News Glossary of Terms FAQs Polls Cool Links SpeedGuide Teams SG Premium Services SG Gear Store
Registry Tweaks Broadband Tools Downloads/Patches Broadband Hardware SG Ports Database Security Default Passwords User Stories
Broadband Routers Wireless Firewalls / VPNs Software Hardware User Reviews
Broadband Security Editorials General User Articles Quick Reference
Broadband Forums General Discussions
Advertising Awards Link to us Server Statistics Helping SG About
The Broadband Guide
SG
search advanced
 Username:
 Password:
Register
 forgot your password?

Undead botnets blamed for big rise in email malware

2010-02-18 10:04 by
Tags: botnets, spam, malware

 

Malicious spam volumes increased dramatically in the back half of 2009, reaching three billion messages per day, compared to 600 million messages per day in the first half of 2009. But this is still a tiny fraction of the estimated global spam volume, thought to be about 200 billion messages per day.

A new report by net security firm M86 Security points the finger of blame for the torrent of malware, phishing and other scams (collectively defined as malicious spam) and junk mail more generally towards botnet networks of compromised machines. It reckons five botnets were responsible for 78 per cent of the malicious spam it fought in the second half of 2009.

M86 reports that the major spam botnets such as Rustock, Pushdo (or Cutwail) and Mega-D continue to dominate spam output, supported by second-tier botnets such as Grum, and Lethic. Rustock alone pushed out 34 per cent of spam in 2H09. Pushdo zombie drones puked out one in five spam messages (20 per cent), with Mega-D zombies account for 9 per cent of the global junk mail nuisance.

Just like Mega-D before it, the Lethic botnet has returned from the grave since it was decapitated by the combined efforts of security firms and ISPs in early January, a sign that criminal hackers are building more resilient systems with better "disaster recovery" features.

Read more -here-

 

  Post your review/comments
    rate:
   avg:
comment discuss top