Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

8/28/2008
09:23 AM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Report: Email Address Dictates Spam Volume

The first letter of your email address is one factor in your spam risk, a researcher says

Everyone knows that some people get more spam than others, but new research shows that it may have something to do with the first letter of your email address.

Richard Clayton, a security researcher at the University of Cambridge in the U.K., says he found evidence that the more common the first letter in your email address is, the more spam you get: in other words, [email protected] typically gets a higher volume of spam than [email protected], or [email protected] He says that’s simply because there are more combinations of names that begin with “A” than with “Q” or “Z.”

Over an eight-week period, Clayton studied around 8.9 million emails at a U.K. ISP and found that the email addresses that began with “A” received 35 percent spam in their inboxes, while “Z’s” got about 20 percent -- after sorting out real emails versus invalid ones that had likely been generated by a spamming tool. Clayton says it’s likely that spammers using dictionary attacks could be the cause of this disproportionate distribution of spam.

Clayton acknowledges that his study didn’t end up proving what he had hoped it would – that alphabetic order was an indicator of how much spam you got. He says it’s likely that since dictionary attacks are not commonly occurring in real-time, the phony email addresses he saw possibly had been stored in spammer databases for some time.

Matt Sergeant, senior anti-spam technologist for MessageLabs, says a dictionary-type spam attack that ekes out as many email addresses it can by letter is the mark of an old-school spammer, not a sophisticated one. “You don’t have this pattern with the more malcious spammer. Botnets distribute and split up lists of email addresses and distribute them among the entire botnet simultaneously,” for instance, Sergeant says.

MessageLabs has seen a similar pattern with spam in domain names, he says. “Domain names that start with ‘A’ get more spam than domain names that start with ‘Z,’” he says.

So does pinpointing that the Sams of the world get spammed more than the Yancys ultimately help anti-spam technologists curb spam? Sergeant says that while this trend is a fun fact of sorts, it also does provide a little insight into spammers. “You have to look a bit deeper into the information and have an understanding of how spammers work to really understand what this [data] is saying. It’s most definitely interesting information,” he says. But it wouldn’t sway anyone to change their email address to [email protected] to ensure they get less spam, he adds.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is the Executive Editor of Dark Reading. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/6/2020
Ripple20 Threatens Increasingly Connected Medical Devices
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  6/30/2020
DDoS Attacks Jump 542% from Q4 2019 to Q1 2020
Dark Reading Staff 6/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15505
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
MobileIron Core and Connector before 10.3.0.4, 10.4.x before 10.4.0.4, 10.5.x before 10.5.1.1, 10.5.2.x before 10.5.2.1, and 10.6.x before 10.6.0.1, and Sentry before 9.7.3 and 9.8.x before 9.8.1, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2020-15506
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
MobileIron Core and Connector before 10.3.0.4, 10.4.x before 10.4.0.4, 10.5.x before 10.5.1.1, 10.5.2.x before 10.5.2.1, and 10.6.x before 10.6.0.1 allow remote attackers to bypass authentication mechanisms via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2020-15507
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
MobileIron Core and Connector before 10.3.0.4, 10.4.x before 10.4.0.4, 10.5.x before 10.5.1.1, 10.5.2.x before 10.5.2.1, and 10.6.x before 10.6.0.1 allow remote attackers to read files on the system via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2020-15096
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
In Electron before versions 6.1.1, 7.2.4, 8.2.4, and 9.0.0-beta21, there is a context isolation bypass, meaning that code running in the main world context in the renderer can reach into the isolated Electron context and perform privileged actions. Apps using "contextIsolation" are affecte...
CVE-2020-4075
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-07
In Electron before versions 7.2.4, 8.2.4, and 9.0.0-beta21, arbitrary local file read is possible by defining unsafe window options on a child window opened via window.open. As a workaround, ensure you are calling `event.preventDefault()` on all new-window events where the `url` or `options` is not ...