Git
/
mgeeky-decode-spam-headers
mirror of https://github.com/mgeeky/decode-spam-headers.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

update

This commit is contained in:
Mariusz B. / mgeeky 2021-10-29 14:51:31 +02:00
parent 3572f36d73
commit 9fa37bcfe5
1 changed files with 112 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

112
README.md
View File

@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ This script also extracts all IPv4 addresses and domain names and performs full
Resulting output will contain useful information on why this e-mail might have been blocked.
In order to embellish your Phishing HTML code before sending it to your client, you might also want feed it into my [`phishing-HTML-linter.py`](https://github.com/mgeeky/Penetration-Testing-Tools/blob/master/phishing/phishing-HTML-linter.py). It does pretty decent job finding _bad smells_ in your HTML that will get your e-mail with increased Spam-score.
### Example Screenshots
@ -111,6 +113,116 @@ Processed headers (more than **67+** headers are parsed):
Most of these headers are not fully documented, therefore the script is unable to pinpoint all the details, but at least it collects all I could find on them.
### Reverse-Engineering efforts
I'm making signifcant efforts to spot and understand different Office365 ForeFront Anti-Spam ruls (SFS, ENG) despite them not being publicly documented.
```
------------------------------------------
(5) Test: X-Forefront-Antispam-Report
HEADER:
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report
VALUE:
CIP:209.85.167.100;CTRY:US;LANG:de;SCL:5;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:SPM;H:mail-lf1-f100.google.com;PTR:mail-l
f1-f100.google.com;CAT:DIMP;SFTY:9.19;SFS:(4636009)(956004)(166002)(6916009)(356005)(336012)(19
625305002)(22186003)(5660300002)(4744005)(6666004)(35100500006)(82960400001)(26005)(7596003)(7636003)(554460
02)(224303003)(1096003)(58800400005)(86362001)(9686003)(43540500002);DIR:INB;SFTY:9.19;
[...]
- Message matched 24 Anti-Spam rules (SFS): <============ opaque anti-spam rules
- (1096003)
- (166002)
- (19625305002)
- (22186003)
- (224303003)
- (26005)
- (336012)
- (356005)
- (35100500006) - (SPAM) Message contained embedded image.
```
The process is purely manual and resorts to sending specifically designed mails to the Office365 mail servers and then manually reviewing and correlating collected rules.
Having sent more than 60 mails already, this is what I can tell by now about Microsoft's rules:
```py
#
# Below rules were collected solely in a trial-and-error manner or by scraping any
# pieces of information from all around the Internet.
#
# They do not represent the actual Anti-Spam rule name or context and surely represent
# something close to what is understood (or they may have totally different meaning).
#
# Until we'll be able to review anti-spam rules documention, there is no viable mean to map
# rule ID to its meaning.
#
Anti_Spam_Rules_ReverseEngineered = \
{
'35100500006' : logger.colored('(SPAM) Message contained embedded image.', 'red'),
# https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/416100/what-is-meanings-of-39x-microsoft-antispam-mailbox.html
'520007050' : logger.colored('(SPAM) Moved message to Spam and created Email Rule to move messages from this particular sender to Junk.', 'red'),
# triggered on an empty mail with subject being: "test123 - viagra"
'162623004' : 'Subject line contained suspicious words (like Viagra).',
# triggered on mail with subject "test123" and body being single word "viagra"
'19618925003' : 'Mail body contained suspicious words (like Viagra).',
# triggered on mail with empty body and subject "Click here"
'28233001' : 'Subject line contained suspicious words luring action (ex. "Click here"). ',
# triggered on a mail with test subject and 1500 words of http://nietzsche-ipsum.com/
'30864003' : 'Mail body contained a lot of text (more than 10.000 characters).',
# mails that had simple message such as "Hello world" triggered this rule, whereas mails with
# more than 150 words did not.
'564344004' : 'HTML mail body with less than 150 words of text (not sure how much less though)',
# message was sent with a basic html and only one <u> tag in body.
'67856001' : 'HTML mail body contained underline <u> tag.',
# message with html,head,body and body containing simple text with no b/i/u formatting.
'579124003' : 'HTML mail body contained text, but no text formatting (<b>, <i>, <u>) was present',
# This is a strong signal. Mails without <a> doesnt have this rule.
'166002' : 'HTML mail body contained URL <a> link.',
# Message contained <a href="https://something.com/file.html?parameter=value" - GET parameter with value.
'21615005' : 'Mail body contained <a> tag with URL containing GET parameter: ex. href="https://foo.bar/file?aaa=bbb"',
# Message contained <a href="https://something.com/file.html?parameter=https://another.com/website"
# - GET parameter with value, being a URL to another website
'45080400002' : 'Mail body contained <a> tag with URL containing GET parameter with value of another URL: ex. href="https://foo.bar/file?aaa=https://baz.xyz/"',
# Message contained <a> with href pointing to a file with dangerous extension, such as file.exe
'460985005' : 'Mail body contained HTML <a> tag with href URL pointing to a file with dangerous extension (such as .exe)',
#
# Message1: GoPhish -> VPS 587/tcp redirector -> smtp.gmail.com:587 -> target
# Message2: GoPhish -> VPS 587/tcp redirector -> smtp-relay.gmail.com:587 -> target
#
# These were the only differences I spotted:
# Message1 - FirstHop Gmail SMTP Received with ESMTPS.
# Message2 - FirstHop Gmail SMTP-Relay Received with ESMTPSA.
#
'121216002' : 'First Hop MTA SMTP Server used as a SMTP Relay. It\'s known to originate e-mails, but here it acted as a Relay. Or maybe due to use of "with ESMTPSA" instead of ESMTPS?',
}
```
Should you know anything about any other Office365 anti-spam rules (or have suggestions to the ones described above) - let me know in this repo's issues, I'll add it straight away :)
### Usage
Help: