Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

How dynamic are IP addresses

2007

Abstract

This paper introduces a novel method, UDmap, to identify dynamically assigned IP addresses and analyze their dynamics pattern. UDmap is fully automatic, and relies only on application-level server logs that are already available today. We applied UDmap to a month-long Hotmail user-login trace and identified a significant number of dynamic IP addresses -more than 102 million. This suggests that the portion of dynamic IP addresses in the Internet is by no means negligible. In addition, using this information combined with a three-month Hotmail email server log, we were able to establish that 97% of mail servers setup on dynamic IP addresses sent out solely spam emails, likely controlled by zombies. Moreover, these mail servers sent out a large amount of spam -counting towards over 42% of all spam emails to Hotmail. These results highlight the importance of being able to accurately identify dynamic IP addresses for spam filtering, and we expect similar benefits of it for phishing site identification and botnet detection. To our knowledge, this is the first successful attempt to automatically identify and understand IP dynamics.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

How significant is the fraction of dynamic IP addresses in the Internet?add

The study identifies approximately 102 million dynamic IP addresses, representing 61.4% of the tracked addresses.

What was the method used to identify dynamic IP addresses in UDmap?add

UDmap uses aggregated user-login data from Hotmail to track IP usage patterns for dynamic IP identification.

What variations in IP dynamics were observed across different network access types?add

Dial-up dynamic IPs were significantly more volatile, with inter-user durations often in hours, compared to DSL and cable IPs.

What correlation was found between dynamic IPs and spam activities?add

Over 97% of mail servers on dynamic IPs sent out only spam emails, constituting 42.2% of all spam received.

How does UDmap improve upon previous methods of identifying dynamic IPs?add

UDmap automates the identification process, uncovering over 50 million dynamic IPs missed by existing dynamic IP lists.

References (30)

  1. Multi-DNSBL Lookup. http://www.completewhois.com/rbl lookup.htm.
  2. Braunson. Guide To Change Your Ip Address (Part 2). http://totaldream.org/index.php?page= articles&view=article&id=101, 2006.
  3. K. R. Castleman. Digital Image Processing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.
  4. J. H. Department. Naive Bayes Spam Filtering Using Word Position Attributes. In Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, 2005.
  5. R. Droms. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. RFC 2131: http://www.dhcp.org, 1997.
  6. Dynablock Dynamic IP list. http://www.njabl.org, recently aquired by Spamhaus, http://www.spamhaus.org/pbl/index.lasso, 2007.
  7. J. Evers. Most Spam Still Coming From the U.S. http://news.com/Most+spam+still+coming+from+ the+U.S./2100-1029 3-6030758.html, 2006.
  8. S. Foo, S. C. Hui, S. W. Yip, and Y. He. Approaches for Resolving Dynamic IP Addressing. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 7(3):208-216, 1997.
  9. M. Freedman, M. Vutukuru, N. Feamster, and H. Balakrishnan. Geographic Locality of IP Prefixes. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2005.
  10. IDC Netwurx. http://www.idcnet.com, 2006.
  11. J. Jung and E. Sit. An Empirical Study of Spam Traffic and the Use of DNS Black Lists. In Proc. of the ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC), 2004.
  12. T. Kohno, A. Broido, and K. Claffy. Remote Physical Device Fingerprinting. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2005.
  13. B. Krishnamurthy and J. Wang. On Network-Aware Clustering of Web Clients. In Proc. of Sigcomm, 2000.
  14. H. Lee and A. Y. Ng. Spam Deobfuscation Using a Hidden Markov Model. In Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, 2005.
  15. F. Li and M.-H. Hsieh. An Empirical Study of Clustering Behavior of Spammers and Group-based Anti-Spam Strategies. In Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, 2006.
  16. D. Lowd and C. Meek. Good Word Attacks on Statistical Spam Filters. In Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, 2005.
  17. D. Majoras, T. B. Leary, P. J. Harbour, and J. Leibowitz. Effectiveness and Enforcement of the CAN-SPAM Act: A Report to Congress. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/ spam/reports.htm, 2005.
  18. L. Munoz. Suggested Generic DNS Naming Schemes for Large Networks and Unassigned Hosts. RFC draft: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/ draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00. txt, 2006.
  19. V. N. Padmanabhan and L. Subramanian. An Investigation of Geographic Mapping Techniques for Internet Hosts. In Proc. of Sigcomm, 2001.
  20. Postini Message Security and Management Update for October Reveals that Spam is Back with a Vengeance. http://postini.com/news events/pr/pr110606.php, 2006.
  21. A. Ramachandran, D. Dagon, and N. Feamster. Can DNSBased Blacklists Keep Up with Bots? In Conference on Email and Anti-Spam, 2006.
  22. A. Ramachandran and N. Feamster. Understanding the Network-Level Behavior of Spammers. In Proc. of Sigcomm, 2006.
  23. A. Ramachandran, N. Feamster, and D. Dagon. Revealing Botnet Membership Using DNSBL Counter-Intelligence. In 2nd Steps to Reducing Unwanted Traffic on the Internet Workshop (SRUTI), 2006.
  24. Route Views Project. http://www.routeviews.org.
  25. V. Sekar, Y. Xie, M. K. Reiter, and H. Zhang. A Multi-Resolution Approach for Worm Detection and Containment. In DSN, 2006.
  26. The Apache SpamAssassin Project. http://spamassassin.apache.org.
  27. I. Trend Micro. Mail Abuse Prevention System. http://www. trendmicro.com/en/products/global/kelkea.htm.
  28. Whois.net -Domain Research Tools. http://www.whois.net.
  29. M. Xie, H. Yin, and H. Wang. An Effective Defense Against Email Spam Laundering, 2006.
  30. Y. Xie, V. Sekar, D. Maltz, M. Reiter, and H. Zhang. Worm Origin Identification Using Random Moonwalks. In Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2005.