Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#2I read these numbers, and I look at my bandwidth costs at my data center, and I think, "wow, it sure is fortunate that so much excess backbone capacity ended up being build in the dot com era."
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#3I read these numbers, and I look at my bandwidth costs at my data center, and I think, "wow, it sure is fortunate that so much excess backbone capacity ended up being build in the dot com era."
> so much excess backbone capacity
Do spam emails really consume that much bandwidth? I don't see long texts besides those from that nice Nigerian Minister...
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#4I read these numbers, and I look at my bandwidth costs at my data center, and I think, "wow, it sure is fortunate that so much excess backbone capacity ended up being build in the dot com era."
> so much excess backbone capacity Do spam emails really consume that much bandwidth? I don't see long texts besides those from that nice Nigerian Minister...
85-97% of all email is spam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spam#Statistics_and_esti... It cost the USA $21B in 2004, probably more than double that last year. Edit: it was double that by 2009 http://email-museum.com/2009/01/28/cost-of-spam-is-flattenin...
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#5Didnt this happen not so long ago and it only took a few months for the levels to go back up again?
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#6I read these numbers, and I look at my bandwidth costs at my data center, and I think, "wow, it sure is fortunate that so much excess backbone capacity ended up being build in the dot com era."
> so much excess backbone capacity Do spam emails really consume that much bandwidth? I don't see long texts besides those from that nice Nigerian Minister...
An average email is roughly 75kb[1]. That same 75kb, plus TCP overhead, has to touch every single email server between you and the destination (wasn't able to find anything that suggested how many hops are average).
Some random googling specifies a number around 175 billion for number of spams sent per day.
That works out to an average of 12,223 terabytes per day - of just spam. Now multiply that by the number of hops that each message take. Assuming each message only has to touch one intermediary server between source and destination, that's still 3.6 petabytes.
[1] http://email.about.com/od/emailstatistics/f/What_is_the_Aver...
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#7Original post - http://blog.fireeye.com/research/2012/07/grum-botnet-no-long...
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#8I never understood why not the upstreams of "bulletproof hosts" simply disconnect / de-peer the entire AS until they clean up their act? Why won't their BGP neighbors take action?
If you can't get ScumBagISP-A to clean up their act, go to ScumBagISP-Upstream-B, and then the next hop ScumBagISP-Upstream-Nexthop-C, and the next, until you find a responsible carrier who can de-peer?
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#9Why don't botnet operators use a peer-to-peer style command centers? According to the original article on the FireEye blog, the network was taken down with only "three days of effort."
Re: Botnet Responsible for 18% of World’s Spam Knocked Offline
#10I never understood why not the upstreams of "bulletproof hosts" simply disconnect / de-peer the entire AS until they clean up their act? Why won't their BGP neighbors take action? If you can't get ScumBagISP-A to clean up their act, go to ScumBagISP-Upstream-B, and then the next hop ScumBagISP-Upstream-Nexthop-C, and the next, until you find a responsible carrier who can de-peer?
ISPs have very complicated sharing agreements in place when it comes to BGP. At BGP level, contracts take precedence over technology.