Slashdot Mirror
Click Here To Infect Your PC!
Email me for FREE viruses writes "Just how many people would click an ad saying "Is your PC virus-free? Get it infected here!"? According to the security researcher who ran that very ad on Google for 6 months, 0.16% (409 of 259,723) would click on it. 98% of those people were running Windows. The Google Adwords campaign cost $23 in total, which works out to $0.06 per infection had the site actually been malicious."
Then went and clicked on the link in the article? :P
to tech professionals, that users need clue distributed by bat
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
The sad thing is that using something more enticing like "Free boobs this way" would send millions of clueless Joe Windowses your way... All ripe for the picking.
.: Max Romantschuk
At a click rate of 0,16% - about one in 600 - I have to wonder if not a fairly large portion is simple click errors. You intend to click on some other link nearby on the page but by mistake click that one instead. There's several kind of interaction slips just like that that we do in other circumstances after all.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
It's news that at least 0.16% of people are idiots? Actually I'm shocked the number was this low. This is actually good news.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
sorry, couldn't RTFA because the link text was kinda prohibiting.
the poster makes it sound as if the conclusion from the statistic is something like "oh my god, windows users are sooo dumb". but also quoting the percentage of all users using windows would reveal a prior probability of something in the 90s already. so, assuming that the "experiment" has an error greater 0, the deviation between the prior probability and 98% has almost no significance...
Not exactly.
$0.06 per infection attempt, which is obviously not the same thing.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
This just goes to show, not matter how much you warn people they're about to do something really dumb, the still will. How many people do you think read that advert, though "No, it can't possibly mean that..." and then clicked on it to see?
At first I thought the same thing, just random misclicks. But then it hit me, there are a large number of users on the internet that don't have the know-how to install a virus on a computer of someone they hate, like an uppity coworker.
Imagine a bussiness model that would allow anyone to simply 1-click and install a virus (not a feature, those are patentable). Revenue would be generated with advertisments downloaded by the trojan, that would popup at random times on the victims computer. In essence, the victim would have to pay for the service. Brilliant!
And of that tiny percentage how many were Windows users taking the fairly safe bet that the ad didn't do what it said?
The comments give the browser stats:
335 - some version of IE
52 - Some version of Firefox
5 - other
That gives Firefox a 15% share.
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Hell, if I saw that link I'd click on it for sure. Well, I might drop to Cygwin and use lynx "just in case", but there's no way I'd not investigate such a link.
0.16%? I'd have guessed far more would click.
/. effect.
Next time call it "hot chicks with huge tits want to give you some love virus". I predict a
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I once explained that browser security is almost entirely determined by the user. This proves it. I wouldn't trust that 0.16% with a pocket calculator, let alone a computer!
You can't write code or design software that will secure "stupid." Firefox and Linux are certainly easier to secure, and they have a better security model, but they aren't idiot proof.
If those folks were using an abacus, they'd probably get their head stuck in it! <G>
--
Toro
I think it might very well be possible that many of those clicks are made from computers that are not owned by the user. Like maybe the school's computer or a friend's (who has wronged you) computer that the user (who has access, but not the know-how of how to infect)would want to harm. So I'd wager that quite a few of those clicks would not qualify as a completely idiotic act.
Maybe people clicking this link are not so dumb.
I would say that people clicking "Click here to check if your PC is virus-free !" are more stupid.
Personally, I wouldn't have clicked the "get infected", but I understand curious people who would because they are confident in their protection and this is kind of joke. When I see "Get your PC infected !", I think "no way, nobody can want this, must be a joke or something".
Of course, being confident in one's protection and using Windows IS stupid...
We need to go on a crusade to teach people how to surf porn safely, such as avoiding using a firewall on a microsoftie, but to make sure you have a hardened system first!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
sometimes you just like to know that it is working.
I wonder if average users of AV software look at their "quarantined files" and do a rough calculation of how much each of them cost..
"Hmm, I paid $60 for AV software this year and I've had a grand total of 4 files quarantined.. that's $12.50 per file."
I guess not, as 99% of people probably have zero files quarantined, not counting the false positives (I know I do).
How we know is more important than what we know.
It is possible that some folks were testing their antivirus/patch status when they clicked? How many of them were loading the web page for forensic analysis?
;^)
Security "white hats" do things like that you know. All those hits could be FBI agents for all we know.
--
Toro
From a browser perspective, 52 clicks were Firefox and 335 were IE (added up from TFA). So, 13% of those who clicked were using Firefox. From what I recall, 10-15% of all internet surfers use Firefox... I personally would have suspected a larger proportion of IE users.
Last time I ran a Google Adwords campaign, they'd drop your advert if you get less than a threshold clickthrough rate. I think it was 0.5%. It was certainly higher than 0.16%. So how did they do this? Have Google dropped that restriction?
for not RTFA'ing. Being a true /.er, here's my opinion anyway:
Microsoft sucks. Users are idiots.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Would any aggressive cache pre-fetch engines follow links like this?
My good friend once joked that 95% of users would double click an icon named "ClickMe.EXE", without much thought at all.
the other 5 percent would right click and select open.
Free boobies for all!
Cute booby chicks for your delectation! aff
en.wikipedia.org
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
'I think it might very well be possible that many of those clicks are made from computers that are not owned by the user'
Without any evidence to the contrary your argument is entirely specious. How do we know they weren't space aliens.
was Re:Malicious intent (Score:5, excuses~1)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Was this story really submitted by Gates himself?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
just the once
Virus scanners create a false sense of security.
.exes from "FREE!!!!!!!!!" sites, use Internet Explorer, etc.
<user> I have Norton. My computer is now immune to all viruses.
(one week later)
<user> I have a virus, can you fix it?
I've seen people many times think that because they had Norton or McAfee, that they could do whatever they want without having to worry about getting a virus and act reckless. Open every attachment they get in email, downloading and running random
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
I wasn't talking about virus scanners, I was thinking more along the lines that it's very unlikely that the ad did what it said it would do, and much more likely it was study or a joke -- people would guess that before clicking it.
He comes into work one day and you can tell by looking at him that he's pissed. He goes into the break room to get ready for the shift so I go back there and ask him what's wrong.
He says, "I'm need a new ****ing computer."
I ask why...
"because the one I have now is too slow. I can't use the web because I get hundreds of popups."
I tell him that's a pretty easy thing to fix and off to burn a CD and write up some directions for him.
He tells me that won't work... again, I ask why.
"Because I'm ****ing sick of Microsoft."
I tell him I totally understand that, but that his problem with the pop-ups is pretty easy to fix.
He says, "No, it's not. I click on all the Windows that ask me if I want to remove the viruses from my computer and they are always charging me $20-$40 per virus. I spent almost $400 last week!"
Another computer savvy employee had joined the conversation by this point and we both looked at each other in complete disbelief. The guy wasn't joking...
sig.
I'm disappointed.
And then, if and only if it looks safe, you can use wget http://somesite.someisp.cc/some/long/filename.ext to download it for investigation.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
The tester did not take into account that his/her ad will also appear on 3rd party websites which the owner stands to make money from. There are many groups that take advantage of ads being displayed on their own 'ring of websites' and will generate fraud clicks no matter what the title/description of the ad displayed.
Example:
Joe runs a website. Joe decides he wants some income for his website and signs up for Google Adsense which displays contextual Google ads on his website. Google gives Joe a percentage of the revenue (30-40%?!-google doesn't tell exactly how much.) Joe decides to get some of his friends to click on his ads to boost his monthly revenue. Joe makes more money, and the ad gets more clicks. Advertisers have no idea that Joe is falsely generating clicks and will happily pay Google for the clicks, which in turn Google pays Joe his dividends as well.
Now if the tester turned off the ability to have his ads displayed on 3rd party websites, then the test would carry a bit more ground.
I'm not saying people aren't dumb enough to click on the ad, I'm just bringing up a valid point that exists in web advertising everywhere, especially Google (even they will tell you that their fraud systems will catch the persons 100% of the time - lol)
h
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
Oh no, that's much too complex. I just click on the little blue "E". Works every time.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Performed for curiousity sake from a test system, re-imaged shortly thereafter.
I wonder how many of the IE hits are from ad-clicking bots pretending to be IE. I think those things do some amount of random ad poking, to hide their tracks.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
This is why people should stop using windows!
McCartney fans pay bus tickets. [...] Lennon fans too, with discretion.
Anonymous cowards don't need karma, and first posts don't need high visibility. I see it more as a mod point that got wasted for no good reason than an opportunity to reward someone for posting goatse.
For most users, yes that is among the worst, though not the worst.
Worse than reinstall: Having your private records emailed to others
Especially if your private records are government espionage records. Say your machine had a document you were preparing for your superiors detailing activities of some of your undercover intelligence operatives in foreign countries. Say the computer infection sent that information out. Worst case under this scenario: death of your agents, and death of your fellow citizens as they get slaughtered due to your government not knowing the details of an impending attack. Indeed, in this worse-case scenario the fatal STD is the minor incident since potentially thousands or even millions could be killed as a result of your machine getting sick.
What if your personal files were mailed out and the information in them led to the death of yourself or another? Say you had incriminating information that if others found out they may get violent over? What if that was emailed out.
I've seen this scenario on a less-than-fatal happen. I've seen people's Windows PCs get infected and their personal financial records emailed out to everyone in their address book.
What if your Windows Mobile device gets a virus on it locking your phone - preventing you from placing that call to 911? You or others (or both) could die from not having emergency medical arrive in time, if at all.
Most STDs are not fatal, even if untreated. Most Windows machine infections are not fatal, even if treated. But to say that they can not be is to not look at the potential or to consider the extent of which computers are integrated into our lives.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.