Researchers hijack Storm botnet for spam study
By Nicole Kobie,
It takes 12.5 million spam emails to get one response, according to a month-long study where Californian researchers pretended to be spammers.
The researchers from the University of California campuses at Berkley and San Diego took control of some 75,000 machines via the Storm botnet earlier this year, before it was effectively dismantled.
They also set up their own fake pharmaceutical web site to direct people to, in order to see how much money spamming networks actually make – and how many people really click links in emails offering cheap drugs and anatomical enhancements.
“By infiltrating its command and control infrastructure parasitically, we convinced it to modify a subset of the spam it already sends, thereby directing any interested recipients to servers under our control, rather than those belonging to the spammer,” the researchers wrote in their report.
The group sent 350 million messages over 26 days, garnering just 28 sales for a conversion rate of under 0.00001 per cent. All but one of the sales were for “male-enhancement products” at an average cost of $100 (£62.50).
The researchers stressed that their study used just 1.5 per cent of the Storm botnet, suggesting the real value of that malicious network ranges from about $7,000 (£4,375) to $9,500 (£5,938) each day, or about $3.5 million (£2.19 million) a year. They noted this was less than the “millions of dollars a day” some security researchers have suggested such botnets are worth, but said it was “certainly a health enterprise.”
However, the cost of sending out such spam would be higher than the return – yet spammers still continue, so they must be making a profit.
While some email campaigns are clearly run off the botnet at a fee – the spammers paying for access to the mailing service – the researchers suggested most campaigns are likely run by the creators of the Storm botnet itself. This is backed up by the similarity in targeted email domain names between the spam campaigns and mailouts designed to spread the botnet itself, they said.
If that is indeed true, continuing to secure email could make spamming unprofitable. “The profit margin for spam (at least for this one pharmacy campaign) may be meagre enough that spammers must be sensitive to the details of how their campaigns are run and are economically susceptible to new defences,” the researchers wrote.
You may also like...
Sponsored Links
advertisement
You may also like...
Latest Security Analysis & Insight
Who to trust after the VeriSign hack?
Davey Winder questions what data was stolen from VeriSign and wonders why the company hasn't been more forthcoming.
- Striving to solve the security skills crisis
- Would you employ a hacker or malware writer?
- Q&A: Raj Samani, CTO McAfee
- Erase and rewind: the EU and privacy
- My email address is [CENSORED]
- Is there such a thing as a secure tablet?
- 2011: The year in news
- BYOD: Old or new, good or bad?
- Are the cookie laws crumbling already?
Latest Security Reviews
Check Point 2210 Appliance review
Rating: ![]()
advertisement
Most popular
- Will someone rid me of these troublesome Macs?
- Symantec hackers: We've released pcAnywhere source code
- BT considering Ofcom price cap appeal
- Google sends in Bouncer to sort out malicious apps
- ACTA: the basics, the controversies, and the future
- Trendnet firmware flaw exposes private videos
- Anonymous publishes FBI hacking call
- Head to Head: Mac OS X 10.7 Lion vs Windows 7
- VeriSign admits 2010 hack
- Nokia Lumia 710 review
Latest News Videos in Security
IT PRO Podcast: Are UK data protection laws flawed?
We bring in two experts to talk about the problems with UK data protection law and the way it is managed.
Register for IT PRO
You'll get exclusive member benefits including free whitepapers, downloads, Webinars and weekly newsletters full of the latest IT PRO news, reviews, insight and expertise.






Isn\'t this hacking?
Isn\'t this hacking and breaking the law????
By Ip_bobsmith62945 on Wednesday Nov 12