LogSat Software

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   OK, I'm pretty much convinced there is a spammer mole on this forum. The spam image test that SF does works great as long as you have the width & length set correctly. What a $%#&@^# spammer is doing is stringing together a whole bunch of small images that contain text and making it appear as one page. Each individual image is something like 463 x 62 pixels. It seems this is being done to get around the min&max that the image test defaults to.
Seems like a lot of work but it was slipping past SF until I finaly looked at the actual source.
Set my min to 5 so if they want to keep stringing all that text together they're welcome to it. 
Below is what it looks like:

Edited by WebGuyz

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
WebGuyz Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 09 May 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 348	Post Options Post Reply Quote WebGuyz Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Topic: Spammer Spys? Posted: 09 June 2006 at 12:34pm
	OK, I'm pretty much convinced there is a spammer mole on this forum. The spam image test that SF does works great as long as you have the width & length set correctly. What a $%#&@^# spammer is doing is stringing together a whole bunch of small images that contain text and making it appear as one page. Each individual image is something like 463 x 62 pixels. It seems this is being done to get around the min&max that the image test defaults to. Seems like a lot of work but it was slipping past SF until I finaly looked at the actual source. Set my min to 5 so if they want to keep stringing all that text together they're welcome to it. Below is what it looks like: Edited by WebGuyz
	http://www.webguyz.net

Marco Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 137	Post Options Post Reply Quote Marco Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 12 June 2006 at 10:54am
	I have also mentioned this a few times, spammers can read and learn from this open forum. They can also set up a testbed for their spam attacks using the free SF version. Not good... I urge you Roberto, to set up a secret url with a forum that is password protected, and send all of your registered users the url, plus the access PW. Spamfilter ISP is getting more and more powerfull, and (i assume) more and more followers. As such its becoming more and more of a 'threat' to spammers. Edited by Marco
	Anyone who is capable of getting himself made president, should on no account be allowed to do the job. D.Adams

Thing Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 30 September 2005 Status: Offline Points: 10	Post Options Post Reply Quote Thing Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 12 June 2006 at 2:25pm
	You know at one point, back in the earlier release of SpamFilterISP this forum did exist. Actually I just turned it off. There was very little support. Actually Desperado was one of the only ones supporting it. If I could get the support I wouldn't mind starting it up once more. That is of course it is something that will be used. Edited by Thing

Desperado Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 27 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1143	Post Options Post Reply Quote Desperado Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 12 June 2006 at 8:35pm
	The problem I had with the "Private" forum was the verification process. However, I too, feel that it may be time to either start up a privete, PW protected forum or somehow PW protect some of the post on this forum. As was mentioned in a previous post, I am also starting to get somewhat paranoid and am thinking that there are Spam Fourm "Spys". and while I am on the paranoia track, I have started to get spam that is using Yahoo's sender id and am getting more and more crap because I still refuse to block SPF "Soft Fails".
	The Desperado Dan Seligmann. Work: http://www.mags.net Personal: http://www.desperado.com

lyndonje Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 31 January 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 192	Post Options Post Reply Quote lyndonje Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 13 June 2006 at 8:23am
	I've noticed the same with the images, however the ones I've received are not only broken into rows like the part you pasted above, but smaller square boxes to create a page/grid.

lyndonje Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 31 January 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 192	Post Options Post Reply Quote lyndonje Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 14 June 2006 at 10:08am
	I've just had a thought... would is be possible to add an additional feature in SF whereby you can reject emails based on a maximum number of embedded images?

Marco Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 137	Post Options Post Reply Quote Marco Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 14 June 2006 at 11:04am
	sounds like a good idea to me... as long as it's only for embedded images, not the attached ones. had another thought as well: releasing a free trial version with SFDB support could be unwisee, bad folks corrupting the sfdb etc etc. Edited by Marco
	Anyone who is capable of getting himself made president, should on no account be allowed to do the job. D.Adams

Marco Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: Netherlands Status: Offline Points: 137	Post Options Post Reply Quote Marco Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 14 June 2006 at 11:16am
	anbother brainwave: anyone who is running SF is using a static IP(range) right? Roberto knows his customers, and their IP's, simply denying acess to the forum unless your ip is allowed might sove the password issues Dan spoke of. Not sure, but that might also prevent the google-monster to look in on what's said. Forgive me if i'm wrong Edited by Marco
	Anyone who is capable of getting himself made president, should on no account be allowed to do the job. D.Adams

lyndonje Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 31 January 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 192	Post Options Post Reply Quote lyndonje Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 14 June 2006 at 11:16am
	Yes it was only embedded images I was thinking of...

lyndonje Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Senior Member Joined: 31 January 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 192	Post Options Post Reply Quote lyndonje Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 14 June 2006 at 11:20am
	Genuine SF users however may not browser from the same IP as their server - our proxy server has a different IP to that of our SF server. Plus I may want to read forum postings from home or other places, and restricting by IP would prevent me from doing this.

MartinC Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 29 July 2005 Status: Offline Points: 25	Post Options Post Reply Quote MartinC Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 23 June 2006 at 6:44am
	definitely agree that this is worth doing. some sort of registration or tightening up of how people can read this forum. (even down to a range would be a start). maybe a sub forum for registered users and their own topics? I've mentioned in another thread that searching on google for specific forum topics on google does have the logsat site as top. search for "blocking src=cid" for example

LogSat Software

Site Navigation[Skip]

Spam Filter ISP Support Forum

Spammer Spys?