Re: Echo

[Martin Hannigan <hannigan () fugawi net>]

I'm not sure why this is such a worry since a lot of these
responders have been working for over a decade, and they've
all been just fine operating the way they are.

-M


On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Brad Knowles wrote:

> At 9:43 PM +0200 2002/08/16, Karsten W. Rohrbach wrote:
>
> >  Brad Knowles(brad.knowles () skynet be)@2002.08.16 19:48:10 +0000:
> > >    What kinds of anti-abuse protection methods have people used for
> > >  "echo" accounts that they have set up?
> >
> >  - scoreboard: one mail from one source addres in one minute time window
>
>       Yeah, but then abusers could easily generate elephantine
> quantities of messages, simply by randomly generating return
> addresses (if they wanted to DoS you or your network), or by randomly
> generating the user portion of return addresses (if they wanted to
> abuse you to DoS someone else).  If they know that there are multiple
> domains handled by the same servers, they could randomly generate
> addresses within that set of domains.
>
> >  - gnupg: mail needs to be signed to fire a return mail. key of the
> >    signer must belong to the robot's gpg trust web.
>
>       Ooh, so in order to use the echo server, they have to send a PGP
> signed message?  Wow, that's pretty expensive.  That sounds like a
> really excellent way to DoS your server.
>
>
>       Thanks for sharing!
>
> --
> Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles () skynet 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(+++)