Slashdot Mirror
New Click-Fraud Attack Is Stealthiest Yet
An anonymous reader sends news from The Washington Post's Security Fix blog of a new Trojan horse program that takes click fraud to the next level. The Trojan, dubbed FFsearcher by SecureWorks, was among the pieces of malware installed by sites hacked with the Nine-Ball mass compromise, which attacked some 40,000 Web sites this month. The Trojan takes advantage of Google's "AdSense for Search" API, which allows Web sites to embed Google search results alongside the usual Google AdSense ads. (SecureWorks' writeup indicates that Yahoo search is targeted too, but the researchers saw no evidence if the malware redirecting Yahoo searches.) While most search hijackers give themselves away on the victim's machine by redirecting the browser through some no-name search engine, FFsearcher "...converts every search a victim makes through Google.com, so that each query is invisibly redirected through the attackers' own Web sites, via Google's Custom Search API. Meanwhile, the Trojan manipulates the victim's PC and browser so that the victim never actually sees the attacker-controlled Web site that is hijacking the search, but instead sees the search results as though they were returned directly from Google.com (and with Google.com in the victim browser's address bar, not the address of the attacker controlled site). Adding to the stealth is the fact that search results themselves aren't altered by the attackers, who are merely going after the referral payments should victims click on any of the displayed ads. What's more, the attackers aren't diverting clicks or ad revenue away from advertisers or publishers, as in traditional click fraud: They are simply forcing Google to pay commissions that it wouldn't otherwise have to pay." If FFSearcher were the only piece of malware on the machine, it would have a better chance of staying under the radar.
The article mentions that both IE and Firefox are vulnerable, but doesn't talk about other browsers. It also doesn't say if it affects current versions, or unpatched browsers only. Will security patches for IE and Firefox be coming soon?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I can't find how the server gets infected. Is it Windows, Linux, Apache, IIS, ... ?
What part is to blame?
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
So, let me get this straight:
The trojaneers' moneymaking is predicated upon people actually clicking on ads.
Uh... good luck with that!
Why would they waste their time? Surely there are easier ways to steal from adsense that don't involve putting people at risk...
Were you just trying for first post, or did you have a point to make? "Why would they [the FFSearcher developers] waste their time?" Because it makes them money and, thus, is not a waste of time at all but rather quite the profitable use of their time. And from the summary, it sounds like FFSearcher does nothing malicious except for redirecting traffic such that it gets referral payments. How is that putting people at risk? And what are these easier-to-steal-from-adsense methods you're referring to?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
This reminds me of the concern about bank fraud that IBM made the ZTIC device to help mitigate.
First, the attack is click fraud, but its not that large a jump to target bank transactions. The malware can target a Web browser where a person thinks they transferred some cash to their savings from their checking, when in reality, their entire balance was just moved to an attacker's offshore account. The malware would be doing a man in the middle dance making the victim think that everything is fine, when in reality their account is empty.
This type of attack would get around a lot of security measures used by banks today. The only real defense would be to have a separate device that shows transactions on it and one confirms or denies on that device as opposed to a potentially compromised computer.
Does this mean Cirno is the strongest?
Who would be liable for the bug? Since its dlls that are affected Microsoft would have to fix it. The thing is why should they? Their customers are not affected terribly. It is not technically fraud because it is not really misrepresenting what it presents. Google still benefits because of the adsense charges. It would be interesting to see who wants to fix this.
i don't think anything is keeping them from it, it's probably the first thing they did or are going to do. the problem is that they need to track the configuration of the trojan (which can be updated remotely) and keep shutting down accounts of the new search sites. it would be far more convenient if they had a possibility to determine click fraud by analyzing their stats, which is very difficult this way, as the fraud essentially looks the same as normal behavior. not having that option increases their work and increases the probability that there are different trojans running which they aren't aware off.
"and it's not fair (nor should it be legal!) to penalize that person for clicks outside their control"
If you own a dog, you're responsible for it. If you own a car, you're responsible for it. If you own a computer, you're not responsible?
Cry us a river - - -
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
....the impersonators prefer "Don't Be Elvis"