Slashdot Mirror


Trojan Horse targets Google Adsense

dorkygeek writes "The Register reports that nogoodniks have developed a Trojan horse program that produces fake Google ads posing as the real thing. The as-yet unnamed Trojan replaces legitimate ads served via Google AdSense with promos for penis pills, porn sites and the like. Techshout says the Google AdSense team confirms 'that these are fake Google ads, formatted to look like legitimate ads. We agree that this phenomenon is likely the result of malicious software installed on your computer.'"

7 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Marketing campaign? by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps Google just wants more premium subscribers. From the detailed article:
    The Adsense Trojan Horse attacks small publishers. The premium publishers and ads displayed by Google's websites are apparently unaffected.

    1. Re:Marketing campaign? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From TFA
      ...The program is engineered to produce fake Google ads that are formatted to look like legitimate ones. The ads are incorporated in Google AdSense, the program that lets website owners display ads from Google's list of advertisers. The Trojan Horse apparently downloads itself onto an unsuspecting computer through a web page and then replaces the original ads with its own set of malicious ads.

      ...

      It has been further noticed that the Google AdLink Ads remain unaffected. The Adsense Trojan Horse attacks small publishers. The premium publishers and ads displayed by Google's websites are apparently unaffected.

      ...

      With the speed and promptness with which Google is working at this hour to fix up the vulnerability, Bangera says that he is absolutely confident that within no time the problem would be resolved.

      It might just be that I'm tired, but the article seems a bit difficult to parse.

      The best I can guess (from the last paragraph) is that affected [Adsense] ads are displayed differently from Adlink, etc & that Google can whip up some techno-wizardry to nullify the trojan's ability to interact with Ads by goooooooooogle.

      Still, that middle paragraph has me wondering how right/wrong my guess is.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. What's the difference? by drsquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An advert is an advert, I block them all. I doesn't matter whether it's linking to some porn site or to some site selling digital cameras, it's all bollocks as far as I'm concerned.

    Why does it matter to the user whether it's a 'legitimate' Google advert or not?

    1. Re:What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So ... let me get this straight. You put your content in a public forum. I am expected to download, read and possibly click on your ads because I happen on your page via a public service like a search engine? I don't understand where one feels entitled to throw ads at me when I didn't ask for them. If you don't want me reading your site, force me to register and agree to look at ads in exchange for access, or just charge me for access. There is no agreement so why am I obligated to do anything to access your freely, publicly accessible site?

    2. Re:What's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I realize a web site costs money. However, there is an implicit agreement when one puts their content in a public forum that it is freely available for consumption. There is no reasonable expectation that the operator is entitled to compensation. If you want an explicit agreement, there needs to be some form of communication between both parties on the terms of the agreement.

  3. I submitted this story on Thursday... by atanas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and it was rejected. Is it more relevant today?

  4. Mac vs Microsoft by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a fair question, and I'll try and give you a fair answer.

    The problem with Windows is that it took over the business world and forced a lot of us to work with it. We quickly found out that its quality was dreadful, and yet we could not make money with Unix because everyone was running pell-mell towards Windows. Thus, a HUGE amount of resentment towards Windows, because it was lousy, and because people were forcing us to use it.

    Apple, on the other hand, gave us a deal. "Hey guys," Steve said, "What if you could use a platform that has designer beauty, that will run all those cool commercial applications like Photoshop, but that is Unix underneath so you could run all your great free software?"

    Well, at the time he made this offer, computers running Linux either used window managers that took a week to set up, or had fonts that were so ugly they rivaled kindergarden scrawls in legibiilty. And to make matters worse, the developers of KDE and Gnome decided that Windows was the be all and end-all of user interface design and implemented the whole shooting match, from the Start button to the taskbar.

    So we started playing with the MacOS and we realized that this wasn't half bad. In fact, it's pretty darn cool. It's beautfully designed, well-engineered, and we can still play with our favorite command line toys. And hey, we're starting to make a few bucks, we don't need to put together a computer out of random dumpster parts for $2.98 anymore. We can afford a little luxury, and Apple's PowerBooks and PowerMacs are the most luxurious personal computers made, from the quality of their keyboards, to their screens, to their elegant metal finishes.

    Is it really that bad to run software controlled by a company? The reality is that it depends on the company. True, Apple equipment's expensive, and operating system and bundled software updates cost money. But Apple has never failed us. Each release brings us wonderful surprises and new fun stuff. The basic OS is solid as a rock, as long as you don't cheap out on your memory.

    To jog your memory, there are a lot of people who used Windows 2000 who loathed XP because of how oddly they switched things around. Apple has never done that. When they make improvements, they make sure they really are improvements. In short, although Apple is not a perfect company, they have shown themselves on the main to be a good, trustworthy partner, making computers that are genuinely beloved by the people who use them.

    In short, the problem of being controlled by a company depends on the company. And so far, Steve Jobs and his team have never failed us in creating cool, fun to use products. I don't think the Linux guys can say the same thing, since what they've done most of the time is to rip off old Windows and X11 interface ideas. Steve's willing to do things that are original, and beautiful, and some of us like both of those things, very much.

    It it nice to be able to play around and tinker with the OS? Only if you have time to burn. Many of us don't anymore, and would rather create something cool ourselves rather than messing around with someone people have already done. And I haven't noticed anything about the MacOS that seems like human waste products. it looks like a beautiful, slick, well-designed system that I genuinely enjoy using.

    In the end, for me, that's what matters, not whether I can fool around with the scheduler to my heart's content.

    Hope that helps.

    D