[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Recent spam increase



celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <kamaraju@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 October 2006 11:18, celejar wrote:
> > > On 10/27/06, Kamaraju Kusumanchi <kamaraju@bluebottle.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
> spammer).

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).

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)



Reply to: