bugtraq - Is predictable spam filtering a vulnerability?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <200406161326.AA304546076@dewmill.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:26:28 +0200
From: "R Armiento" <rar_bt@...iento.se>
To: <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Is predictable spam filtering a vulnerability?

During a recent email conversation with several participants, we discovered that the email service of one participant silently dropped legitimate emails that happened to contain certain combinations of words common in spam. I believe this sort of filter is common practice, and in fact even in place for some of my own email addresses.

However, this experience made me think: isn't predictable spam filtering in general a vulnerability that could be used as a hoax device? Since most users reply to an email citing the complete source email, including filter-offending words, it should be possible to keep a reply, forward, or even a whole thread, under the radar of specific recipients. If used in combination with forged replies from addresses predictably dropping emails, I think this may be a dangerous tool for social engineering. 

For example: attacker 'A' sends 'B' a social engineering request for "the secret plans" and says "if you are unsure, forward my request to your boss and ask if this is okay". 'B' forwards the email to his boss 'C' and asks "Is this okay?". However, 'C':s spam filter silently drops the email. 'A' forges a reply from 'C' saying: "Sure, no problem, go ahead."

Regards,
R. Armiento