You can count on it.
Posted on 07/14/2009 9:34:09 AM PDT by Stoat
About one in six consumers have at some time acted on a spam message, affirming the economic incentive for spammers to keep churning out millions of obnoxious pitches per day, according to a new survey.
Due to be released Wednesday, the survey was sponsored by the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group (MAAWG), an industrywide security think tank composed of service providers and network operators dedicated to fighting spam and malicious software.
Eight hundred consumers in the U.S. and Canada were asked about their computer security practices habits as well as awareness of current security issues.
Those who did admit to opening a spam message -- which in and of itself could potentially harm their computer -- said they were interested in a product or service or wanted to see what would happen when they opened it.
"It is this level of response that makes spamming a lot more attractive as a business because spam is much more likely to generate revenues at this response rate," according to the survey.
One other study, conducted by the computer science departments of the University of California at its Berkeley and San Diego campuses, showed the number people who actually made a purchase following a spam pitch was just a fraction of a percent.
Those researchers infiltrated the Storm botnet, a network of hacked computers used to send spam.
They monitored three spam campaigns, in which more than 469 million e-mails were sent. Of the 350 million messages pitching pharmaceuticals, 10,522 users visited the advertised site, but only 28 people tried to make a purchase, a response rate of .0000081 percent. Still, that rate is high enough to potentially generate up to $3.5 million in annual revenue, they concluded.
MAAWG's survey showed that nearly two-thirds of the 800 polled felt they were somewhat experienced in Internet security, a highly complex field even for those trained in it, said Michael O'Reirdan, chairman of MAAWG's board of directors.
And some 80 percent of people felt their machine would never be infected with a bot, or a piece of malicious software that can send spam, harvest data and do other harmful functions. That's dangerous, O'Reirdan said.
"If you don't believe you aren't going to get one, you aren't going to look for one," he said. "If you get a bot, you're a nuisance to other people."
Interestingly, 63 percent of consumers said they would allow remote access to their computer to remove malware. That idea is under increasing discussion in the security community, which is grappling with how to deal with botnets. Botnets can also conduct denial-of-service attacks against Web sites, such as the ones attacked last week in South Korea and the U.S.
Some ISPs are building automated systems that can cut off a computer's Internet access if the machine is suspected of containing malware. Consumers are then given instructions on how to patch their machine and install security software. When their PC is clean, they are restored full access to the Internet. MAAWG is close to issuing a set of guidelines for ISPs on how to battle botnets.
"The best thing a user can do is patch their machine religiously," O'Reirdan said. "It's incredible easy to do."
So, one in six are totally brain dead morons...I figured the ratio would be much higher...
Acting on spam? I’d pay good money for someone to beat the ever loving $#!t out of spammers. Post the results on UTube. Vigilantes at work!
And we call these people...IDIOTS.
I d0n^T 3v@n know how two re ad spa m emails.
palin pills lottery vacation winner ticket
You can count on it.
And that's why they do it. I would have laughed at the idea of a .0000081% response generating a profit, which is why I'm not a millionaire.
IT security ping
That was my intital reaction.
I would have guessed 1 in 5000.
Obama voters once again skew the results.
ROFL!
If you send me your bank account number and $100 I will deposit $15 mill it so I can illegally transfer funds into the us, don't worry it is not really illegal, because I am just going to keep the $100 and you will never be bothered by me again.
Time to appoint a “Spam Czar”!
Unbelievable.
Based on the spam email titles I receive, that should mean about 1 in 6 are walking tripods...
One in six actually believes that you can get something for (near) nothing. One in six has not heard or has forgotten “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
The article is written in such a way that it suggests at least some of the data was derived from people's responses to questions, which suggests that these are only the people who will 'admit' to acting on a spam mail. From the article:
Those who did admit to opening a spam message -- which in and of itself could potentially harm their computer -- said they were interested in a product or service or wanted to see what would happen when they opened it.
So, the 'actual' percentage of people who act on spam mails may indeed be much higher, as you suggest....the rest are too embarrassed of their own stupidity to admit it.
What? 28 people trying to purchase 3.5 million dollars worth?
No. The response rate of .0000081 indicates a potential of 3.5m in sales, given that they will e-mail blast 350 million people at a time, several times a day, over the course of a year.
I understand, just trying to be funny.
It has to take a certain low level of something - common sense? IQ? discernment? intelligence? - to not be able to see through the scams in spam OR through the lies and bias of the mainstream media.
To me they both seem so blatantly obvious. It's scary that so many are not more discerning.
Well, given that his campaign technically qualified as spam itself, I'm going to say 1:1!
Hey when my money gets here from my new Nigerian friend, I’m going to have the biggest penis on the block! I wonder what’s taking that Nigerian guy so long about sending the money. He seems like such a nice man.
This isn’t true. Bill Gates told me so in an email that I forwarded to all my friends.
When I want a laugh, or am curious about a new pitch, my ISP’s mail server has a quarentine area where I can look at, but not access, the message...minus links & graphics.
Active firewall, anti-malware, anti-adware, anti virus, all with power-up updates; secondary removal tools; ISP filters and scans both incoming & outgoing email before I scan it coming in.
I consider myself “lucky” because I only get a hundred or so spams a week. About 0.5% are in the spam box by error, because a known sender is using a new address or some such.
Then again, in nearly 20 years of Web access, I strip addys off of forewards before re-sending & use BCC for everyone I’m sending to; I have never visited a chat room; don’t have Facebook, etc; don’t hit the porn sites...Okay, okay, once in a great while a strange picture pops up on a Google image search that I accidentaly click on because the cat jumps into my lap and jiggles my mouse hand.
All of that is beyond the Obamites, judging by what I get from the few I do know, compared to my Conseravtive correspondents. I quit sending one very dear old friend imagess, because, after 5 years of trying to remotely help her with the problem, all I still get back is, “I can’t see the picture. Please resend it.”
Before my ISP got “spamming” complaints from AOL about me, I used to hit the “reply all” button, and send them all the good news that Little Billy is now 30 years old, fully recovered, and does not want any more “get well” cards, complete with a link to the appropriate Snopes page.
I have a surefire, and , way to add extra inches and girth, and make my wife happy: get aroused, and watch it grow like magic! Never fails!
;-) Do you need a Nigerian to make that plan work?
My FRiend, you’re so bloodthirsty. I approve.
Evolution is something you have to MAKE happen.
lmao... so agreed ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.