Re: Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- From: ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Moe Trin)
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:55:55 -0600
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
<g7Klf.609584$_o.81228@attbi_s71>, Mark wrote:
>I guess my point really was, why would they even bother sending to those
>ports? I've never heard of windows messenger listening on those ports
>so why waste the packets? (I know, packets are cheap but...) Unless
>they are looking for the presence of some other process (malware?)
>listening on those ports.
I have no idea either. My first guess would be that someone fumble-fingered
the script. An even wilder guess would be that someone was looking for
live systems. Many people seem to run their "personal firewalls" on a
"block this port" mode, rather than "accept this and that, and default
reject/drop everything else", so sending packets to an unexpected port
might provoke a reply. But then, while costs are very low, adding two more
ports to the list of six to ten is going to increase the cost by a
significant percentage. Last month, I was seeing about 1000 messenger
spams a day, averaging around 470 octets. If you project that across a
/16, that's 30 gigabytes a day, or about 360 kilobytes/second. That's an
significant chunk of someone's bandwidth.
>Is anyone aware of anything, I sure can't find anything.
Same here.
Old guy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- From: Mark
- Re: Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- References:
- Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- From: Mark
- Re: Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- From: Mark
- Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- Prev by Date: Re: anonymous surfing
- Next by Date: Re: Blocking Yahoo Messenger With Firewall??
- Previous by thread: Re: Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- Next by thread: Re: Messenger spam to UDP 4081 and 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|