Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google to be Our Web-Based Anti-Virus Protector ?

Posted by Zonk on from the oh-google-is-there-anything-you-can't-do dept.

cyberianpan writes "For some time now, searches have displayed 'this site may harm your computer' when Google has tagged a site as containing malware. Now the search engine giant is is further publicizing the level of infection in a paper titled: The Ghost In The Browser. For good reason, too: the company found that nearly 1 in ten sites (or about 450,000) are loaded with malicious software. Google is now promising to identify all web pages on the internet that could be malicious - with its powerful crawling abilities & data centers, the company is in an excellent position to do this. 'As well as characterizing the scale of the problem on the net, the Google study analyzed the main methods by which criminals inject malicious code on to innocent web pages. It found that the code was often contained in those parts of the website not designed or controlled by the website owner, such as banner adverts and widgets. Widgets are small programs that may, for example, display a calendar on a webpage or a web traffic counter. These are often downloaded form third party sites. The rise of web 2.0 and user-generated content gave criminals other channels, or vectors, of attack, it found.'"

4 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Wouldn't good sites with bad ads or posts... by Anarchysoft · · Score: 5, Insightful
    be blocked?

    It found that the code was often contained in those parts of the website not designed or controlled by the website owner, such as banner adverts and widgets. Wouldn't it be far better to have safer browsers than to shut out (as many people or their organizations will do) 10% of the web?
    --
    Hax-fu?
  2. Re:aid and comfort to the enemy? Helping microsoft by Aldur42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe, but any reduction in the number of infected PCs is win for the entire net.

    --
    A complicated error is indistinguishable from a feature.
  3. Re:aid and comfort to the enemy? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do Linux or Apple users not mind when a bot-net army takes down a website they are trying to access, or clogs the pipes?

    Do Linux or Apple users not mind all the spam to their inbox from hijacked machines?

    Do Linux or Apple users not have to worry about some family member being taken in by a phishing scheme, hosted on a hijacked machine?

    Do Linux or Apple users not mind tons of hijacked machines probing any SSH or other ports you might have open, looking for vulnerabilities or doing dictionary password attacks?

    Less hijacked machines on the internet helps us all. Be you a Windows, Linux, Apple, BSD, or other user. Not caring about hijacked windows boxes because you are leet enough to use Linux is stupid.

  4. What you suggest is wrong and immoral by __aawdrj2992 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since most of this malware attacks windows machines, isn't google helping microsoft more than it's helping linux or apple?

    Since morality is defined by the desire to limit human suffering, protecting innocent people who don't know better from malware is always going to be for a greater good. People shouldn't have to get their OS reloaded every few months.

    Not running your choice of OS doesn't make them bad, and is a startling simplistic world view. There's no "helping Microsoft" here; they are trying to protect all Internet users. Since those people are using Google search, it's really more like trying to serve their customers better. Since all their customers are Internet users; so ask yourself: what is concern #1 amongst Internet users?