Bugtraq mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

mail storm

From: strombrg () HYDRA ACS UCI EDU (Dan Stromberg)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:56:43 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------55A62A252F7A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This almost has to have been discussed before, but I don't recall seeing
it anywhere.

Imagine a hacker really doesn't like someone, and is willing to do
something disruptive to a lot of other people to spite that one person.
Or imagine that they just want to do something very disruptive.

Imagine the hacker picks 2n mailing lists, subscribing the i'th to the
(i+n)th and the (i+n)th to the i'th, subscribing that person they really
don't like to the 0..n-1'th, and finally, forging one message to each of
the 0..n-1'th.

Some (all? Doesn't seem likely from here) mailing list software would
probably figure it out, but enough of them wouldn't that I suspect
there'd be a nasty "e-mail storm" - an exponential growth of e-mail,
analogous to the growth seen in a "broadcast storm".

Hop count limits Might curtail the effect, after a point - tho there may
also be ways around this...

My suspicion is that many machines would be driven up to their "OX" load
as defined in sendmail, that others would have no "OX" defined and hence
would be driven into the ground, and that many machines would suffer
overflowing mail spools - a sizeable number of which would be on root
filesystems.

It almost seems like a substantial segment of the internet could be
trashed with something like this.

Comments?

--------------55A62A252F7A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="treatise_locks.html"

<BASE HREF="http://www.deter.com/unix/treatise_locks.html";>



<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<H2>Rudimentary Treatise on the Construction of Locks, 1853 (excerpt)</H2>
<H3> -- Charles Tomlinson</H3>

<BLOCKQUOTE>

A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the last year or two,
whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security or insecurity of locks.  Many well-meaning
persons suppose that the discussion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks
offers a premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest.  This is a fallacy.  Rogues
are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them respecting
their several kinds of roguery.  Rogues knew a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths
discussed it among themselves, as they have lately done.  If a lock -- let it have been made in
whatever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto been
deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of <I>honest</I> persons to know this fact, because the
<I>dishonest</I> are tolerably certain to be the first to apply the knowledge practically;  and the
spread of knowledge is necessary to give fair play to those who might suffer by ignorance.  It
cannot be too earnestly urged, that an acquintance with real facts will, in the end, be better for
all parties.


Some time ago, when the reading public was alarmed at being told how London milk
is adulterated, timid persons deprecated the exposure, on the plea that it would give instructions
in the art of adulterating milk;  a vain fear -- milkmen knew all about it before, whether they
practiced it or not;  and the exposure only taught purchasers the necessity of a little scrutiny and
caution, leaving them to obey this necessity or not, as they pleased.


...The unscrupulous have the command of much of this kind of knowledge without our aid;  and there
is moral and commercial justice in placing on their guard those who might possibly suffer therefrom.
We employ these stray expressions concerning adulteration, debasement, roguery, and so forth,
simply as a mode of illustrating a principle -- the advantage of publicity.  In respect to lock-making,
there can scarcely be such a thing as dishonesty of intention:  the inventor produces a lock which
he honestly thinks will posess such and such qualities;  and he declares his belief to the world.
If others differ from him in opinion concerning those qualities, it is open to them to say so;  and
the discussion, truthfully conducted, must lead to public advantage:  the discussion stimulates
curiosity, and curiosity stimulates invention.  Nothing but a partial and limited view of the question
could lead to the opinion that harm can result:  if there be harm, it will be much more than
counterbalanced by good.
</BLOCKQUOTE>

</BODY>
</HTML>


--------------55A62A252F7A--
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: