Slashdot Mirror
Malware Delivered By Yahoo, Fox, Google Ads
WrongSizeGlass writes "CNET is reporting that Avast has tracked over 2.6 million instances of malware that have been served up to unsuspecting web surfers since last December by ad services such as Yahoo's Yield Manager, Fox Audience Network's Fimserve.com and even some from Google's DoubleClick. Some high-profile sites include The New York Times, Drudge Report.com, TechCrunch and WhitePages.com. The practice has been dubbed 'malvertising.'
I usually suspect the users of 'careless web activity' when I delouse a PC, but now I'm going to have to give some the benefit of the doubt."
At my work, we allow unrestricted access to the net, but log everything. We had a recent spate of vundo variants come through, and when we went through the logs, almost all of them were via the NYTimes or Wa Post. Frustrating, when large companies like this make work for you. For the most part, the allow everything, log it and using IDPS on the front-end(s) has helped quite a bit.
Sent from your iPad.
Never ever click an ad!
Clicking not necessary. I was infected with malware earlier this month without any interaction after visiting the Pirate Bay. An advert used javascript to redirect me to an obscure URL ( http://uqwaaa.in/cgi-bin/gjj ), which proceded to use a Firefox flaw of some kind to infect me. 3.6 doesn't seem to be susceptible, but 3.5.7 which I was running at the time *was*. The exploit installed a Firefox extension that randomly redirects links from google, yahoo and bing to advertising pages.
And Ars Technica says I shouldn't block ads.
I repeatedly told their staff that I don't block Ars Technica, but I do block ad servers. If they want to send me ads let them server them from their own domain.
Sites resposible for ad-vectored infections should be hit with hundreds of small claims court lawsuits to recoup the costs to clean up the infections.
Maybe then they'll learn.
Indeed, and for people browsing Fox News, you don't even need a computer to be infected.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Yup, I've seen it, too. I run a gaming web site that gets around 2 million page loads a month. A long time ago, I made a deliberate decision not to run ads. My rationale at the time was that I didn't mind paying the hosting cost because it's my hobby. Some people pay a lot on woodworking, some people pay a fortune on golf. My hobbyist indulgence is paying the monthly fee for a VPS to host the site.
A while back, when I needed more power for the site and the hosting costs went up, I made a deal to move the site (which was a MediaWiki-based wiki) to Wikia. They promised me that there would only be one ad on the site, that it would never be injected in the content, that it wouldn't be obtrusive, and other such things. After the site was moved, they proceeded to go back on these promises, and several more.
After less than a year, the other administrators and I decided to re-host the site ourselves, and ask for donations. Again, we don't run ads, and thanks to donations, I'm almost breaking even on the hosting costs.
Recently, someone pointed me back to Wikia's site. It is a tragedy. Aside from being woefully out of date, there were six or eight ads, including javascript and Flash ads that obscure parts of the screen and injected into the articles. Worst of all, some of the "malvertising" discussed in this article.
Here's what's kind of bad. Because Wikia uses SEO crappy games, their site still comes up on top of the search results in Google. (You should see the page titles, they're 10 or 15 words long.) I recently posted a message on the game's official forums warning people of the malevolent advertising, because I wanted to make sure people used the right URL for our wiki, and it was a good chance to reiterate how important it is to us to keep the site ad-free.
A week or so ago, one of the guys at Ars Technica ranted in an article about how people who use ad blocking are stealing content. It's the same argument I've seen higher profile people (Rubert Murdoch, I'm looking at you...) make the same claim. I said then, and I still maintain, that using ad blocking and Flash blocking is not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of maintaining the security of my system.
Fortunately, I like sites like Ars Technica, because they provide an alternate means of reading their content without "stealing" it, and I have a paid subscription to the site. However, as long as a site's only business model is advertising, I don't feel one iota of guilt in protecting my system. If they block content if ad blockers are being used, more power to them, I'll find another site to read.
But stories like this, stories I've actually felt first-hand, are why I support sites without advertising, I do what I can to opt out of advertising, and I don't force advertising on visitors to sites I run myself.
Yep. You don't have to click on anything to get infected. We've had a couple of our systems infected over the past couple of months. What scares me is:
1. We were running the latest version of Firefox
2. Acrobat Reader was fully patched (version 8, not 9. But, we have to leave the JS enabled)
3. Adobe Flash was up-to-date
4. Windows was fully patched
5. We have web filters
6. They got past 2 layers of IDS/IPS and 3 layers of antivirus scanners (different engines)
7. Users are NOT admins!!!
Since then, we have switched to a few new products and attempted to tighten things up even more, but these things have gotten incredibly complex. In one case, it was a triple attack. The Flash ad (0-day exploit) loaded an exploited PDF (0-day exploit) that took advantage of a 0-day IE exploit (keep in mind we use Firefox), which compromised the system. We have a nuke-from-orbit policy on any system we suspect has been infected, but what a waste of time!
It was hosted from a site in India. The user was on Yahoo's website (we've had 4 infections through Yahoo's ads). They did NOT click on anything!
Be very afraid!
A big class action against DoubleClick, etc. would be appropriate. They "exceeded authorized access", as defined in the Computer Crime and Abuse Act. That they got the attack from someone else isn't an absolute defense. The ad network obtained "something of value" for the attack. If they sent out one attack after they'd been informed, they were doing so "knowingly".
The ad network has the right to find and sue the source of the ad, but that's their problem, not the end user's problem. This is well-established law. In general, you can sue the party you dealt with, and they can sue the next party up the chain.