Spam is mostly noise and that makes measuring it very difficult

Posted by   Martijn Grooten on   Sep 3, 2018

A recent blog post published by Recorded Future looked at the possible effect of the GDPR on the volume of spam and concludes there has been no noticeable impact.

The question behind the post is a valid one: more privacy-friendly WHOIS records, inspired by the EU's data protection regulation, could make it easier for spammers to hide their true identities. However, Recorded Future reports that 90 days after the GDPR came into effect, there have been no significant changes in either the volume of spam or that of domain registrations, apart from a likely seasonal small decline in both.

I do not think this is very surprising. While more privacy-friendly WHOIS records may be beneficial to those email senders operating on the border of what is permissible, the vast majority of spam is sent via botnets. These spam messages use either fake or compromised domain names, or use domains registered using fake credentials. For a botnet spammer, the GDPR is as much of a concern as a "do not entry" sign is for a bank robber.

But even if we had seen an uptick in the volume of spam, it would have been premature to attribute it to the GDPR.

Spam is notoriously volatile. Changes on a day-by-day or month-by-month basis can sometimes be attributed to specific events, such as holidays, a botnet takedown, or shifts from or to other malware infection methods. Often though, there is no identifiable reason for what can very big changes in the volume of spam.

On top of that, spam is very hard to measure. Spammers tend to favour volume over delivery rates and thus they are pretty careless who they send their emails to. This means that a campaign can, by chance, do a very good job at avoiding certain kinds of spam traps, while other traps actually see a disproportionately large number of messages from the same campaign.

But perhaps none of this matters very much. The vast majority of spam ends up getting blocked at one of various places in the delivery chain. An increase in volume doesn't always result in more spam emails in people's inboxes. And that, ultimately, is what matters.

gdpr_preferenceemail.png

twitter.png
fb.png
linkedin.png
hackernews.png
reddit.png

 

Latest posts:

VB2018 paper: From Hacking Team to hacked team to…?

Today we publish the VB2018 paper and video by ESET researcher Filip Kafka, who looked at the new malware by Hacking Team, after the company had recovered from the 2015 breach.

The spam that is hardest to block is often the most damaging

We see a lot of spam in the VBSpam test lab, and we also see how well such emails are being blocked by email security products. Worryingly, it is often the emails with a malicious attachment or a phishing link that are most likely to be missed.

Throwback Thursday: We're all doomed

Mydoom turns 15 this month, and is still being seen in email attachments. This Throwback Thursday we look back to March 2004, when Gabor Szappanos tracked the rise of W32/Mydoom.

VB2019 call for papers - now open!

Have you analysed a new online threat? Do you know a new way to defend against such threats? Are you tasked with securing systems and fending off attacks? The call for papers for VB2019 is now open and we want to hear from you!

VB2018 paper: Unpacking the packed unpacker: reversing an Android anti-analysis library

Today, we publish a VB2018 paper by Google researcher Maddie Stone in which she looks at one of the most interesting anti-analysis native libraries in the Android ecosystem. We also release the recording of Maddie's presentation.

We have placed cookies on your device in order to improve the functionality of this site, as outlined in our cookies policy. However, you may delete and block all cookies from this site and your use of the site will be unaffected. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to Virus Bulletin's use of data as outlined in our privacy policy.