False Sysop Messages: Viral Attacks?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Has anyone recently recieved a mailer daemon failure notice alledgedly "from this forum" that's different from the usual one? The normal failure notice has the explanation of why a response can't be sent to the original poster. The questionable ones have very little header info and an e-mail attachment.

When I first got one I almost opened it to see what this "new" sysops format was. But I'm leery of any e-mail attachment these days. Instead I went further down the incoming mail list and found a "normal" notice. That raised my suspicions about an e-mail attachment on a failure notice message from the web site's server.

Knowing that e-mail attachments are the preferred virus attack method these days and smelling something funny, that message was flushed without opening. This morning there was another such e-mail attachment failure notice in the mail que. Right next to it was another "normal" failure notice. Before I dispose of this one I'm going to let my MacAfee give it a real good sniff test.

My take on this? Watch your mail folks, certain people on this forum (myself included) may have gotten on somebody's hit list. And it looks like their method of attack may be e-mail bombs disguised as routine sysop messages from this site.

If this is a real attack in progress, I guess a prediction of increased desperation by the forces of pollydom were a little too mild. Name calling and vicious printed verbal assault are one thing. Trying to maliciously take down the computer system of someone you disagree with is something else entirely different.

Watch your incoming mail folks, it's getting to be "frenzy time" for the pollys.


-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), July 05, 1999



Since I'm "out" on another thread... as Sysop #1... I can categorically say, that both myself and Sysop #2 don't send out any e- mail messages.

And won't... unless the MIT server/network crashes for an extended period of time.. and NEVER with any attachments.

'Nuff said.

Be aware.



Lets Discuss CENSORSHIP And Apologies... Mr. Decker

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0011hn

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 05, 1999.

BTW, will contact Phil Greenspun about this.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 05, 1999.

That's very disturbing. WW--and it happened on another BBS I was on. I have to admit that what sprang immediately to mind were the several messages from vandals saying if we all used real e-mail addresses, it would cut down on the vandalizing. I'm not accusing the hooligans of this particular apparent attempt at sabotage, but it's all the more reason NOT to use a real e-mail address if that's your choice.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 05, 1999.

Get a Mac :o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Mon, 5 Jul 1999 13:10:39 -0400 (EDT)

Phil Greenspun responded... Our server alerts don't include attachments.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 05, 1999.

The only e-mail attachments I ever open are those from my extended family -- and not even those if they're only passing on something they got from someone else.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 06, 1999.

For todays chuckle...

Also asked Phil... Do you want WW to send you a copy, so you and MIT have a copy of the potential problem?

His response...

No. We don't care about viruses at MIT. Those are for people who use Microsoft operating systems and read email with attachments.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ