Via Instapundit:
* Emphasis Mine.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/sec ... /229625599
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/0 ... email.html
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~savage/papers/Oakland11.pdf
Quote:BRUCE STERLING: Hit Spammers At Their Payment Processors. “Nearly all financial transactions arising from spam operations are handled by just three banks, according to a paper from 15 researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at San Diego, the International Computer Science Institute and the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. The three banks are Azerigazbank in Azerbaijan, DnB NOR in Latvia, and St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla National Bank in the Caribbean. As potential solutions, the researchers recommend that issuing banks in the US refuse to conduct ‘card not present’ transactions for known spammers.”
[Editor's Note (Schultz): This is one of the most interesting information security research efforts in recent years.
(Honan): This is a very interesting development in the fight against spam. While changing hosting providers is a trivial matter for spam operators changing their payment processor is not easy making it more time consuming and costly for spammers to conduct their operations. * Should enough of these payment processors be identified and blacklisted it could have a major impact in the amount of spam flooding our networks.]
* Emphasis Mine.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/sec ... /229625599
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/0 ... email.html
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~savage/papers/Oakland11.pdf