategy: Do port scans for hosts listening on port 25. Make a list of
    all those IP Addresses.
    Now use a tool that abuses 0wned hosts and do distributed sumbissions
    of these IP's to the various DNSBLs for testing.

You mean like <http://www.ordb.org/faq/#test_no_list> or <http://dsbl.org/programs>?

 Result: After some hours/days do DNS lookups and see if the IP got
    blocked. If it is blocked the IP is vulnerable, add it to your list
    of vulnerable host and qickly start abusing it.

Already being done, I'm sure. I figure there are also a lot of people out there who are querying the various black lists with relatively random selections of IP address ranges (and using various open caching/recursive nameservers), to fill in their list of potential servers to abuse.

 Downside: they use a blacklisted IP for spamming. However from my
    personal observation most DNSBLs are used for informational purposes
    and not for hard blocks, so the amount of spam they get through is
    large enough and pays off the gain of having others do the dirty work
    (with a white hat on).

Here's another idea. Take the list of the sort you mention above, then front that with a DNS-based load-balancing program. When a spammer looks up the address to spam through, they get re-directed to one of millions of vulnerable machines, then drop that connection after sending a small number of messages, and start the process all over again.

--
Brad Knowles, <brad(_dot_)knowles(_at_)skynet(_dot_)be>

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg