spam

Spammers Text Tricks

viag_spam

As discussed in my last most, Sneaky Email Sucks, spammers are driven to find clever ways to represent (or mis-represent I guess) text or words in their messages.

Since text can be easily analyzed and through bayesian processes deemed “spammy” or “not spammy” rather easily, spammers try to do things like use images to print their text on instead. When anti-spammers countered that by hash analysis/fingerprinting the images for comparison, spammers added random noise to their images. The text obfuscation battle continues.

In this case, the spammer cleverly uses basic HTML table, coloring various cells in the rows and columns to spell out “V I A G R A”. It reminds me of when occupants of tall buildings in a city somewhere, for a special event like the Superbowl, or maybe just a stunt for a TV comercial, turns on lights only in particular windows of the skyscraper for the same effect.

It’s the first time I’ve seen this HTML table approach to slipping spam in (and it got into my inbox in Outlook) – so while I can’t say that it is a new technique for sure, it seems to have worked. No doubt the filtering companies will pick up on this one. Gosh it’s easy to break systems – Captain Obvious here I know – it is much easier to be a bad guy than a good guy with email. That blows.

This is a simple example of text obfuscation – if you want to really geek out on the subject, check out the paper: Fighting Unicode-Obfuscated Spam.

Sneaky Email Sucks

Having just hastily pulled together my last post on “Phishing” – I’ve been keeping a keen eye on my inbox for more interesting examples of evil email. A new message caught my eye – a good example of bad email – possibly evil, but sneaky at best.

Here are some key elements worth calling out:

[1] Once again, listed in my inbox the message looks innocuous enough. I recognize Reunion as Reunion.com – I’m not a member but occasionally see these types of invites, similar to other social space sites like Facebook, Linkedin, Plaxo, etc…

[2] Mozilla has protected me again – like with Mozilla Firefox screening links I click to known bad websites, Mozilla Thunderbird blocks any images from rendering – particularly from senders that are not in my address book. They give me the option of allowing this if I choose – presumably for senders I know. This is a common feature in email tools.

[3] Ah, here we see a bit more than we did in the Inbox listing [1]. Now I see a bit of trickery – Reunion Request is plain enough but now I see the local/user part of the sending email address is reun-ion.request@ and the domain portion is mutebrmodern.net. Why would anyone have to jack up the user portion of their email that way? It’d be like me being to-mba.rtel@somedomain.com. And that domain, if this is from Reunion – who the heck is mutebrmodern.net? It’s not out of the ordinary to have other domains send on your behalf, particularly if as a business you contract it, but as a user/recipient, your radar should be up at this point.

[4] Now this is really sneaky – back in the early days of email, there was only plain text formatting. Eventually HTML formatting made it to email providing a richer aesthetic appearance for content, similar to web pages. It can be useful, but some email programs can struggle with display of HTML code. At first blush it appears that something has gone wrong with my email program, Thunderbird, trying to render the message. Gosh, I am having trouble reading this message so I guess I better click the link right? More on that in a moment…

[5] Quick mention to take note of my email address in he URL/link in the message – shows me that the message is “personalized” but also a flag that I’m being tracked – when I click, someone, somewhere will know it was me.

[6] You have virus protection on your computer, right? I do. Make sure your anti-virus software scans your email, inbound and outbound. I’ve used AVG by Grisoft for several years. It is a fantastic program, and is free for individual, non-business purposes.

So back to point [4] – I’m not necessarily buying this – the error message “Having trouble viewing this message?” looks odd – not like what I’ve seen before in my email program. Now, I’m an email guy and have regularly scrutinized email as part of my job for years, so I don’t expect others to know this, but you can look at the raw source of an email to get even more insight. In Thunderbird a handy shortcut, Ctrl-U, does this. Here are some notable and telling things about this message from analyzing the raw message:

[7] Looking at the transmission details of the email recorded in the message headers, I see that the mail was delivered to my email server from yet another unknown domain, lsrree217.closerdried.net. As I said, it is not uncommon for legitimate companies to outsource delivery of email, but there is usually clear accountability and transparency in the domain names of those legitimate email service providers. I’m getting the feeling here that someone is purposely trying to not be known here.

[8] Further down in the message I see the plain text portion of the source message and my suspicions are confirmed – my email program Thunderbird didn’t have a problem showing the message and prompt me with “Having trouble view this message?” – that’s what the email author typed in – that is the message! Further review of the message source shows that this is the case in the HTML portion of the message as well. Okay, now I’m certain the sneakiness here is intentional.

[9] Here is more sneakiness/evilness – something those in the anti-spam space refer to as “hashbusting”. Sophos has a good example of it on their blog in which they describe it as “Hash busters are the seemingly random words or sentences located at the bottom of a spam message, used to try and bypass a variety of anti-spam techniques“. In the Sophos example the spammer puts the words where they are visible to he end recipient. In my case, the rendered message didn’t show this because the sender hid the random words in some HTML tags that aren’t visible.

Okay, so I’m convinced this isn’t even quasi-legit at best at this point, but I’ll bite – let’s click the link.

[10] mylife… what is that? Isn’t this supposed to be Reunion? In this case I happen to know that Reunion recently re-branded as mylife. Looking at the web address I see it starts with http://affiliates.mylife.com which is the bonafide mylife (formerly Reunion) website. Apparently Reunion has an affiliate member who advertises on their behalf, who not only uses sneaky and evil tactics, but hasn’t adjusted for the new brand!

[11] What the heck does this say? One of the things we encourage emailers and web site operators to do is to be openly transparent and accountable. Notices and disclosure in teeny type with low contrast is simply untrustworthy on the face of it. Bad job here mylife.

[12] This web page comes with a third-party seal of trust from Truste. These can be easily faked as well, but clicking on it shows it is legitimate.

[13] Again, check the website URL and validate that it makes sense and meets your expectation. In this case the Truste logo goes to a truste.org site and appears to make sense referencing the [14] mylife.com page we clicked from.

So, that’s a lot of analysis from one email. If anything, it exemplifies how easy it is for mailers to be sneaky in their email and how hard it is for consumes to understand what’s legit and what isn’t. In this case, Reunion appears to operate an affiliate program. That’s not uncommon for businesses on the Internet – but it take s policing – I’m betting (and hoping) that they aren’t aware of this particular affiliates behavior. I’ll pass this information along to them – in the hope that they will terminate this bad actor from their affiliate membership.

If you’ve got a good product, you shouldn’t have to trick people to come to find out more about it.

Phishing Protection

I took note of a local article this week that referenced phishing as “fishing”. I figure it was a spell checker that caught it, but still it made me wonder if average folks still don’t understand what “phishing” is.

The FTC and other US government agencies sponsor and operate the website OnGuardOnline.gov which “provides practical tips from the federal government and the technology industry to help you be on guard against Internet fraud, secure your computer, and protect your personal information.”

On phishing, they provide some great educational information and tips – explaining phishing as:

Phishing is a scam where Internet fraudsters send spam or pop-up messages to lure personal and financial information from unsuspecting victims.

For a more comprehensive break down, check Wikipedia.

Better yet, here is Phishing Explained in Three Minutes by CommonCraft:

UPDATE: I learned of one more great tutorial on phishing scams by PayPal through an email they sent today – totally worth checking out!.

Surely you’ve seen these message. I had a great example land in my inbox this week, so I thought I’d quickly demo it here.

First, you can see it in my “Deleted” folder after I did some routine purging of email in my Return Path account. A few things to point out, sorted by “Sender” you can see I have a bunch of legitimate Facebook notices, from the bonafide Facebook corporation.

But, I also have this additional notice from the Facebook Upgrade Center. Looks totally legit along side other messages from Facebook in my inbox. Note the From: address is info@facebook.com. This is called spoofing and it is an inherent problem with email on the Internet. It is the reason that add on protocols for “email authentication” exist, providing legitimate senders, like the bonafide Facebook, a way for ISPs to validate return email addresses that spammers like to forge. Email authentication is its’ own topic and there are tons of resources – but I’ll tackle that in a later post. For the most part just realize that legitimate senders are using it to help ISPs identify them as the good guys and not scammers.

So, the From: line is spoofed, and most studies on consumers and email show that email users make their assessment of spam versue mail they want by assessing the From: line first and the Subject: line second. In this case both are believable as legitimate.

It is always good to be suspicious, and one way to protect yourself is to scrutinize the website links in email. In this message, you can see the URL of the link they included starts out with “http://login.facebook...” – so at a glance, seems fine, but it continues with “...default.videomessageid-vrblqkto9.sessionnewid83.com

The most important part of web site links, relative to the owner operators, is discerned by looking at the domain and link from right to left. Starting with .com or .net or .org or whatever Top Level Domain is in the link, you can see now in this example that Facebook probably does not operate sessionnewid83.com. This is probably the result of “domain tasting” – a method that identity theives use to register domain names cheap and use the domain for spam and identity theft during a trial “grace period”. So not only do they abuse the domain but they can get their money back afterwards! Registrars are being pushed to fix this problem – friend John Levine has posted details on that here.

Okay, now the thing is, it is best to not click these links at all. It is possible for the landing pages to have rogue code that could infect your computer at that point alone. But if you don’t notice these small details or aren’t paying attention, you do, and that’s why phishing works!

The good news is that, today, major browser providers, Firefox and Internet Explorer all have built in Phishing filters. In my case, with Firefox, I click the link and here is what I get:

Phew! Thanks Firefox! I’ve known about phishing filters in browsers for a while, but this was the first time I’ve seen a phishing filter trigger live for me on a click. You can read more about these browsers phishing filter capabilities here:

Internet Explorer Phishing Filter
Firefox Phishing and Malware Protection

So, always scrutinize your email, pay attention to links, and make sure your are upgraded and protected with the latest browser technology. It is just too easy to be a bad guy these days, but the good guys continue to fight back.

The Many Words on Spam and Email

spamYears ago when I first began blogging, I thought I’d blog alot about spam. I’ve had plenty of opportunity, and have done minor posts here and there over the years – either here or on the Return Path blog, but never did keep the momentum going.

I guess the biggest reason I don’t blog more about spam still is that there are lots of other folks blogging about spam – and their doing a pretty darn good job, so what else could there be to add?

Here’s some of the spam blogs I follow:

The Spam Diaries by Ed Falk
Al Iverson’s Spam Resource
E-mail, tech policy and more by John Levine
SpamSuite.com
Terry Zinks Anti-spam Blog
Word to the Wise

There are a lot more than this – but these are the ones that I enjoy. Also, Planet Antispam, I think by Mr. Levine, seems to aggregate at least three of the above blogs if you want a one stop shop.

There are *many* blogs on E-mail marketing and deliverability, and while they may touch on spam, they are really focused on the better sides of email. Blogs I enjoy in this category include:

Return Path’s Online Resource Center for Email Marketers – (of course I’d list this!)
The Email Wars
Campaign Monitor Blog
Maximizing Deliverability
No man is an iland
Email Karma

As far as Internet Privacy blogs go, I haven’t found many, but here are a few I track:

BenEdelman.org
Chapell Blog
Privacy.org

I suppose I could blog more Privacy stuff, but face it, privacy stuff is dry and boring on the face of it. Yeah that’s a big part of my career, and although privacy online and data issues continue to get more and more relevant to ecommerce and business online, it is not a topic folks clamor to chat about.

I probably enjoy email deliverability blogs the least – maybe because I feel like I know all that stuff (and I probably don’t) or maybe it just feels like continue rehash of a lot of unchanging basics (don’t be an evil spammer or inadvertently behave like one). Maybe I’ve just worked in email WAY TOO LONG.

The anti-spam stuff is good – John Levine and Terry Zink hit good topics, are clear and succinct, and always have an interesting perspective that I usually don’t hear elsewhere.

So, all that said, I may try to pick up the pen a bit more on “spam” – maybe there is more to add on this nowadays. We’ll see.

RSSSubscribe to my feed now.

About Me

Not That You Asked