13:36 Spam evil | |
| As a general rule, employees of manufacturing companies said that they tend to exaggerate the real dangers that would improve their own sales. Of course, it happens, though, in general, among professionals such behavior is considered at least unethical. Say, the (ISC)? Code Of Ethics, which must be followed by professionals CISSP, said: "Let's reasonable, informed advice, do not make (from your buddy - approx. Interpreter) of unfounded anxiety or neobsnovannoy confidence." As already shown, specialists in information security is sometimes violate the canon of unreasoning anxiety. But unreasonable belief is not the lesser evil. Recently, Alexei Lukatsky began publishing a series of articles under the title "Myths and misconceptions of information security." Some of the "myths" related to the problem of spam. Mr Lukatskii decided to dispel the myth number 5 "Spam is bad" and the myth number 6 "Spam is detrimental." Of course, the name of Alexei Lukatsky as a man, a lot of writer and presenter on topics relating to information security, knowledge, and some of his opinion are fully trusted, it should be noted that, as a minimum, the articles call for comment. Other statements of Alexei and his other articles, may also require more careful consideration, but for them - at another time. So, spam. Writes Mr. Lukatsky: "Spam, as a threat to the stability of mail servers - it's like science fiction. The mail server was originally designed to receive e-mail and the extra couple of dozen messages on a user's situation will hardly change. Worsen if the stability of your regular mailbox at the house where you live, what you regularly throw back window advertising firms, sales, the next beauty salons and fitness centers?"Just yesterday I (AB) had stayed at work, helping to configure Postfix a small company. Here are the facts: on the mail server company has about 500 mailboxes around 5 GB (gigabayt!) retrieved messages recognized as spam, about 300 MB (6%!) Letter is omitted, as legitimate mail. The server always has more than 300 competing for incoming connections, taking the mail. Suppose the server would not have been installed spam filtering system, then the volume of mail traffic which reached to mailboxes of users would increase by 17 times. Hence, if the average user receives 10 legitimate messages per day, he would have to remove about 160 letters! In fact, possibly more, since the size of the letters are often stronger than the spammer is less than legitimate, because the latter often attached to a rather bulky office documents. It is clear that with this amount of junk traffic is inevitable accidental deletion of legitimate messages. Although Alex Lukatsky about it tend to sneer: "To call the random destruction of nearly one reason harmfulness of spam I'd language will never be turned. With the same success I accidentally delete an email they just watching or transferring between folders. In addition to combat accidental deletion of mails is easy to fight, restoring them from the Deleted Items folder »(« Deleted Items »)». I'd like to clarify with him, how he learns that accidentally deleted a legitimate email? Two weeks later, when he was reminded of this? And if a reminder he will remove the chance? Back to the facts. Here are some more: I get to 2000 spam messages a day. But support @ may receive tens of thousands. A colleague tells the statistics of a hosting: 5-6 million emails a day at the peak of 14 million, about 700 competing compounds, spam, 95%. Trifles? Further, Alex wrote: "Next problem (high demands on system resources) is also largely artificially. Spam is not stored for a long time - users of it is removed as quickly as they get."Facts (does not it seem to the reader that we have become like« Get the facts »Microsoft?:) Hope not): for mail servers such as Exchange'a, where messages are stored on the server side, its volume multiplied the number of users, which in reality does not destroy the letters so often such little things are not so noticeable. In our example, with a small company, each user gets about 10 MB of mail per day. Retired employee on vacation for 2 weeks - 100 MB disk on the mail server is busy. 500 users - is approximately 2000 weeks vacation per year, or 38 of not having any employees in any week, or 2 GB of space wasted on spam at the mail server. If you look at the architecture of the storage subsystem messages in Exchange, it becomes clear that the removal of an email message the user does not immediately lead for freeing disk space your mail server. A large number of short messages such as spam, delete manually, have a negative impact both on disk space requirements, and server performance. Different story - public services with thousands of users, including low active, like Mail.ru. Of course, everyone has a quota, but we all know that spam-free, these quotas could be more. At 10-20. "Therefore, the remaining 3 / 4 hard drive, which allegedly spent on the maintenance of the spammers, not entirely untrue. Processor, of course, is loaded with the increasing number of email messages, but to call it one of the reasons for installing anti-spam would be cunning. If we take this very reason, it is much more efficient processor upgrade price is measured three or four hundred dollars (for example, the price of Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 is about 8,200 rubles, according to price.ru), than to put an anti-spam solution, not to mention the fact that the installation of anti-spam software system will load the CPU even more, because In addition to the same spam will still be engaged in its intellectual processing."Alex will be helpful to know that the e-mail servers are almost always limited resources on the input-output (both disk and network), rather than computing power. In addition, the process of receiving mail is always mnogopotochen and easily parallelized, so that the power of a single processor is not important. Finally, as seen from the above example, ends with a channel for this are not buying a new processor, and a second server. It's not even expensive in itself, it runs out of rack space, power supply and cooling capacity. Show how a good server, Alexei, at least the same Beeline, that he never said "buy a new processor." Further, Alexei following threats to write more articles about spam and a long paragraph about support. Yes, he's right, abuse @ read a little, but that does not mean that mail.ru does not work support. On the contrary, it means that the user has a great chance of not getting to it as info @, abuse @, support @, and other common contacts of the company buried under the debris flows. Alex says that he receives about 100 letters a day and on this basis concludes that spam is not needed. In this case, he cites the published figures for Beeline, where the amount of spam is estimated at $ 393,750. Yes, it's a little bit and Beeline no-spam will survive, but why should he survive without him? Mentioned in the article "small bank" is also, of course, survive without anti-spam, this does not argue, even sales managers. But it will survive, as the facts tell us that they will receive an order of magnitude greater than the person gets Alex to your inbox. Alex wrote: "Interesting data leads the Korean Information Security Agency (Korean Information Security Agency, KISA). If in 2002 the number of mobile spam mailings was 5 times lower than that of traditional e-mail spam, in 2003 the difference was almost imperceptible (42,123 against 36,013 in favor of the usual spam). And for the first 9 months of 2004, mobile spam has exceeded 3 times the number of mail pieces (244,151 vs. 78,063)."Elena Bondarenko, a leading spam analyst at Kaspersky Lab, commented that information:" the data in 2003 are outdated and have no right to be used for agumentatsii. Ironport company released results of its monitoring the amount of spam: spam volume in 2008 was twice the 2007 level and reached the level of 200 billion messages per month. Although the November 11, 2008 Spam levels decreased after disconnection spammer company McColo, experts believe he will return to previous levels anytime soon. "And now look at the other side of the coin. According to research company Mirapoint and the Radicati Group, conducted in 2005, and during which surveyed nearly 800 users, including 34% of business users and consumers 66%, 11% of users, despite his dislike for spam, the practice of buying products and services for spam advertising. And now look at all the same on the actual data, rather than on data three years ago: "the link advertised in spam, passed 0.00303% 0.00457% and 0.00680% of users, and the goods bought 0.0000081% , 0.000378% and 0.000561%. For clarity - sent 347 million messages, delivered 82 million, the site logged 10,000 users have bought goods and 28 other people. "All the people who participated in the writing of this text are willing to talk about their experiences, positions, if somebody does this zahochetsya.Andrey Bondarenko Vladimir Ivanov | |
|
| |
| Total comments: 0 | |