Skip to main content

Why OCRing spam images is useless

Nick FitzGerald forwards me another animated GIF spam that takes the animation plus transparency trick I outlined in the blog post A spam image that slowly builds to reveal its message to a new level. And it shows why spammers will work around OCR as fast as they can.

Here's what you see in the spam image:



Looks simple enough until you take a look at the GIF file that actually generated what you see. It's animated and it has three frames:





The first image is the GIF's background and is displayed for 10ms then the second image is layered on top with a transparent background so that the two images merge together and the image the spammer wants you to see appears. That image remains on screen for 100,000 ms (or 1 minute 40 seconds). After that the image is completely blanked out by the third frame.

My favourite touch is that it's not the entire image that's transparent, not even the white background, but just those pixels necessary to make the black pixels underneath show through. If you look carefully above you can see that some of pixels appear yellow (which is the background color of this site) indicating where the transparency is.

That is darn clever.

Comments

Original Syn said…
It's a snake eat tale situation, sooner or later anti-spam companies will come up with a way to OCR these images, this could simply be defeated by merging the frames and then runnings the software. And when these tactics no longer work spammers will find a more novel way of absuing some technology.
Anonymous said…
Simple solution: block emails with gif attachments.

I can't remember the last time I received a valid gif attachment.
Ron & Devy said…
There may be a simple solution that doesn't involve blocking GIF entirely. If the GIF file itself can be inspected for multiple images then you should be able to send to quarantine or OCR based on that check. I would think that there must be something in the header and/or some delimiter between the images.
Polecat said…
don't block gif's, block GIF 89a's (a for animated). It's in the header.
Nick FitzGerald said…
original syn "...sooner or later anti-spam companies will come up with a way to OCR these images..."

Actually, there has been an OCR plugin for SpamAssassin since early this year.

"...this could simply be defeated by merging the frames and then runnings the software."

It's a bit more complex than that. Read John's other blog and TSC http://www.jgc.org/tsc/ entries about image[-only] and animated GIF spam, paying attention to the initial emergence of animated GIFs with "noise frames" and such. You may also get a feel for what is involved by reading the "history" comments at the top of http://antispam.imp.ch/patches/patch-ocrtext
Nick FitzGerald said…
mkaatman said "Simple solution: block emails with gif attachments."

Not only simple, but simplistic. This may work for you, but in general will have a fantastic false-positive rate. You may not care, but for very good reason anti-spam developers are desperately sensitive to their FP rates.
Nick FitzGerald said…
ron said "If the GIF file itself can be inspected for multiple images..."

It can be...

...then you should be able to send to quarantine or OCR based on that check."

...but Incredimail users are prone to including animated GIFs, as are various webmail (and other) users who like to include those (small) animated sprite/avatar/etc images in their signatures. Again, it's not many folk in total, but enough to prevent serious anti-spam developers from adopting such a simple rule because of what it will do to their FP rates.
Paul McNamara said…
Interesting wrinkle. John had a few things to add in an interview he had with me, including the fact that he and Nick FitzGerald saw this one coming:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/8977

And Nick tells me that if it's fresh spam you want, it pays to be located in New Zealand:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/8993

Popular posts from this blog

Your last name contains invalid characters

My last name is "Graham-Cumming". But here's a typical form response when I enter it: Does the web site have any idea how rude it is to claim that my last name contains invalid characters? Clearly not. What they actually meant is: our web site will not accept that hyphen in your last name. But do they say that? No, of course not. They decide to shove in my face the claim that there's something wrong with my name. There's nothing wrong with my name, just as there's nothing wrong with someone whose first name is Jean-Marie, or someone whose last name is O'Reilly. What is wrong is that way this is being handled. If the system can't cope with non-letters and spaces it needs to say that. How about the following error message: Our system is unable to process last names that contain non-letters, please replace them with spaces. Don't blame me for having a last name that your system doesn't like, whose fault is that? Saying "Your

All the symmetrical watch faces (and code to generate them)

If you ever look at pictures of clocks and watches in advertising they are set to roughly 10:10 which is meant to be the most attractive (smiling!) position for the hands . They are actually set to 10:09.14 if the hands are truly symmetrical. CC BY 2.0 image by Shinji I wanted to know what all the possible symmetrical watch faces are and so I wrote some code using Processing. Here's the output (there's one watch face missing, 00:00 or 12:00, because it's very boring): The key to writing this is to figure out the relationship between the hour and minute hands when the watch face is symmetrical. In an hour the minute hand moves through 360° and the hour hand moves through 30° (12 hours are shown on the watch face and 360/12 = 30). The core loop inside the program is this:   for (int h = 0; h <= 12; h++) {     float m = (360-30*float(h))*2/13;     int s = round(60*(m-floor(m)));     int col = h%6;     int row = floor(h/6);     draw_clock((r+f)*(2*col+1), (r+f)*(row*2+1),

The Elevator Button Problem

User interface design is hard. It's hard because people perceive apparently simple things very differently. For example, take a look at this interface to an elevator: From flickr Now imagine the following situation. You are on the third floor of this building and you wish to go to the tenth. The elevator is on the fifth floor and there's an indicator that tells you where it is. Which button do you press? Most people probably say: "press up" since they want to go up. Not long ago I watched someone do the opposite and questioned them about their behavior. They said: "well the elevator is on the fifth floor and I am on the third, so I want it to come down to me". Much can be learnt about the design of user interfaces by considering this, apparently, simple interface. If you think about the elevator button problem you'll find that something so simple has hidden depths. How do people learn about elevator calling? What's the right amount of