Spam Over Internet Telephony (SPIT) to Come?

grub writes "According to this article on NewScientist.com 'Spam and spim - spam by instant messenger -- are about to be joined by "spit" - spam over internet telephony' Yup, spam via VoIP."

Hah!

[metlin (258108)]

Aptly named SPIT, I see! ;-)

Way to go.

Re:Hah!

[by Anonymous Coward]

What's next? SPam over Engineering Resource Management systems? I think we need some new terminology!

Re:Hah!

[Volmarias (705460)]

I have to say, this may end up turning out as a blessing in disguise. It's bad enough that most people have to deal with spam, but when you can effectively completely fuck a businesses telephony over anonymously and with little trouble, you'll end up seeing legislation. I guarentee you that.

I'd love to see a bayesian filter for voice data.

Re:Hah!

[robbyjo (315601)]

Yeah and the spam host will be called Spam Host for Internet Telephony.

Sorry, can't help it... :P

Why so surprised?

[Kenja (541830)]

So long as enough people are responding to spam to make it profitable, if you build it they will spam it.

Re:Why so surprised?

[oGMo (379)]

So long as enough people are responding to spam to make it profitable, if you build it they will spam it.

I don't think that's how it works. I don't think anyone responds to your typical spam; rather, they harvest working emails and sell those to less-than-scrupulous companies. That's where the real profits are, so it doesn't matter if people respond or not.

I could be wrong though.

Re:Why so surprised?

[quigonn (80360)]

The response rates for spam mails are extremely low, but it's still more profitable than "traditional" commercials and ads, which means you get the same amount of customers with less investments. AFAICR, there's been a study about that about a year ago, but I can't find any link or reference anymore... :-/

Re:Why so surprised?

[Red Alastor (742410)]

It's more profitable to sell by spam if you don't have a real product.

Re:Why so surprised?

[TheOtherChimeraTwin (697085)]

And I think it works like this: the spammers sell spamming services to companies who think spam is a good way to sell services. As long as the spammers can sell services to somebody (even if doesn't work very well), there will be spam.

Hint to spammers: You don't actually have to send out the spam, just say you do and pocket the money. Everyone will be happier. (Including your clients who mostly get a blackeye and aggrevation out of your services.)

Re:Why so surprised?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Real spammers get paid based upon click through/purchase rate. There is money to be made unfortunetly.

Re:Why so surprised?

[garcia (6573)]

I don't see the difference between this and what we have already. At least with VoIP we can have software install to ignore most of it.

Basically whitelist everyone you know. If you don't know them they get forwarded to voicemail and you can check their phone number before you listen to their message.

Easy enough to block them. If they have no caller ID information auto-block.

Re:Why so surprised?

[DarkHelmet (120004)]

I wonder what would happen if it became a crime to respond to spam...

Making it a crime to BE scammed is almost funny in my book.

Re:Why so surprised?

[jcr (53032)]

First, define "respond". A few years ago, I "responded" to spammers a *lot*, but these days they don't include 800 numbers where I can provide them with my assessment of their character flaws.

-jcr

SPAM the SPAMMERS

[WhiteDeath (737946)]

I've often wondered what would happen if EVERYONE allocated just 5 minutes per day to "responding" to spam... heck we spend that long deleting the stuff or updating mail filters anyway.

Just pick a couple of spams and:

- View the web site

- If you can find an email address or contact form for the seller, abuse it. (do not use your own email address if possible)

- If you can find a free-call number, ring it - and keep them busy as long as you feel the need to - the company is paying for your call.

- Request

No surprise, but let's get some tools

[Frater 219 (1455)]

Email systems developers have come up with a number of tools to reject email abuse:

• Local access lists. Every serious SMTP MTA supports access control based on IP address, reverse DNS, attested address (HELO), and so forth.
• DNSBLs and other sorts of published blocklists. A DNSBL is nothing but a site's IP-address access list, published over the DNS so that others can use it.
• Protocol enforcement techniques such as greylisting [greylisting.org]. Greylisting tests that the sending host is willing to make the effort of retransmitting, as required by the protocol.
• Content filtering. Even a server-side antivirus program is a content filter; much more so the statistical filters often used today.
• Multi-site statistical tools. Vernon Schryver's DCC and Vipul's Razor come to mind.
• Traffic limiting. ISPs can restrict the number of SMTP messages a host can send per day or hour.

Many of these techniques can be adapted to VoIP systems. I am surprised that SER [iptel.org] and Asterisk [asterisk.org] do not already support DNSBLs -- even if there is no call for them yet, we will certainly need published lists of abusive hosts or networks within a few years.

The flexibility with which one can express access restrictions is an important part of any system's security. My workplace is just starting a VoIP deployment. I want to be able to say things like:

• No single outside host may make calls to more than 50 different destinations in a day.
• No host may send more than ten pending SIP invites at any time. (Prevent predictive dialing!)
• No host may send SIP IMs to more than 20 addresses in the same minute.
• After an inbound call is completed, the recipient can dial *666 on our Asterisk PBX to report it as an abusive call. If five different addresses report abusive calls from the same originator, that originator is flagged and blocked for 24 hours.

Publicly behead spammers.

[by Anonymous Coward]

You know it makes sense.

Re:Publicly behead spammers.

[hasdikarlsam (414514)]

That would just cause more spam, you realize.

"S33 A sPamner beh3aded! Your credit card here!"

Names for tools?

[ackthpt (218170)]

Personal Telephoney Objectionable Object Immediate Eradication

SPam Eradication Wirelessly

Highly Unwanted Reduction Logic

Now Hear This....

[EodLabs (722242)]

Not even blind people are safe from SPAM now....

Re:Now Hear This....

[privaria (583781)]

From what I've read, blind people are more impacted by plain ol' email spam than anyone. It takes a lot more time for them to listen for a screen reader start reciting off the latest anatomical enlargement offer than it does for a sighted person from scanning the text and just hitting "delete."

As somebody once said...

[quigonn (80360)]

When a media is used to send spam to other people it is alive and well. When it is used to transport pr0n it will have a prospective future.

Its been said but it needs to be said again...

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to become rich when I invent a way to stab people in the face over the internet.

At least

[Apreche (239272)]

At least with this one type of spam I know that the spammer is paying big bugs in bandwith to make it work. Just maybe we'll be lucky and it will turn out that voip spam isn't profitable and we will be free of it.

Re:At least

[lexarius (560925)]

Someone will be paying for lots of bandwidth, but the SPITers won't be paying most of it. Viruses, trojans and zombies oh my!

Re:At least

[iamatlas (597477)]

At least with this one type of spam I know that the spammer is paying big bugs in bandwith to make it work.

Hold yer horses there Mr Rose-Colored Glasses: Spamers aren't exactly known for their ethical consuption of paid-for-out-of-pocket bandwidth. I'm sure it would be trivial to turn zombied computers into SPIT-bots.

Re:At least

[jcr (53032)]

At least with this one type of spam I know that the spammer is paying big bugs in bandwith to make it work.

No, all the poor shmoes who have zombified PC's will be paying for the bandwidth.

-jcr

For the short term

[metalhed77 (250273)]

Hmm, that may be true in the short term, but think long term. One could also say that the operating costs prevented conventional telephones from become uber-spamming machines. However, the telephone is evolving and that is no longer true. Bandwidth prices will simply continue to drop. The day will come where a VoIP call will be as insignificant as an email in cost.

Screening calls?

[October_30th (531777)]

I already screen my cellphone calls. If the caller ID is "unknown" (which is the case for most telemarketers) or if it is a foreign number that I don't recognize, I won't answer it.

If telemarketers leaving voice mail becomes a problem, I'm sure that's quickly addressed by the service provider (=store no voice mail from abroad or from unknown numbers).

Might not work for much longer

[Fruny (194844)]

Remember these stories about caller ID spoofing?

* Caller ID Falsification Service [slashdot.org]
* Caller ID Spoofing Firm Gets Death Threats [slashdot.org]

I'm sure people can be fooled into answering calls apparently originating from their own phone number...

Clever acronyms

[Mateito (746185)]

So, what's next?

SPam Ethernet Wires?
SPam over Low Amplitude Telephony?
SPam Over Older Generation Ethernets?

Something tells me that this is about to get sillier...

Re:Clever acronyms

[vhold (175219)]

SPam Routing Over Underdeveloped Trees

Re:Clever acronyms

[Mateito (746185)]

SPam Random Undesirables to News Groups.

Optimistic

[IamGarageGuy 2 (687655)]

I don't see the same people that respond to spam, as the same people using telephoney. I will predict that the profit margin to people that respond will be too low to make this worthwhile until VOIP becomes more mainstream like email. (I can dream can't I)

Hopefully SPIT dosen't go this far...

[wizatcomputer (798648)]

RING, RING

Hello?

Hello! We have some wonderful Costa Rican Properties for sale. For more info, please visit wearetryingtoripyouoff.info. Or, if you are lacking in a certian area, you can receive generic drugs from us directly. Just go to the same site. (In a fast, hurried tone) To remove yourself from out call list, please call the following number: 8003287448 Thank you!

Re:Hopefully SPIT dosen't go this far...

[Tanktalus (794810)]

That will be very difficult.

• First, today's spam has a link that says "http://somelegitsite.com", but the href is "http://1.2.3.4/uniqueID" to make you think you're going to a legit site, but really sending you elsewhere. Hard to do with voice contact, or, rather, audio contact.
• Second, they would never use a toll-free number. That would not only cost them money rather than you, but be easily traceable. For those who don't mind the traceability, it'll be a 900 number.

Besides, it'll all be automated

Good luck

[RCulpepper (99864)]

Given that corporations are the biggest users of VoIP right now, and given that it takes a burning-bush level miracle to get in touch with a human person at most large corps, I imagine most of this will be computerized voices yammering at each other for minutes on end. "Thank you for calling Bank of America." A: "Free trial of Viagra, no commitments" B: "For information about your account, press one now."

hurray for spit!

[caldfyr (814077)]

When I get spammed I swear to myself while pounding . If my voip device rings I can swear at THEM for once! When I get a reputation for blowing out eardrums we'll see how often they sell my name.

Then there's SPAT

[tinrobot (314936)]

Spam Over Analog Telephony...

Otherwise known as mortgage brokers and insurance salesmen who call you at dinnertime.

World Changing Development

[contagious_d (807463)]

Does this mean I will finally get telephone calls?

Beep! Beep! Beep!

[El (94934)]

Sorry, but my bullshit alarm is going off!

He adds that viruses are also possible with VoIP. A virus sent to phones could be used to launch more spit or to bring together thousands of VoIP systems to launch denial-of-service attacks.

Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our voice mail messages!

Also, how is spamming voice mail via VoIP any different than just calling everybody up POTS?!? This article sounds more like another company trying to promote their "solution in search of a problem." Here's a hint: if spammers spoof their caller id and figure out how to insert random variations in the outgoing messages, this system isn't going to work anyway!

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep!

[badriram (699489)]

Yes and everyone did think jpeg, pngs and bmps were safe too.

I am not saying it is easy to do, but it is a possibility.

Re:Beep! Beep! Beep!

[ewhac (5844)]

Yeah, right, 'cause we always execute our voice mail messages!

Alas, this is not so far-fetched, as the buffer overflow exploits in JPEG decoders illustrates.

Voice will almost certainly not be sent as plain DAC samples, but in some compressed form (MP3, Vorbis, Speex, etc.) requiring decoding in software. If your codec is not bulletproof, then a mailiciously-formed compressed audio stream could conceivably exploit the hole and take over your machine.

Remember that many VoiP clients are running on Wind

Question.

[ScytheBlade1 (772156)]

Are you really that suprised?

Read: telemarkerters.

What do they stop at? Nothing.

Not sure...

[Karpe (1147)]

One of the biggest problem of spam is the inability to identify the source (and why so many people believe that solutions like SPF will help out).

VoIP is end-to-end, so if someone starts "spitting" the network, he can easily be blocked.

Of course, other solutions would be to have white lists for VoIP, but it is weird to think about white lists to telephony, since the idea is that anyone could reach anyone.

I think dubious character companies will try to do it anyway for some time, but with time blocking will keep the problem to manageable levels.

Phone Spam Legislation

[Mulletproof (513805)]

It may be over the internet, but at least vocal spam already has precedents in 'do not call lists' and such. I figure the more popular VoIP becomes, the faster this crap will get squshed. It won't take the decades phone spam legistlation took to enact. Everybody is taking a good, hard look at how to crush unwanted solicitations in every form these days.

Breath People!

[Amigori (177092)]

As the world becomes more and more connected and integrated, I find myself becoming more disconnected. Yes, I have my broadband connection and cell phone, but I can, and do, turn them off when I want to. The increased sense of urgency in the world of having to do everything by yesterday has only encouraged me to turn my electronics off. And its not like the world's going to end if you can't see the latest version of last nights sports scores, your friend can't call you a l00z3r on IM, or check the latest duplicate on /.; although maybe for some [slashdot.org], it would.

As for spit, I really don't plan on getting VoIP anytime soon as I'm satisfied by my POTS landline. Do I have to pay taxes on it, yes; so what? We pay taxes on everything, including VoIP indirectly. You might not have taxes on VoIP, yet, but I'll bet there are taxes and surcharges on your Cable/DSL bill. The article itself does not have much content past the rhetorical comments regarding growth and registries. And the moment that I get a virus on my telephone is the moment I dig out an old beige mechanical AT&T phone. Seriously, how many features does your household phone need? Caller ID, sure; Call Waiting, nah, if its important, they'll call back; voicemail, get an answering machine and save $5/mo.; etc.

Take a deep breath people and realize that humans and our respected cultures have existed for thousands of years and by turning your electronic toys, at least for a few minutes, you might find peaceful relaxation or learn something that does not have power requirement.

But what do I know, it seems the Slashdot audience lives behind the glow rather than under the sun, so I may be preaching to the wrong crowd. --Amigori

acronym of the day

[ximpul1 (607679)]

Spam Hampering Information Technology = SHIT ha!

Not to worried....

[jemenake (595948)]

Fortunately, VoIP is young enough such that they could modify the protocols to nip this in the bud.

Cryptographic solutions would probably be the first place to look. For example, suppose my phone will only look at incoming connections which are begun with some certificate signed by the VoIP service provider (Vonage, Skype, whatever). So, in order to be able to call me, your phone first contacts the provider, requests a certificate to connect to me, and the provider gives that to the phone, and then their phone uses that as credentials to get my phone to not ignore it. Then, all the service provider has to do is watch out for excessive numbers of connections coming from one customer.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this isn't already built into the VoIP systems. After all, we've been trying for some time now to move email into the domain of cryptographic authentication (SPF is just an intermediate fix) to stop spam. So, we've known for a while that this is "the way to do it right", and we also know from the way e-mail is going that it's a major pain to try to change the system to use it after the system is already in place. So, I'd expect that they might already have this capability.

Sorry, Don't Buy It!

[zentec (204030)]

For starters, this is a fluff piece about a company that has just applied for a patent on this "technology". Of course, it's in their best interest for this to be a problem.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this problem is going to affect me when my ATA only accepts directives from VoicePulse, Vonage, Broadvoice or whoever's switch to which I'm buying service. Worse, it sits behind a router so there's NFW the ATA is going to even see packets that are not "new, established or related" (iptable speak).

Perhaps the author hasn't effectively communicated how this technology works, or maybe the company isn't divulging how it works, or maybe the have a great solution looking for a problem.

As mentioned here many times before, "move along, nothing to see".

Disturbing the Peace?

[serutan (259622)]

I'm just reaching here, IANAL and all. But as far as I can tell from a quick search nobody has attacked SPAM on the basis of Disturbing the Peace. Every community enforces rules about annoying other people. In most cases I think it's pretty vague, based on the level of annoyance and on how abnormal the offending behavior is deemed. Running a gas powered lawn mower on Saturday afternoon is normal, but running it continuously for 12 hours a day 7 days a week might be considered disturbing the peace. Sending email is normal, but maybe sending a million emails an hour is disturbing the peace.

Any attorneys care to comment?