Feeds

Stateside spam slaying stalls

Goddam zombies

Protecting users from Firesheep and other Sidejacking attacks with SSL

US efforts to stop the nation serving as the world's top spam relaying nation are stalling.

For the first time in more than two years, the US has failed to rein in the hordes of botnet computers that made it the source of 23.2 per cent of the world's spam in Q2 2006.

Its closest rivals are China and South Korea, although both of these countries managed to reduce the amount of spam they were responsible for between the first and second quarters of 2006, according to an analysis of the top 12 spam relaying countries by UK-based net security firm Sophos.

Sophos says the prosecution of spammers under the US's CAN-SPAM Act needs to be accompanied by improved home security if hopes of reducing spam are to be realised.

During Q2 2006, Europe overtook North America as a spreader of spam, with an increase of 2.1 percentage points over the quarter leaving it responsible for 27.1 per cent of global spam in Q2 2006.

Although Russia does not feature in the dirty dozen of spam relaying countries, Sophos reckons Russian spammers control vast networks of compromised (zombie) PCs in other countries.

Sophos notes an increase in spam containing embedded images, up from 18.2 per cent in January to 35.9 per cent in June, a ruse designed to fool some anti-spam filters that rely on the analysis of textual spam.

There's also been a growth in spam messages designed to inflate the value of company stock (so called pump and dump spam) which currently accounts for 15 per cent of spam messages compared to just 0.8 per cent in January 2005. ®

Top 12 spam relaying countries (Q2 2006), according to Sophos

  1. United States (23.2 per cent)
  2. China (20.0 per cent)
  3. South Korea (7.5 per cent)
  4. France (5.2 per cent)
  5. Spain (4.8 per cent)
  6. Poland (3.6 per cent)
  7. Brazil (3.1 per cent)
  8. Italy (3.0 per cent)
  9. Germany (2.5 per cent)
  10. United Kingdom (1.8 per cent)
  11. Taiwan (1.7 per cent)
  12. Japan (1.6 per cent)

The next step in data security

More from The Register

next story
Israeli spies rebel over mass-snooping on innocent Palestinians
'Disciplinary treatment will be sharp and clear' vow spy-chiefs
Infosec geniuses hack a Canon PRINTER and install DOOM
Internet of Stuff securo-cockups strike yet again
'Speargun' program is fantasy, says cable operator
We just might notice if you cut our cables
Apple Pay is a tidy payday for Apple with 0.15% cut, sources say
Cupertino slurps 15 cents from every $100 purchase
YouTube, Amazon and Yahoo! caught in malvertising mess
Cisco says 'Kyle and Stan' attack is spreading through compromised ad networks
Hackers pop Brazil newspaper to root home routers
Step One: try default passwords. Step Two: Repeat Step One until success
Greater dev access to iOS 8 will put us AT RISK from HACKERS
Knocking holes in Apple's walled garden could backfire, says securo-chap
Microsoft to patch ASP.NET mess even if you don't
We know what's good for you, because we made the mess says Redmond
prev story

Whitepapers

Providing a secure and efficient Helpdesk
A single remote control platform for user support is be key to providing an efficient helpdesk. Retain full control over the way in which screen and keystroke data is transmitted.
Saudi Petroleum chooses Tegile storage solution
A storage solution that addresses company growth and performance for business-critical applications of caseware archive and search along with other key operational systems.
Security and trust: The backbone of doing business over the internet
Explores the current state of website security and the contributions Symantec is making to help organizations protect critical data and build trust with customers.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.