Advertisement

Addressing Spam at the Systems-level through a Peered Overlay Network-Based Approach

  • Michael Horie
  • Stephen W. Neville
Conference paper

Abstract

Reducing email spam has been an active industry and academic research domain for a number of years. Despite this, spam has remained an on-going world-wide problem which absorbs significant network resources in its delivery. Client-side solutions have addressed much of the end-user nuisance factor, but trace-back solutions have not succeeded in sufficiently reducing spam ingress at its source due to both the movement towards distributed spam generation and geopolitical factors. At a systems-level, part of the inherent issue in addressing global spam is the current divergence between responsibility and accountability; end-users’ are made responsible for addressing issues which the originating ISP’ s are better positioned to solve. Within this work, an overlay network-based approach is developed, which employs peer-to-peer QoS agreements in conjunction with a non-repudiation protocol for broadcast environments, to affect a low-spam overlay network. This of course does not solve the global spam issue, but does allow participating communities to move to a low-spam environment provided they are willing to accept their agreed to responsibilities.

Keywords

Overlay Network Trust Third Party Neighboring Network Mail Server Label Pair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    http://www.messagelabs.com/publishedcontent/publish/threat_watch_dotcom_en/intelligence_reports/february_2007/DA_181260.chp.html (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    http://www.postini.com/stats/(Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2006/tc20060919_412904.htm (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Pantel and D. Lin, “Spamcop: a spam classification & organization program,” Proc. AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, pp. 95-98, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Drucker, W. Donghui, and V.N. Vapnik, “Support vector Machines for spam categorization,” IEEE. Trans. on Neural Networks, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1048-1054, September 1999.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    I. Androutsopoulos, G. Paliouras, V. Karkaletsis, G. Sakkis, C.D. Spyropoulos, and P. Stamatopoulos, “Learning to Filter Spam E-Mail: A comparison of a naive bayesian and a memory-based approach,” Proc. Machine Learning and Textual Information Access, 4th European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pp. 1-13, September 2000.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    X. Carreras and L. Marquez, “Boosting trees for anti-spam email filtering,” Proc. Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, pp. 58-64, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    http://www.ironport.com/pdf/ironport_anti-spam_whitepaper.pdf (Current as of October 11, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    http://www.cloudmark.com/releases/docs/wp_reputation_filtration_10640406.pdf (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    http://razor.sourceforge.net/ (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-overview-05.txt (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    http://www.openspf.org/Introduction (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    http://www.spamcop.net/ (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Costlow, “Digital postmark helps fight spam, virus attacks,” IEEE Distributed Systems Online, vol. 5, no. 5, 2004.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    B. Agrawal, N. Kumar, and M. Molle, “Controlling spam emails at the routers,” Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications, vol. 3, pp. 1588-1592, May 2005.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. L. Rivest and A. Shamir, “Payword and micromint: two simple micropayment schemes,” Proc. 4th International Security Protocols Conference, pp. 69-87, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    D.A. Turner and D.M. Havey, “Controlling spam through lightweight currency,” Proc. Hawaii International Conference on Computer Sciences, January 2004.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. Dwork and M. Naor, “Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 740, pp. 139-147, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Herzberg, “Controlling spam by secure internet content selection,” Proc. 4th International Conference on Security in Communication Networks, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3352, pp. 337-350, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Savage, D. Wetherall, A. Karlin, and T. Anderson, “Network support for ip traceback,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol 9, no. 3, pp. 226-237, June 2001.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/another_war_wer.html (Current as of October 11, 2007)Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    S. Kent and R. Atkinson, Security architecture for the internet protocol, RFC 2401, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, “Multiprotocol label switching architecture, ” RFC 3031, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    N. Courtois, M. Finiasz, and N. Sendrier, “How to achieve a McEliece-based digital signature scheme,” Proc. Asiacrypt ‘ 01, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2248, pp. 157- 174, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Y. Harada, K. Okamura, T. Chiyonobu, and Y. Lee, “Analyzing Correlation Between Flow Data and AS Paths in BGP Routing,” Proc. Frontiers of High Performance Computing and Networking - ISPA 2006 Workshops, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4331, pp. 1126-1135, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    J. Santiago and L. Vigneron, “Optimistic non-repudiation protocol analysis,” Proc. 1st Workshop on Information Security Theory and Practices. Smart Cards, Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4462, pp. 90-101, 2007.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    A. Armando, D. Basin, Y. Boichut, Y. Chevalier, L. Compagna, J. Cuellar, P.H. Drielsma, P.C. Heám, O. Kouchnarenko, J. Mantovani, S. Mödersheim, D. von Oheimb, M. Rusinowitch, J. Santiago, M. Turuani, L. Viganò, L. Vigneron, “The avispa tool for the automated validation of internet security protocols and applications,” Proc. Computer Aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3576, pp. 281-285, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. Zhou and D. Gollmann, ”A fair non-repudiation protocol,” IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 55-61, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Horie
  • Stephen W. Neville

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations