You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Alex <my...@gmail.com> on 2023/01/15 19:47:32 UTC

sharepoint phish routed through sharepointonline/outlook

Hi,

X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.102 tagged_above=-200 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.1, FMBLA_HELO_OUTMX=-0.01,
 FMBLA_RDNS_OUTMX=-0.01, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOC_CDIS_INLINE=0.1,
 LOC_FILE_SHARE_PHISH1=0.75, LOC_FROMADDR=0.01, LOC_FROMNAME=0.01,
 LOC_IMGSPAM=0.1, LOC_XORIGORG=0.01, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
 RCVD_IN_SENDERSCORE_80_89=-0.4, RELAYCOUNTRY_LOW=0.1, RELAYCOUNTRY_US=0.01,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TXREP=-0.166] autolearn=disabled

I'm reporting it to spamcop and training bayes, but does anyone have any
other ideas?

Is this just someone using their sharepoint account to send a phish?
Perhaps account takeover?

https://pastebin.com/2CJ3SLf2

Re: sharepoint phish routed through sharepointonline/outlook

Posted by Raymond Dijkxhoorn via users <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>.
Hi!

> Yes, I am running SA4 and have been for probably more than a year. What 
> am I doing wrong that RBL checks wouldn't be checking the FQDN?

Could be several reasons but will contact you offlist.

> uniabujaedung-my[.]sharepoint[.]com[.]multi[.]surbl[.]org
> has address 127.0.0.64

> Meaning its lised in ABUSE.
> 
> I suspect then that I received it prior to it being listed there. Any 
> way to correlate those dates (if it's even worth it)?

And sure we can do that.

Thanks! Raymond

Re: sharepoint phish routed through sharepointonline/outlook

Posted by Alex <my...@gmail.com>.
Hi,

> RBL checks for FQDN not just domains would be a good idea...
>
...

>
> I assume you are not running SA4. That does this. (And the sharepoint
> domain you have in your mail is listed on SURBL.... )
>

Yes, I am running SA4 and have been for probably more than a year. What am
I doing wrong that RBL checks wouldn't be checking the FQDN?

uniabujaedung-my[.]sharepoint[.]com[.]multi[.]surbl[.]org
> has address 127.0.0.64
>
> Meaning its lised in ABUSE.
>

I suspect then that I received it prior to it being listed there. Any way
to correlate those dates (if it's even worth it)?

Thanks! Raymond
>

Thank you :-)

Re: sharepoint phish routed through sharepointonline/outlook

Posted by Raymond Dijkxhoorn via users <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>.
Hello All,

> RBL checks for FQDN not just domains would be a good idea...

> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.102 tagged_above=-200 required=5
> >tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
> >DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.1, FMBLA_HELO_OUTMX=-0.01,
> >FMBLA_RDNS_OUTMX=-0.01, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOC_CDIS_INLINE=0.1,
> >LOC_FILE_SHARE_PHISH1=0.75, LOC_FROMADDR=0.01, LOC_FROMNAME=0.01,
> >LOC_IMGSPAM=0.1, LOC_XORIGORG=0.01, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1,
> >RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
> >RCVD_IN_SENDERSCORE_80_89=-0.4, RELAYCOUNTRY_LOW=0.1, RELAYCOUNTRY_US=0.01,
> >SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TXREP=-0.166] autolearn=disabled

I assume you are not running SA4. That does this. (And the sharepoint 
domain you have in your mail is listed on SURBL.... )

uniabujaedung-my[.]sharepoint[.]com[.]multi[.]surbl[.]org
has address 127.0.0.64

Meaning its lised in ABUSE.

Thanks! Raymond


Re: sharepoint phish routed through sharepointonline/outlook

Posted by Pedro David Marco via users <us...@spamassassin.apache.org>.
 RBL checks for FQDN not just domains would be a good idea...
Pedro.

   >On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 08:47:59 PM GMT+1, Alex <my...@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 >Hi,

>X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.102 tagged_above=-200 required=5
 >tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
 >DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.1, FMBLA_HELO_OUTMX=-0.01,
 >FMBLA_RDNS_OUTMX=-0.01, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOC_CDIS_INLINE=0.1,
 >LOC_FILE_SHARE_PHISH1=0.75, LOC_FROMADDR=0.01, LOC_FROMNAME=0.01,
 >LOC_IMGSPAM=0.1, LOC_XORIGORG=0.01, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1,
 >RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
 >RCVD_IN_SENDERSCORE_80_89=-0.4, RELAYCOUNTRY_LOW=0.1, RELAYCOUNTRY_US=0.01,
 >SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TXREP=-0.166] autolearn=disabled

>'m reporting it to spamcop and training bayes, but does anyone have any other ideas?
>Is this just someone using their sharepoint account to send a phish? Perhaps account takeover? 
>https://pastebin.com/2CJ3SLf2




  

Re: sharepoint phish routed through sharepointonline/outlook

Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Alex skrev den 2023-01-15 20:47:
> Hi,
> 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.102 tagged_above=-200 required=5
>  tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
> DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
>  DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.1, FMBLA_HELO_OUTMX=-0.01,
>  FMBLA_RDNS_OUTMX=-0.01, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOC_CDIS_INLINE=0.1,
>  LOC_FILE_SHARE_PHISH1=0.75, LOC_FROMADDR=0.01, LOC_FROMNAME=0.01,
>  LOC_IMGSPAM=0.1, LOC_XORIGORG=0.01, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1,
>  RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
>  RCVD_IN_SENDERSCORE_80_89=-0.4, RELAYCOUNTRY_LOW=0.1,
> RELAYCOUNTRY_US=0.01,
>  SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TXREP=-0.166]
> autolearn=disabled
> 
> I'm reporting it to spamcop and training bayes, but does anyone have
> any other ideas?
> 
> Is this just someone using their sharepoint account to send a phish?
> Perhaps account takeover?
> 
> https://pastebin.com/2CJ3SLf2



Content analysis details:   (3.1 points, 5.0 required)

  pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- 
--------------------------------------------------
  0.7 SPF_FAIL               SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
[SPF failed: Please see 
http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=no-reply%40sharepointonline.com;ip=199.199.178.197;r=localhost.junc.eu]
  0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE          SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
  0.0 ARC_VALID              Message has a valid ARC signature
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not 
necessarily valid
  0.0 ARC_SIGNED             Message has a ARC signature
  0.1 DKIM_INVALID           DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not 
valid
  0.0 KAM_DMARC_STATUS       Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with 
Strict
                             Alignment
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
  0.1 MIME_HTML_ONLY         BODY: Message only has text/html MIME parts
  2.0 KAM_DMARC_REJECT       DKIM has Failed or SPF has failed on the 
message and
                              the domain has a DMARC reject policy
  0.1 DMARC_REJECT           DMARC reject policy


it gets neutral score since its maillist of some kind imho ?

reject it by dkim valid, one of the signers is valid, if not just arc, 
if only arc is then do setup AuthRes plugin in spamassassin 4.x.x

i dont know how, but i belive spammers die slowly in 2023



Re: sharepoint phish routed through sharepointonline/outlook

Posted by Rupert Gallagher <ru...@protonmail.com>.
Message-Id: <od...@DAEB5AAE0CFE>

Read RFC 822, pp. 44-46.

If your answer is that the latest RFC allows for it, the my reply is: my mail, my rules, so I apply the most stringent rules.

-------- Original Message --------
On 15 Jan 2023, 20:47, Alex wrote:

> Hi,
>
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.102 tagged_above=-200 required=5
> tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
> DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.1, FMBLA_HELO_OUTMX=-0.01,
> FMBLA_RDNS_OUTMX=-0.01, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOC_CDIS_INLINE=0.1,
> LOC_FILE_SHARE_PHISH1=0.75, LOC_FROMADDR=0.01, LOC_FROMNAME=0.01,
> LOC_IMGSPAM=0.1, LOC_XORIGORG=0.01, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1,
> RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
> RCVD_IN_SENDERSCORE_80_89=-0.4, RELAYCOUNTRY_LOW=0.1, RELAYCOUNTRY_US=0.01,
> SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TXREP=-0.166] autolearn=disabled
>
> I'm reporting it to spamcop and training bayes, but does anyone have any other ideas?
>
> Is this just someone using their sharepoint account to send a phish? Perhaps account takeover?
>
> https://pastebin.com/2CJ3SLf2