Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Corporate Spam Defense

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Corporate Spam Defense"— Presentation transcript:

1 Corporate Spam Defense
Random Driver Gilles Bouyer Oleg Kipnis Hang Li Samar Patel Ashwin Shanmugasundaram

2 Agenda Solutions Proposed solution Appliances – Server Side Software
Pros and Cons Cloud Based Solution End User Software Methods used Legal and Other Solutions Proposed solution Strength/ Weaknesses Cost / Implementation Conclusion - Questions

3 Problem Statement Most enterprise users are exposed to spam, which means they are exposed to more threats. Spam is an issue affecting all industrial sectors, government and education. While missing an due to a false positive when it comes to personal use might not seem like a big deal, it is important for the enterprise to be cautious on optimizing communication to reach better business results. SPAM is an attack on authenticity with the following characteristics: 70.7% of all traffic is Spam 2.3% of all s contain malicious attachments 1.8% – 3% of spam makes it through spam filters Only 1 in 25,000 spam needs to be opened to be profitable for spammers Costs 20 billion dollars annually We will review the defense mechanisms and recommend a solution to this problem.

4 Anti Spam Appliances Anti-spam appliances are hardware-based solutions integrated with on-board anti-spam software and are normally driven by an operating system optimized for spam filtering They are deployed at the gateway or in front of the mail server Appliances provide a solution that does not require configuration of the existing mail server, and can be more effective and of higher performance than a software solution installed on the mail server Examples: Barracuda, SpamTitan, Fortinet, Cisco Ironport How does Barracuda work? All incoming mail is screened according to the rules of the Barracuda device and by the rules that are manually created Non spam messages will go directly to inbox folder Messages that are suspected as being spam are informed by a Spam Quarantine

5 Server Side Software Anti-spam software is either installed on the mail server itself or in front of mail server. The purpose of this software is to remove the burden of filtering from the server. Examples: Bogofilter- Used by a MTA to classify messages as they are received from the sending SMTP server. Bogofilter examines tokens in the message body and header to calculate a probability score that a new message is spam SpamAssassin- It can be run as a standalone application on server or as a subprogram of another application MailwasherEnterprise- It works as a proxy, sits in front of mail server blocking and denying spam from getting to mail server and users POPFile- Typically it is used to filter spam mail. It can also be used to sort mail into other user defined "buckets" or categories

6 PROs and CONs Antispam Appliances Server Side Software PROs CONs
High reliability that works out of the box Operating system and application software is pre-loaded and configured Stable OS guarantees less downtime Updates itself automatically with no user intervention Upfront costs If the hardware fails, it requires a warranty or an upfront cost to fix/replace Server Side Software PROs CONs Customized filters which can be personalized according to individual user requirement Whitelisting capabilities Quarantines spam mails which are kept for a certain duration Difficult to install Software updates can cause compatibility issues with other software on the system Requires updating the server OS with the latest patches

7 Cloud based Solutions Anti Spam Cloud based solutions enable to filter on content and authenticity outside the LAN and provide only legitimate s to the organization. Sample of Providers: eluna $49/year McAffee SaaS and Web security Message Labs Sophos Untangle Google Apps Example of incoming mail:

8 PROs and CONs PROs CONs Does not slow down or interfere with program on workstation No need to update virus definition Temporary store mail if LAN issues Built in white / gray / black lists Subscription based (# $30/user/year) Security of the cloud

9 End User Software Clients – Most Clients have built in basic spam filter Outlook uses Whitelists/Blacklists and Word Blocking Add-ons to Clients – Add more powerful spam filtering to Clients Spam Reader - Uses Bayesian filtering and Whitelist/Blacklist Vircom - Uses Bayesian filtering Stand Alone Software – Works with clients and web mail Spamhilataor– Uses combination of Word Blocking, Bayesian filtering and user defined lists Mailwasher – Uses combination of Word Blocking, Bayesian filtering and user defined lists

10 Pros and Cons Pros Cons Filters can easily be customized for individual user Fewer false positives Blocked and filtered still reaches the mail server Difficult for admins to configure for each user Scalability

11 Methods Outbound filters using Transparent SMTP proxy
SMTP Proxies are inserted between sending mail servers on a local network, and the receiving servers on the Internet in order to filter outgoing spam DNS based Blacklists Servers maintain a list of IP addresses of via the DNS to reject from those sources Checksum based filtering Spam messages sent in bulk are identical except for few changes in content. Checksum based filters determine checksum and compare with database which stores checksum values of spam messages Statistical content filtering (Bayesian Filtering) Users mark messages as spam or non-spam and the filter learns from user judgments Pattern Detection Monitors a large database of messages worldwide to detect spam patterns

12 Methods Honey Pots MTA which gives the appearance of being an open mail relay, or a TCP/IP proxy server which gives the appearance of being an open proxy is setup to detect spammers who probe systems for open relays/proxies Authentication and reputation Allow from servers that have been authenticated as senders of legitimate Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting and Conformance (DMARC) A DMARC policy allows a sender to indicate that their s are protected by SPF and/or DKIM, and tells a receiver what to do if neither of those authentication methods passes SPF DKIM

13 Sender Policy Framework
Sender Policy Framework (SPF): an anti-spam approach in which the Internet domain of an sender can be authenticated for that sender, thereby discouraging spam mailers, who routinely disguise the origin of their .

14 DomainKeys Identified Mail
DKIM is a specification for cryptographically signing messages. A signing domain (eg: Gmail) claims responsibility for the by adding a DKIM-Signature header field to message’s header. The verifier recovers the signer's public key using the DNS, and then verifies that the signature matches the actual message's content. The receiving SMTP server uses the domain name and the selector to perform a DNS lookup.

15 DKIM workflow 4 5 6 3 7 2 1 Sending Servers
Message generated by a user is transmitted into the Message Handling Service(MHS) to an Mail Submission Agent (MSA) that is within user’s administrative domain. MSA accepts the message submitted by an user and enforces the policies of the hosting domain and the requirements of Internet standards. The domain owner generates a public/private key pair to be used for signing outgoing messages. The default signing algorithm is RSA with SHA-256. The public key is published in a DNS TXT record, and the private key is made available to the DKIM-enabled outbound server. When an is sent by an authorized user of the server, the server uses the stored private key to generate a digital signature of the message, which is inserted in the message as a header, and the is sent as normal Receiving Servers 5. The signed message then passes through the Internet via Message Transfer Agents (MTAs). Relaying is performed by a sequence of MTAs until the message reaches a destination Mail Delivery Agent (MDA) 6. At the destination, the MDA extracts the signature and claimed From: domain from the heade 7. The public key is retrieved from the DNS system for the claimed From: domain. The public key is used by the MDA to verify the signature before passing the message on to the destination client 1

16 Other Current Solutions
End user actions Whitelisting : Reject everything except the addresses accepted one by one Spam Poisoning: Restrict the distribution of one’s address to only trusted parties, effectively hiding from spammer. (eg. Collaborative filtering: detect messages being sent to large number of recipients Ideas under consideration: Micropayment: Charging 1cent per sent. If answer remove the charge. Internet Mail 2000: “Internet 2000”  mail messages are stored by the sender. The receiver is pulling his(her) message from the sender server.

17 Existing SPAM legislations: http://en. wikipedia
Country Legislation Argentina Personal Data Protection Act (2000) Australia Spam Act 2003 Austria Austrian Telecommunications Act 1997 Belgium Loi du 11 mars 2003 Canada Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act 2000 (PIPEDA) Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act 2010 China Regulations on Internet Services - Death penalty risked by spammers Cyprus Regulation of Electronic Communications and Postal Services Law of 2004 Czech Republic Act No. 480/2004 Coll., on Certain Information Society Services Denmark Danish marketing practices act European Union Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications Finland Act on Data Protection in Electronic Communications (516/2004) France Loi informatique et libertee Jan Germany Gesetz gegen Unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG) ("Act against Unfair Competition") Hong Kong Unsolicited Electronic Messaging Ordinance Hungary Act CVIII of 2001 on Electronic Commerce Indonesia Undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronic (ITE) (Internet Law) Ireland European Communities (Electronic Communications Networks and Services) (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 2003 Israel Communications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasting), 1982 (Amendment 2008) Italy Data Protection Code (Legislative Decree no. 196/2003) Japan The Law on Regulation of Transmission of Specified Electronic Mail Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Malta Data Protection Act (CAP 440) Netherlands Dutch Telecommunications Act New Zealand Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 Pakistan Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance 2007 Singapore Spam Control Act 2007 South Africa Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, 2002 Consumer Protection Act, 2008 South Korea Act on Promotion of Information and Communication and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection of Spain Act 34/2002 of 11 July on Information Society Services and Electronic Commerce Sweden Marknadsföringslagen (1995:450) Swedish Marketing Act United Kingdom Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 United States Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) None Brazil, India, Mexico, Russia

18 Examples of penalties UK Nov 2012 Christopher Niebel and Gary McNeish fined $700,000 sending million SMS Netherlands Oct 2012 Companeo fined 100,000 €, 15 Million between 2009 and 2011  without the consent of the recipients %E2%82%AC-damende-pour-lenvoi- de-spams France One man fined 22,000 € 1 Million SPAMs. +1,000 € per new SPAM. CASL: Canada Anti Spam Legislation Value Click has settled charges today with the Federal Trade Commission, netting the FTC $2.9 million in civil penalties. Failure to disclose that users must first sign up for other offers (ones that cost them money) before collecting the prize. [9:26:06 PM] Samar Patel: Australian Communication and Media Authority: Spam Act regulates the sending of commercial electronic messages (CEMs) and prohibits the sending of these messages except in certain limited circumstances. , MMS, SMS. Oct 9th 2013: Grays has become the latest online retailer to get caught ing people without providing an unsubscribe button, and the company has paid AU$165,000 for the mistake. Russia: The biggest spammer was found dead in his apartment.

19 PROs and CONs PROs CONs Several Countries have legislation
Organization are being fined Majority of the countries do not have legislation Fines against individuals rarely work. Either too high or too low Lack of identification Hard to have legislation keep up with technology Legislators are not tech savvy

20 Proposed Solution

21 Proposed Solution Gmail Spam filter
Gmail spam filters use combination of statistical filtering, content filtering and authentication methods like SPF and DKIM to filter spam Users can train system by marking as spam or not spam Administrators can set up whitelists/graylists/blacklists Scans all attachments for viruses before reaching the user Less than 1% of in the inbox reported as spam (average is between 1.8% and 3%) Less than 1% of falsely marked as spam

22 Cost & Implementation Cost - $50/user/year
. Cost - $50/user/year Includes other services and not just spam protection Implementation - Feasibility Easy to migrate from Exchange server Users can continue using current client like outlook or use web mail Can be implemented in 90 days for large enterprise(>750 users), in 4 weeks for medium businesses and within 1 hour for a small business Statistics: Gmail has no more than 1% of the enterprise market, but it has close to 50% of the market for enterprise cloud (2011 Gartner)  39% of small companies <50p use Gmail 20% of large companies use Gmail

23 Strength and Weaknesses
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES Uses multiple techniques to block spam includes DMARC Google acquired Postini (2007) that made them superior. Less than 1% spam (Avg. 1.8% - 3%) Google Apps is better suited for heterogeneous environments Easy to implement Automatic updated and easy to configure by users and administrators Includes complete productivity suites in the cost of subscription Trusting data to cloud provider Legal concern over privacy of data Expensive if only looking for anti spam solution and not any other functionality Solution is as good as the capacity of Spammer to find a new exploit

24 Adopters

25 Conclusion - Questions
While there are no perfect solutions to stop all SPAM, the protection mechanisms can be very efficient. This does not solve the generation of 70% traffic that weight on the internet. The impetus for change is likely to be given by governments requesting ISP to find solutions. Once ISP find the value of non spam network and avoid the inherent threats posed by these messages, they will seriously work on the issue and find solution.

26 Backup Slides Additional Material

27 Sender Policy Framework
. More specificly


29 eMail accounts and Traffic – Current and Projection

Download ppt "Corporate Spam Defense"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google