F more on [Technical] Lycos gets into the denial-of-service attack business

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () gmail com>
Date: November 29, 2004 11:00:53 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] [Technical] Lycos gets into the denial-of-service 
attack business
Reply-To: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () gmail com>

Aren't the people who casually download screen savers roughly the same
people who casually download other stuff that turns their computers
into zombies?

If Lycos wants to distribute a screen saver that fights spam, why
don't they concentrate on a screensaver that de-zombifies the
computers to which it is downloaded? Depriving spammers of the
bandwidth they're getting from zombies should have the same effect on
spam with reducton instead of increase in useless IP traffic.

While they're at it, they could add virus protection.

Charity isn't the only thing that begins at home.

Mary


On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:43:07 -0500, David Farber <dave () farber net> 
wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
> Date: November 29, 2004 9:56:33 AM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Lycos gets into the denial-of-service attack business
>
>        Lycos screensaver to blitz spam servers
>        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/26/lycos_europe_spam_blitz/
>
> reads in part:
>
>        "Lycos Europe has started to distribute a special screensaver
>        in a controversial bid to battle spam. The program - titled
>        Make Love Not Spam, and available for Windows and the Mac OS -
>        sends a request to view a spam source site. When a large number
>        of screensavers send their requests at the same time the spam
>        web page becomes overloaded and slow."
>
>        [...]
>
>        "A spokesman for Lycos in Germany told The Register he
>        believed that the tool could generate 3.4MB in traffic on a
>        daily basis. When 10m screensavers are downloaded and used, the
>        numbers quickly add up, to 33TB of 'useless' IP traffic"
>
> It's hard to know where to even begin trying to explain how terribly
> misguided this is, so I'll just confine myself to noting that trying
> to win a bandwidth contest with spammers -- who have an unlimited 
> supply
> of it at zero cost -- reflects a stunning ignorance of reality.
>
> ---Rsk
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as mary.shaw () gmail com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: 
> http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/