Re: Recent spam increase
celejar <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 October 2006 11:18, celejar wrote:
> > > On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > There is a loophole in the above argument. Some of the ISPs charge by the
> > > > amount of traffic an individual user uses. If a spammer uses a zombie
> > > > operation and starts sending spam from these zombie machines, it
> > > > increases the net amount of bandwidth the user uses, resulting in higher
> > > > internet bills, and hence more income for the ISP. So shutting down the
> > > > zombie computers will infact result in reduction of revenues for ISPs.
> > >
> > > Are you assuming that the zombied machines are also the ISP's customers?
> > >
> > > Celejar
> > I am not sure I understood your question completely. Say I buy internet
> > service from ISP X which charges $Y per GB of traffic used. Say my machine
> > has been hacked and is sending spam. Now I have to pay more money to the ISP
> > since I will be using more bandwidth than I otherwise would have. In this
> > case, I (the ISP customer) own the 'zombied' machine. Does that answer your
> > question?
> > raju
> I didn't realize that you were referring to the situation where the
> zombied machine's (rather than the spammers) ISP charges by bandwidth.
> In this case, though, the customers could join as plaintiffs (when
> they learn that their ISP bills have been inflated by the zombier
Only if they can find the cracker. But they might still realize how
important security is, which most Windows users don't have a clue
about (AFAIK most zombie machines are running unprotected Windows).
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.