Spam Providers Study

848 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
848
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
35
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Spam Providers Study

  1. 1. Results from ENISA 2007 survey on providers’ security and anti-spam measures Pascal Manzano
  2. 2. What’s this? <ul><li>6 </li></ul>
  3. 3. Goal of the survey <ul><li>Better understand security measures used by providers </li></ul><ul><li>Promote and develop best practices </li></ul><ul><li>Survey covers security and anti-spam measures, both from technical and organisational point of view </li></ul>
  4. 4. Method <ul><li>Online questionnaire available in June and July </li></ul><ul><li>21 multiple choice questions </li></ul><ul><li>Contacts with providers’ associations at European and national level </li></ul><ul><li>Promotion of the questionnaire in newsletters, mailing-lists, ENISA contacts’ network. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Representativeness <ul><li>30 providers replied </li></ul><ul><li>86% are ISPs, 11% ESPs, 43% telco </li></ul><ul><li>Wide variety of size (3 in European top10) </li></ul><ul><li>25 providers are from 16 of the 27 EU countries </li></ul><ul><li>3 from Norway, 1 from Iceland and 1 from US </li></ul>
  6. 6. Threats <ul><li>Most important threats identified by providers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Viruses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spam </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DDoS </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Filtering methods <ul><li>Ingress </li></ul><ul><li>Egress </li></ul><ul><li>Basic </li></ul><ul><li>Content </li></ul><ul><li>Trend </li></ul>ENISA Providers’ study 2007
  8. 8. Network integrity <ul><li>BC </li></ul><ul><li>DR </li></ul><ul><li>RM </li></ul><ul><li>Testing </li></ul>
  9. 9. Preventing receiving spam <ul><li>Network </li></ul><ul><li>Client </li></ul>
  10. 10. Spam filtering measures <ul><li>Blacklist </li></ul><ul><li>Content </li></ul><ul><li>5 measures </li></ul><ul><li>BL vs. WL </li></ul>
  11. 11. Sender authentication <ul><li>SMTP AUTH </li></ul><ul><li>SMTP TLS </li></ul><ul><li>SPF </li></ul><ul><li>MTA auth </li></ul><ul><li>DKIM </li></ul>
  12. 12. Effectiveness Graph
  13. 13. Preventing sending spam <ul><li>Port 25 </li></ul><ul><li>Port 587 </li></ul><ul><li>EU spam </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation </li></ul>
  14. 14. Preventing sending spam <ul><li>Blacklist </li></ul><ul><li>Whitelist </li></ul><ul><li>Trend </li></ul>
  15. 15. Abuse reports <ul><li>Manual </li></ul><ul><li>ARF </li></ul><ul><li>Mixing </li></ul>ENISA Providers’ study 2007
  16. 16. Legal aspects <ul><li>More than a third of providers see a conflict between their obligations and the use of spam filters </li></ul><ul><li>A workshop was organised end of November 2007 in London to help clarifying the legal aspects of spam filtering and present new anti-spam methods </li></ul>
  17. 17. Summary <ul><li>Filtering </li></ul><ul><li>Best practices </li></ul><ul><li>Risk management </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperation </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness </li></ul>
  18. 18. Links <ul><li>ENISA anti-spam activities and 2007 study </li></ul><ul><li>http:// www.enisa.europa.eu/pages/spam/index.htm </li></ul><ul><li>EuroISPA http://www.euroispa.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>eco http://www.eco.de/ </li></ul><ul><li>MAAWG http://www.maawg.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>ETIS http://www.etis.org/ </li></ul><ul><li>IfIS http://www.internet-sicherheit.de / </li></ul><ul><li>Spotspam http://www.spotspam.net/ </li></ul>

×