Stopping "PattyMail" Email Bugs

An anonymous reader writes, "In the U.S. Congressional Inquiry into the HP spy scandal, it was revealed that HP used Web bugs to track the source of leaks. HP's Fred Adler considers them a useful investigative tool which HP will keep using. Since dubbed PattyMail after HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn, Web bugs have been around for a while. But it turns out the vulnerability they represent is far worse than first thought. Microsoft Outlook won't have a patch until 2007. The company at the center of the scandal claims they've done nothing wrong. But could repressive governments use them to track down critics? Can anything be done to stop Web bugs?"

Get rid of pics in emails

[krell (896769)]

Ship all email programs by default configured to not show images in the mail. That would be a start. I've seen some web clients already that automatically filter out tiny "bug" sized graphics.

Re:Get rid of pics in emails

[DaveCar (189300)]

The issue discussed in TFA does not involve image bugs but iframe bugs.

Now, I don't know, but they would potentially still be triggered if you were using a "convert to plain text" filter???

Re:Get rid of pics in emails

[by Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect opportunity for the often decried personal firewalls: Add a rule to allow the mail client to connect to the mailserver on the POP3 and SMTP ports (or IMAP port) and deny all other connections. Even if you use a client which can't be configured not to load external files, the firewall will stop the webbugs.

use Pine

[baomike (143457)]

easy way to eliminate all sorts of crap in emails.

Huh?

[mccrew (62494)]

A good fix would be to have your email client fetch all external files via a caching proxy server.

I don't think so. Please explain how your proposal would prevent the sender from detecting the user reading the mail in the following image tag, where the final part of the URL path is a uniquifier:

<img src="http://example.com/cgi-bin/genImage/lk3894343 ">

Yes.

[AJWM (19027)]

Can anything be done to stop Web bugs?"

Um, how about not reading email in HTML? Even LookOut!, er, Outlook you can set to convert mail to plain text.

Re:

[John.P.Jones (601028)]

In this case it isn't HTML that is the problem it is the automated referencing of external data (images) via HTML, my mail program kindly asks before downloading these images, a really nice sender would attach the images so I know they aren't tracking me.

Pfft, you kids and your bloatware.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

A real email client ... surely you mean UNIX mail?

That ought to be good enough for anybody.

Re:Pfft, you kids and your bloatware.

[SillyNickName4me (760022)]

I telnet into smtp and pop3 servers to send and read mail...

Usual FUD

[The Bungi (221687)]

Outlook is doing exactly what it needs to do, blocking download of images [zdnet.com]. If it lacks the specialization of countering these "bugs" that's too bad for corporate sleuths and leakers, but it does not expose the user to anything, this is not a vulnerability and the "patch" mentioned will simply give you an additional option regarding image handling. I wouldn't think the "let me forward this mail with the secret tracking device turned off" functionality was high on Microsoft's feature list when they released OLK2003.

Re:Usual FUD

[NewWorldDan (899800)]

The only thing I don't like about Outlook's handling of this is that there isn't a way to download specific image files in the message. It's all or none.

"Can anything be done to stop Web bugs?"

[bunions (970377)]

Sadly, no. Since HTML is a vital component of email, this sort of vulerability is inherent in the 'email' system, much like compromised cookies and overridden passwords. Some time in the future, we may have an email system that is simply composed of raw text which would be invulnerable to such exploits, but for now we can only dream.

Moving forward.

[krell (896769)]

"Some time in the future, we may have an email system that is simply composed of raw text which would be invulnerable to such exploits, but for now we can only dream."

I've even heard that someone is working on a revolutionary OS that runs entirely in text mode, and uses command-line control, and is completely impervious to web bugs, Windows trojans, and other such infestations.

Re:Moving forward.

[Pinky (738)]

Ah yes, Amish OS 1.0.

Alternatively you can unplug the three pronged virus enabler device that runs from every computer to the electrical socket.

So, is it spyware?

[BigDogCH (760290)]

Wikipedia explains web bugs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_bugs [wikipedia.org]

So, is this spyware, or not? I would say yes. The website is spyware, as it is tracking where it's user comes from....but then isn't all of the internet spyware?

The ZDnet article asks it best......"Phoning home? Deception? It must be spyware. Right? At least if you're a politician that's not well steeped in technology, it must be. Or is that the case? Maybe it is spyware after all. And maybe all HTML-based e-mail should visibly disclose that the page contains "tracking" elements with links back to more information on what those elements do and what the privacy policy of the sender is. Does PattyMail qualify as spyware and should the senders of HTML-based e-mail disclose their use of trackable graphical elements in the e-mail itself? Feel free to answer below."

Solution is NOT regulation.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

This sounds like an invitation for some dumbass law "requiring" people to disclose when an email has tracking elements ... except that it would be impossible to enforce, and the spammers/malware-writers would just ignore it anyway.

The solution here isn't regulation. It's just for people to decide whether a feature (in this case, HTML mail) is really worth the risk.

Alterately, we could 'neuter' HTML mail so that only the most basic formatting commands worked; use it purely as a style markup language, with no iframes, images, or externally linked text. That seems like it would solve the problem while preserving the reason 90% of idiot users want HTML: so they can use bold/italic/flashing-red-text or whatever.

Plain Text Only

[rhavenn (97211)]

Don't read your email in HTML format. Problem solved. a) There is nothing to be said in email that can't be said in plaintext and b) I really could care less to see your smiley face sig and pretty flower background.

Re:Plain Text Only

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Don't read your email in HTML format. Problem solved. a) There is nothing to be said in email that can't be said in plaintext and b) I really could care less to see your smiley face sig and pretty flower background.

Yeah, but wouldn't that be much more emphatic if it was written like this:

Don't read your email in HTML format. Problem solved.

• There is nothing to be said in email that can't be said in plaintext and

• I really could care less to see your smiley face sig and pretty flower background.

Paul Tomblin said it best.

[Tackhead (54550)]

> There may not be an easy way to disable it in today's email software, short of turning off HTML email entirely.

"The PROPER way to handle HTML postings is to cancel the article, then hire a hitman to kill the poster, his wife and kids, and fuck his dog and smash his computer into little bits. Anything more is just extremism."

- Paul Tomblin was talking about USENET when he said this, but he was right.

Re:

[muellerr1 (868578)]

How much do hitmen charge for dog fucking?

Block in the firewall?

[DamienMcKenna (181101)]

How about blocking the offending IP ranges at the firewall level? Anyone know what IPs to block?

With Outlook, just use a software firewall

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke (850482)]

Using a crappy old version of Zonealarm here, but any decent software firewall would do the same.

Zonealalarm's pretty basic - it* only has concepts of "local" and "Internet" zones; simply ensure that the Exchange server that it wants to connect to is in the "local" zone and that Outlook can't access the "Internet" zone.

*the version I'm using, anyway.

Can anything be done to stop Web bugs?

[Otter Escaping North (945051)]

Can anything be done to stop Web bugs?

Funny you should ascii...

Sendmail/MailScanner/Pmail

[Medievalist (16032)]

www.sendmail.org
www.mailscanner.info
www.pmail.com

Problem solved, oh, maybe five years ago. It amazes me that anyone just figured this was a problem NOW.

I've received hundreds, if not thousands, of emails with a {disarmed} header modification inserted by MailScanner... it's quite interesting to learn who is routinely inserting tracking bugs in their mailings.

I suppose you could also use transparent caching a'la squid to bumfuzzle some of the trackers and speed up browsing for your end users at the same time. But it seems like nowadays the bugs usually contain individualized tracking codes that would make it through the cache anyway.

You just have to strip out external references and tell the end users "that guy who sent you this is using a broken mailer". That's the strategy the HTML addicts used to create this problem, after all - they told the clueless that HTML was normal and that anybody who couldn't read it was using broken or obsolete software. I use the same line (which happens to be true) if somebody complains that they can't read company XYZ's mailings because the image links have been stripped out; "oh, company XYZ is using a broken obsolete mailer that puts external links into the text; until they learn to use the Internet you'd better find a new company to deal with or stick to phone calls".

Re:

[DaveCar (189300)]

Bah. RTFA. It's not about image bugs.