Online Ads Are More Dangerous Than Porn, Cisco Says

wiredmikey writes "The popular belief is that security risks increase as the user engages in riskier and shadier behavior online, but that apparently isn't the case, Cisco found in its 2013 Annual Security report. It can be more dangerous to click on an online advertisement than an adult content site these days, according to Cisco. For example, users clicking on online ads were 182 times more likely to wind up getting infected with malware than if they'd surfed over to an adult content site, Cisco said. The highest concentration of online security targets do not target pornography, pharmaceutical, or gambling sites as much as they affect legitimate sites such as search engines, online retailers, and social media. Users are 21 times more likely to get hit with malware from online shopping sites and 27 more times likely with a search engine than if they'd gone to a counterfeit software site, according to Cisco's report (PDF). There is an overwhelming perception that people get compromised for 'going to dumb sites,' Mary Landesman, senior security researcher at Cisco, told SecurityWeek."

Comments

TFA got the probabilities backward

[phaunt]

The summary, and the Security Week article, write that "Users are more 21 times more likely to get hit with malware from online shopping sites than if they'd gone to a counterfeit software site".

Cisco's report says that "Online shopping sites are 21 times more likely to deliver malicious content than counterfeit software sites."

Those statements are not equivalent. Online shopping sites have many more visitors than counterfeit software sites, so they have more opportunity to deliver malware. The same goes for the factor of 27 for search engines.

Also, it's hard to check the factor of 182 for adult sites, since the report doesn't include that number, or in fact even the words "porn" or "adult".

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward

[phaunt]

...and Slashdot's title for the story that "Online Ads Are More Dangerous Than Porn" takes it still a level further. It's certainly not what Cisco said.

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward

[Errol backfiring]

Sure, but it's what we probably wanted to hear.

Now go tell it to the politicians and mention the children. Maybe the privacy-invading criminals finally get punished. I won't be holding my breath though.

Appropriate quote from Sir Winston Churchill:

'Statistics are like a drunk with a lamppost, used more for support than illumination.'

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward

[Anonymous Coward]

It is exactly what Cisco said see here: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/vpndevc/annual_security_report.html

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward

[wvmarle]

Where Cisco's wording is really ambiguous. Deliver may mean indeed as you interpret it, the total number of successful infections, it may also mean the chance that if you visit that site, it gets you infected, which indeed would be my interpretation of the wording Cisco uses.

And now I'd have to go read the report and look at the actual numbers and methodology they used, to figure out the actual meaning.

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward

[L4t3r4lu5]

Slashdot "editor" utilises hyperbole in post title in click whore shocker!

More at 11, and tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that...

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Those statements are not equivalent

They're completely equivalent. The "than if they'd gone to a counterfeit software site" part takes care of that.

Re:TFA got the probabilities backward

[Ol Olsoc]

What is your dog in this fight?

I'll assume that you hit the wrong link, and read something else, so here is from the article:

It can be more dangerous to click on an online advertisement than an adult content site these days, Cisco said in its latest version of the yearly security threat report.

An adult content website - that's probably porn.

The highest concentration of online security targets do not target pornography, pharmaceutical, or gambling sites as much as they affect legitimate sites such as search engines.....

Are you going to wordsmith this one> Yeah, it doesn't say "porn". It says "pornography. The section you quoted, below the sentence with pornography in the text, does speak of the counterfeit software site.

But you know why they used the "counterfeit site metric don't you? Because of the uproar that would ensue if they used actual data from porn surfing. And probably the glut of resumes too.

Dumb sites...

[Anonymous Coward]

there is an overwhelming perception that people get compromised for 'going to dumb sites,

Like this one? http://homestore.cisco.com/en-us.htm

Risky != Risky???

[iYk6]

The popular belief is that security risks increase as the user engages in riskier ... behavior online

So security risks don't increase as I engage in risky behavior? How does that even work? If something doesn't increase risk, then it isn't risky. I can start downloading and executing everything I see without increasing security risks?

Re:Risky != Risky???

[GiantMolecularCloud]

You would actually become safer.

Re:Risky != Risky???

[phaunt]

What Cisco's report actually said is that behaviour often perceived as "safe" (such as online shopping) carries more risk than generally thought.

Re:Risky != Risky???

[Anonymous Coward]

The popular belief is that security risks increase as the user engages in riskier ... behavior online

So security risks don't increase as I engage in risky behavior? How does that even work? If something doesn't increase risk, then it isn't risky. I can start downloading and executing everything I see without increasing security risks?

Oh come on now, let's not get anal about dissecting this. You know what the article was trying to get at...avoiding that "yeah, we know what you were surfing" look you get from your IT department every time you bring a personal computer to them that has an infection issue. Point is people do get infected from taking risks online, but clicking on "Add to Cart" shouldn't be equal to surfing the .ru domain for legit software.

Re:Risky != Risky???

[Anonymous Coward]

They meant risqué vs risky?

Re:Risky != Risky???

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still applying the word risky. Why is an adult site considered risky? Because the common belief is that porn sites give you viruses. In my experience, they frequently do attach some small adware or tracker, but not at all like the fun places adds take you to. That being said, "risky behavior" can include going to a site with a lot of ads.

Re:Risky != Risky???

[nickybio]

You hit the nail on the head. We should do everything we can to avoid anal dissection.

Why is this even news?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been known for a long time that ads are a primary malware vector, this is the reason many sane people block them.

Re:Why is this even news?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is apparently news to all the people who keep clicking them otherwise these findings would not exist.

Hopefully the information makes it to some of them this time.

Re:Why is this even news?

[RR]

It has been known for a long time that ads are a primary malware vector, this is the reason many sane people block them.

That is not the primary reason why I block ads. I block ads because I can't stand all the dancing, jiggling, flashing, gray overlays, slowdowns, green links, and noises, when I want to read something. If I incidentally block all the ads, well, I don't have the time to make my own ad block list that blocks only the bad ad providers. I tried it before, and I'm not convinced that there are any benign ad services.

Re:Why is this even news?

[rusty0101]

I would think that the problem here is that the people who this information would potentially protect, are unlikely to be people who would read the report to begin with.

The real beneficiaries of a report like this from Cisco is the firewall manager who needs to explain to the management team why the corporate firewall needs to be blocking online shopping sites, but he or she has been advised not to remind management that in most cases corporate productivity will probably go up if the employees are not shopping at Amazon or B&N when they should be working on whatever their day to day job is supposed to be.

PAID online porn is safe...

[K2tech]

Well thats what I heard...from a friend...he doesn't have that many accounts...

Re:PAID online porn is safe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's because paid sites are less likely to have online ads.

Thanks Google

[Vladius]

I've noticed similar shadyness with Google ads and just about all "sponsored content" you see on websites. You see the bullshit tags like "Doctors angered at woman's self treatment" or links to sites that seem to do nothing more than try to scare you to invest. The internet is full of bullshit. Somehow, for some reason Google is one of the richest companies in the world because of it. I'd like to know, who actually clicks on this shit.

Re:Thanks Google

[History's Coming To]

Did you check out Google's information on government/police/court requests for info and takedowns in the UK? Around 4,000 incidents in total, and over 2,000 of them were regarding AdWords. Not Youtube, or Blogger, or G+ or Google Pages, but AdWords. Looks like they're well aware of the problems, to the point of government agencies taking regular action over it. Thing is, this is the thing that makes them an enormous amount of money...

Full breakdowns by country here

Let's get rid of online ads then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get rid of online ads then.

So then...

[Anonymous Coward]

...are online porn ads the greatest threat?

AdBlock Plus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad I block ads...

Oh NOES! Not teh Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not allowed to criticize Google on Slashdot.

Even though their entire business plan is to rape your privacy for every penny they can squeeze out of it.

No surprise there, really.

[wvmarle]

It is long known that ads may contain malicious parts - especially bits of javascript. It happened before that major ad servers got compromised, it will happen again. I recall reports that some ads were trying to infect an unsuspecting user directly, and such ads are displayed on sites all over the place, including personal blogs and lolcat sites.

When clicking an ad you don't really know which site you're going to be sent to. When visiting a porn or a warez site, you normally go there intentionally. Those sites are considered risky (especially the free ones - that use free porn/software to attract visitors - and somehow still have a desire to generate income), so many visitors will be more vigilant and may take extra precautions even.

And ads will likely have a greater reach. I think it's safe to assume that many more people visit general sites with ads, than visit porn/warez sites. Greater chance to find a vulnerable system. More chance for someone to (accidentally) click the ad, and have them redirected to a malware site.

The only somewhat surprising part is where online shopping sites are named as a major source of infection. Those sites have a reputation to keep up, or they will lose business. And as they are shopping sites, their income comes from direct sales, so there is no need to display third-party ads for revenue.

Just trying to be safe..

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't really want to visit the porn site, but that I had to, so that I wouldn't get my computer infected....

Re:Just trying to be safe..

[Anne Thwacks]

Mod parent +1:???

Pay sites do take it seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Most sites that are tring to get you to pay to use the site do seem take the security pretty seriously. They know that they have to deliver a better user experience then the "free" sites that have piles of full of stolen content. I've been awakened at 2AM more then once by an adult site webmaster who wants an infection cleaned up NOW and the site locked down so tight the crackers will never infect it again.

A lot of the free sites are nothing but stolen content. You can recognize those because they don't link each pic or video to the source pay site. When you see they aren't linking to the site it came from, you know they are crooks. Crooks, by definition, are more likely to do something nasty to you.

Re:Pay sites do take it seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

You can recognize those because they don't link each pic or video to the source pay site.

So, no original content is ever produced? Or do sites now have to link back to themselves, for their content to be not stolen?

Also, your statement presumes that all porn is produced for pay. If your statement had been about software instead of porn, you would have just declared Linux and FreeBSD illegal. Of course you could try some scarcity argument, that the number of people able to develop software is much larger than the number of people able to take off their clothes, and thus while free software can and does exist, free porn cannot.

Re:Pay sites do take it seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of those non-samesitesource porns are old porns those sites are selling off either as advertising or just plain selling.

watch...

[Anonymous Coward]

next week cisco unveils a new enterprise-caliber ad-scrubbing internet gateway...

Or how about we just make secure browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what year is this? If websites can still drop an executable onto a users machine with nothing more than a drive-by then clearly the problem is much more than just a question of ads of no ads. Why do operating systems and browsers still suck?

Re:Or how about we just make secure browsers

[thunderclap]

Seriously, what year is this? If websites can still drop an executable onto a users machine with nothing more than a drive-by then clearly the problem is much more than just a question of ads of no ads. Why do operating systems and browsers still suck?

Because Microsoft hasn't finished committing suicide yet. When IE finally approaches 0% then the suckage will start to lift.
Oh before you bitch about Microsoft bashing, they just killed off Direct X. Ballmer is driving it into the ground faster than an exploding 787 battery.

This is why I block ads

[jbmartin6]

This was always my response to the 'it is immoral to block ads' argument. I always said that if blah.com is hosting the ads itself I would be willing to allow them but as long as the content is from some unknown domain that I haven't chosen to trust, forget about it.

Re:This is why I block ads

[deains]

So do you block ads, or block content from unknown domains?

Re:This is why I block ads

[green1]

My ad blocking is accomplished by my DNS server, so it's not so much unknown domains as domains known to serve nothing but ads.

Re:This is why I block ads

[Anonymous Coward]

So do you block ads, or block content from unknown domains?

The latter, of course.

Re:This is why I block ads

[jbmartin6]

Not sure if this was your point or not, but I use Adblock. I am not that familiar with how it works, so it might be blocking some ads hosted by the same domain. In which case I would be an unwitting hypocrite. I'll probably check up on that at some point.

Re:This is why I block ads

[Anonymous Coward]

It is immoral and ignorant to block all ads.

Even newspaper ads register on some level, which is what heavily funds newspapers.

When you outright block ads, you are blocking sometimes the absolute only revenue of that site.
Are you honestly going to stand up and say you would pay to use the web, every single website? (more-or-less)
Website operators don't exactly know what other sites you visit, so they can't really go "hey, you visit all these sites, so we will give you a discount since your budget for websites must already be stretched". Would they hell do that.
You'd be paying anywhere around $4 per website. (probably as low as 50 cents, perhaps)
Web rings would then have to come around again because no more advertising is allowed. (at least in the typical sense)
Web rings were horrible. They might have seemed nifty and genius when we look back at it, but it was horrible.
And even more worse if it was a linear ring, one website dies, say goodbye to the chain, you'll now be going through the opposite direction to get places, unless you bookmarked sites. (which casuals never do)
If only somebody had an index of all websites... that'd help hugely...
Back to the current system.

Advertising is not evil. Evil advertisers are evil.
The same goes for the whole Goto argument. Goto is not evil. The people who abuse it are. Goto has completely legit uses, and in many cases, a lot of languages have specialized Gotos that are used only within a parent feature, such as loops.
Without Gotos, nobody would be using a computer right now. They are basically required for computers to operate at the very basic levels.

I've only blocked those who use flash ads, pop-anythings (allowing window-creation by default is the worst thing those bastards ever created, I am glad all these new features are Ask by default, like they should have been!), focus stealing and annoying seizure gifs. Malware distributors don't even fall in to advertising in the typical sense. They are more malware distributors than they are advertisers. They fall under the typical "IP block the whole lot of them".
And even with the flash ads, I unblocked those since I just enabled click2play for plugins, so there is no point having those entries slow my connections down ever so slightly when they are already blocked beforehand.
I don't even block content I dislike, because it is up to the site operators to do advertising I would be interested in.

Re:This is why I block ads

[DMUTPeregrine]

I block ads via noscript and request policy, not via adblock. So content from untrusted domains gets blocked, but not ads hosted by the site itself.

I have been saying this for a long time

[erroneus]

I consider "Adblock" and similar browser and computer add-ons to be *security* tools as much as bandwidth and other management.

Since the first time I noted browser exploits coming across common news and sales sites, I realized that the current model requires not trust of the sites we visit, but of the advertiser's sites... you know, like google and double-click and the others. I don't want to trust "unknowns" and so I block them unless I need them unblocked for access.

Re:I have been saying this for a long time

[Bieeanda]

What's worse is that ad networks will trade space between themselves. Even if a site is conscientious about the ads they show and the networks they're affiliated with, malware-laden ads can still filter through because of that promiscuity.

Re:I have been saying this for a long time

[drinkypoo]

I don't want to trust "unknowns" and so I block them unless I need them unblocked for access.

If I have to unblock too many sites, I just don't use a site. Problem solved. Anything actually requiring doubleclick is evil and must be destroyed.

Adblock and Noscript are necessities for security in a world in which the browser can't provide an adequate sandbox, which is the world we live in.

Beta testers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I be a beta tester for the adult site testing?

Don't Click On Me.

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Actual context sensitive Google ads that I was too terrified to click on:

"Ball lightning: Browse a huge selection now. Find exactly what you want today."

"Ann Coulter Ringtone! Send this ringtone to your phone right now!"

Made me toss my browser cookies it did. After you toss your cookies these things stop for awhile, then build once again to a crescendo. Lately I have been getting ads with garden gnomes leering suggestively.

Re:Don't Click On Me.

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Some years back I wrote a small essay about another potential scenario... not the generic malware threat but one targeted to certain individuals. If you have a secret to keep that is worth killing to protect, you buy some specific Google ad-words that attract the attention of independent investigators out there who might be getting close to the mark. Lure them in by presenting a false front and inviting collaboration. Then go for the kill and make it look like an accident. Hocus Locus: Information Land Mines

Re:Don't Click On Me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to know what kind of meds you take

Re:Don't Click On Me.

[Anne Thwacks]

Never underestimate the attraction of a suggestively leering gnome to the truely gullible!

Not for free, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, no original content is ever produced? Or do sites now have to link back to themselves, for their content to be not stolen?

Original content, professional style porrn, is produced by people who want to get their investment back, not by charities giving it away for free. Professional style content is not produced FOR FREE, 99.9999% of the time.

Also, your statement presumes that all porn is produced for pay.

Pre-sume is to decide before you have the relevant information. That's the PRE part of PREsume. I do happen to have the information, so it's not a presumption, it's an observation after a fifteen year career in online porn. The person making statements about how the porn industry works, but who has never been in the porn industry is the one doing the presuming.

If your statement had been about software instead of porn, you would have just declared Linux and FreeBSD illegal.

If your statement was about about pizza, you would have been talking about pepperoni. Yeah, if I had said something completely different, I would have been saying something different. I produce free software. I don't produce free porn. I have produced paid porn. (and paid software used by 35% of paid porn sites).

(Double checking that I clicked "post anonymously".)

Legitimacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The highest concentration of online security targets do not target pornography, pharmaceutical, or gambling sites as much as they affect legitimate sites such as search engines, online retailers, and social media.

Just wondering, who exactly draws the line to decide which website is legitmate or not?

Re:I got rid of ads & via a superior method

[Anonymous Coward]

That's stupid, only an idiot uses a program. I just edit my hosts file.

Re:DNS = faulty (hosts fix it)... apk

[nickybio]

Please stop with the long, self-advertising posts. There's no doubt you are amazing and should start your own blog.

What's an ad

[isorox]

Isn't this an advert for some cisco snakeoil?

The message is clear.

[Anonymous Coward]

The message is clear. You should only look at porn.

holy hell, batman, where does that put 4chan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean the safest part of the internet is /b/ ??

Re:DNS = faulty (hosts fix it)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

apk, I'm TROLLING you!!!

Unjustifiable downmods vs.facts != valid

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line: TRY disprove my points instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760847

GOOD LUCK: Seriously - you'd NEED It vs. facts extolled there... & truth is truth, facts are facts - period!

100's of naysayer trolls have *tried* over time, each has failed... lol, yes & I love it!

* QUITE CLEARLY since all you had was an unjustifiable downmod & nothing more, by NOT disproving facts I enumerated in favor of custom hosts files over AdBlock, doing anything more than a weak downmod with no backing is all you have!

Disproving my points?

It is IMPOSSIBLE for you, to whoever "hit & run" downmodded my post that merely states indisputable facts!

(Thanks for making ME look GOOD on that very account!)

APK

P.S.=> Yes folks - ...

Especially on custom hosts files' value to end-users of them!

Yes, when the 'trolls' around here show us "the best they got" is vainly *trying* to "hide" my posts on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels in myriad ways in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs, & DNSBL's) is all they have!

Hosts are clearly SUPERIOR over inferior OR faulty solutions like AdBlock/Ghostery (crippled + advertiser owned, respectively)!

Same with DNS alone!

(Which custom hosts actually safely supplement, outdo in speed of resolution, & are COMPLETELY end-user controlled too - bonus, security, reliability, & even anonymity benefits + overcoming their faults as well)

... apk

What About Ads INSIDE the Porn Pages?

[retroworks]

Would the risks cancel each other out?

Re:What About Ads INSIDE the Porn Pages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you looking at the ads?

Re:Just Chill Out Already

[Jeng]

If your responses weren't canned and also formatted in such a way that you believe your target audience is capable of no thought then you might not get modded down so much.

Really your comments look like something an adman on bath salts would come up with, you are two bolded sentences away from being the Time Cube guy.

Relax, just provide a place for people to start, or if you want to provide more information a single link to a guide will suffice. Oh, and you really should just go back to using an actual account instead of AC.

Re:Not stupid with MILLIONS of line entries... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, APK

"Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" trolls (you fail)

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to vainly "hide" my post with bogus unjustifiable downmods -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761279

* :)

Won't work trolls...

Why? Well - too many folks, if NOT most here in fact, browse below the bogus default /. has on ac posts!

(A default that *tries* to hide ac posts like mine in that alone from people's view)...

No - Folks'll see it regardless!

Then when you do your downmods to vainly *try* to "hide" my posts?

Well - I simply merely drag them back into view by replying to them... that's all!

AND

Then, the most FUN part of all, is to watch you "run, forrest - RUN!!!" when you can't disprove facts & points I enumerated in the link above!

Fact!

You fail, trolls... badly, on ALL accounts I just noted: I know it, YOU KNOW IT, & anyone reading with 1/2 a brain even knows it!

APK

P.S.=> "Onwards & upwards"...

... apk... that's all!

AND

Then, the most FUN part of all, is to

Hey troll (you failed again, lol)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See here, "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42762573

* :)

Additionally, of course, making you "double-fail" on more than just those facts you run from?

LMAO - There is also the fact you HAVE to do a "run, forrest: RUN!!!" vs. facts I put out!

Facts, that quite apparently judging on the results here vs. my posts & trolls like you, that not a single one of you trolls can disprove on the superiority of custom hosts files over AdBlock + Ghostery (crippled & advertiser owned, respectively, talk about "foxes guarding the henhouse" & only a FOOL would rely on them now because of that) as well as DNS (which has faults, & ones custom hosts files overcome & supplement DNS too)!

ALL, for better speed, security, reliability, + even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs & DNSBL's you may not like too) that custom hosts file usage yields for end-users of them... fact!

* Trolls - they're ALL THE SAME, & they NEVER "fail to FAIL", vs. myself (especially on the accounts noted above, lol).

APK

P.S.=> Above all else here perhaps? Well - Thanks for making ME, look GOOD & yourselves "not so good" especially by way of comparison since you're reduced to mere off-topic trolling & failed illogical ad hominem attack attempts, via your MULTIPLE failures, noted above...

... apk

I need to look at this site...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, for research ;-)

Re:Opinions vary (243++:1) on my posts quality

[Jeng]

Giving people information is not a contest to see who can cram the most information down someones throat in the least friendly way.

It might be possible that there may be some useful information in your posts, but I would never know because you have to be a bit insane to be able to put up with how you present said information.

Think about how much information I just gave you in two little sentences, then look at your posts and try to distill that information into the shortest amount of words you can and I am sure your posts would only amount to around 2 well thought out paragraphs with perhaps 3 links total.

Mainly since I don't see you disprove my points validly on custom hosts files value over DNS, AdBlock & Ghostery - period!

There was no attempt to disprove the information in your posts. You made a post complaining about being down modded, I attempted to give you information that would help you not get down modded. Granted, I could have used more tact, but there was no attempt to disprove what you wrote.

Let's calculate

[Fuzzums]

So. watching porn all year is just as dangerous as clicking two ads.

You're outnumbered by your /. peers

[Anonymous Coward]

"Argue w/ the #'s" 243++:1 vs. your off topic b.s.-> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760859

* Point-Blank FACT - You FAIL, & that, IS that... period!

APK

P.S.=> You're completely off-topic as well

&

You didn't validly disprove my points with countering facts in computing technical data either!

What I wrote by way of comparison?

It is HIGHLY in favor of custom hosts files' value to end users of them in added security, speed, reliability & even anonymity gains (to an extent)!

Plus - on a "myriad-plethora: of levels

vs.

faultier or crippled solutions like AdBlock, Ghostery, & DNS!

(The latter of which custom hosts actually SUPPLEMENT vs. their shortcomings in security & efficiency in a number of ways, including lightening their request load as well for admins of them - BONUS!)

... apk

Re:You're outnumbered by your /. peers

[Jeng]

Considering you did not reference my post at all in your "rebuttal", why did you even bother replying?

I'm trying to interact with you in the hopes of finding out if there is an actual human being on the other end, and if there is one, perhaps help that person.

Why should I? You're OFF-TOPIC, troll!

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line & "rinse, lather, & repeat" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42763377

* You have FAILED on multiple levels!

First by being off topic & trolling!

Secondly, by opening your mouth & inserting your FOOT into it vs. contrary evidence I produced vs. your b.s.!

(Mind you, it was from your own /. peers & it quite CLEARLY "did the job" on you, for me, by letting YOU do it to yourself!)

All, via their upward moderations of my postings vs. your off-topic trolling 'opinion', which is outnumbered by MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE as to the quality of my postings @ /. over time!

APK

P.S.=> I don't "interact" with trolls that attempt to attack me on completely invalid off-topic grounds - especially ones our peers on /. easily outnumber, disproving trollish off topic crap... period!

... apkl

Re:Why should I? You're OFF-TOPIC, troll!

[Jeng]

Have fun celebrating your victory.

You have slayed the mighty troll.

The troll that replied to you when you asked why you were down modded.

The troll that honestly tried to give you advice.

btw, I did look over your short list of non hostfile +5 moderated posts and they were not your usual copy/paste-athons with a ton of bolded lines and links to other posts. Your +5 moderated non-host file posts were more ontopic than most of your posts and more human.

But yes, I am a troll, I am not trying to help, you have won, enjoy yourself.

Moral of the story...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Cisco recommends to spend more time surfing Porn and download counterfeit software than anything else on the Internet. Point taken.

Re:DNS = faulty (hosts fix it)... apk

[green1]

Considering how often this troll has posted that in this article alone (let alone the million other places) I don't see him changing any time soon. Of course using a hosts file is a better solution for people who have one single computer that connects to all sorts of networks. But for my particular situation it is just not ideal, and the DNS server offers a whole bunch of advantages, and almost no disadvantages.
For me, I administer one list on the DNS server, and it covers all my family's computers, all our cell phones, tablets, and any other internet connected devices. As I'm running the server for other things anyway it costs me nothing.
Although I do have to do some small amount of administration myself, it beats trusting any other application to do it, especially one spamvertised on some random internet site...

Users more likely to get hit with malware?

[dgharmon]

'Users are 21 times more likely to get hit with malware from online shopping sites and 27 more times likely with a search engine than [if they weren't using Windows] ..

Moral of the story: watch more porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeaaaah.

backdoors, firmware, and a call to archive linksys

[Anonymous Coward]

Google:

Cisco router backdoor
Cisco routers rootkits
Linksys router backdoor
Linksys routers rootkits
Cisco firmware router rootkit backdoor

OT: Thanks, Cisco, now we need to trust Belkin to release firmware updates?

JQPublic: Download all of the available updates in software/firmware for all Linksys products, sign and checksum each and host/seed them because once a 'change' happens like this, from Cisco to Belkin, often pages, sites, and sw/fw disappear. Do it NOW.

I don't require advice that's off-topic

[Anonymous Coward]

That documented facts disprove -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42763377

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Get on topic, disprove my points here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269 THEN, perhaps I'd take some advisement - otherwise? See above...

... apk

Re:I don't require advice that's off-topic

[Jeng]

You are the one who started this off-topic discussion about what you consider unfair down mods. I am staying on the topic of discussion you started, you are the one going off-topic. =P

Fine, what do you think of the hostfile modifications that Spybot does? Is their list comprehensive enough?

Unjustifiable downmods = "best ya got", trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disprove my points here instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760859

* :)

You can't, can you...? Nope!

(Rather OBVIOUSLY not, in fact!)

You show us all reading this, since the "best you've got" is technically unjustifiable downmods to effetely & VAINLY *try* to "hide" my posts from view!

Face facts: You can't disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files over "almost all ads blocked" (adblock), & that IS that!

(Won't work on the bogus downmods either - as most folks here browse WELL BELOW the default level to see ALL posts, even AC ones like mine!)

APK

P.S.=> Then, if you do your completely FAILING unjustifiable downmods (with no substance behind them to disprove my points no less)? I just post in reply to them, draggin them back INTO VIEW...

You fail there too, lol - best part is seeing you HAVE to *try* to "pull that" & failing, as well as seeing you completely reduced to doing a "run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. my points on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels for more speed, security, reliability & yes, even anonymity to an extent (vs DNS request logs + DNSBL's you may not like also), in your inability to disprove them with valid computing technical facts to do so, validly!

... apk

Unjustifiable downmods = "best ya got" trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disprove my points here instead -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760951

* :)

You can't, can you...? Nope!

(Rather OBVIOUSLY not, in fact!)

You show us all reading this, since the "best you've got" is technically unjustifiable downmods to effetely & VAINLY *try* to "hide" my posts from view!

Face facts: You can't disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files over "almost all ads blocked" (adblock), Ghostery, AND DNS... & that IS that!

(Won't work on the bogus downmods either - as most folks here browse WELL BELOW the default level to see ALL posts, even AC ones like mine!)

APK

P.S.=> Then, if you do your completely FAILING unjustifiable downmods (with no substance behind them to disprove my points no less)? I just post in reply to them, draggin them back INTO VIEW...

You fail there too, lol - best part is seeing you HAVE to *try* to "pull that" & failing, as well as seeing you completely reduced to doing a "run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. my points on custom hosts files' value on a plethora of levels for more speed, security, reliability & yes, even anonymity to an extent (vs DNS request logs + DNSBL's you may not like also), in your inability to disprove them with valid computing technical facts to do so, validly!

... apk/b

Re:Considering how often downmodding trolls

[green1]

wow.... and the troll just will not give up... completely ignores everything I said, and wants to force his inferior system on the world. too bad the troll is too cowardly to log in.

Security Maters

[Anonymous Coward]

Adblock Plus + Ghostery + Host File = Win!

HostsMan is an awesome application that will automatically update your host file for you:
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

WRONG, completely wrong & you lie

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are the one who started this off-topic discussion about what you consider unfair down mods. I am staying on the topic of discussion you started, you are the one going off-topic. =P" - by Jeng (926980) on Saturday February 02, @11:19AM (#42771357)

Here's the root of the discussion tree between you & I -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269

* :)

---

"Fine, what do you think of the hostfile modifications that Spybot does? Is their list comprehensive enough? - by Jeng (926980) on Saturday February 02, @11:19AM (#42771357)

It's pretty good, just not as comprehensive as mine is & I incorporate their data into mine too PLUS that of another dozen or so reputable & reliable sources for custom hosts files data that ends up gaining a user of them added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent as well!

Here's a quote I often use from a respected security expert from a division of SYMANTEC in fact, regarding that very thing, Spybot & hosts files' efficacy too:

the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll g

Unjustifiable downmods = "best ya got" trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to vainly "hide" my post with bogus unjustifiable downmods -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269

AND, being unable to validly disprove its points too??

Please... lol!

* :)

Won't work trolls... Why? Well - too many folks, if NOT most here in fact, browse below the bogus default /. has on ac posts!

(A default that *tries* to hide ac posts like mine in that alone from people's view)...

No - Folks'll see it regardless!

Then when you do your downmods to vainly *try* to "hide" my posts?

Well - I simply merely drag them back into view by replying to them... that's all!

AND

Then, the most FUN part of all, is to watch you "run, forrest - RUN!!!" when you can't disprove facts & points I enumerated in the link above!

Fact!

You fail, trolls... badly, on ALL accounts I just noted: I know it, YOU KNOW IT, & anyone reading with 1/2 a brain even knows it!

APK

P.S.=> "Onwards & upwards"...

... apk

AdBlock's inferior to custom hosts files... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

You of all people KNOW this already -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760847 if anyone does here, in your replies to me on them previously, quoted next:

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958)

* :)

APK

P.S.=> AdBlock's crippled by default (doesn't block all ads anymore, they "souled-out") - however, NoScript you're dead-on right about (still great stuff for Mozilla products users)...

... apk

"Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" (ads do you wrong)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ads steal your bandwidth you pay for out of pocket & infecting you - ads = 40% of the size of every webpage on average in data to download & process (raising electricity bills too by that measure, as well as stealing what YOU PAID FOR FROM YOUR ISP MONTHLY).

I did something about it, myself, & yes - it works -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42760269

* Better than AdBlock or Ghostery (crippled by default in the former, & advertiser owned in the latter - you'd have to be a FOOL to use them now on that note in fact, & they're "foxes guarding the henhouse")...

Also, better than running a local DNS server too -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3424523&cid=42761667

(Especially when a DNS server's setup in recursive mode (and you'd HAVE to do this, preferably pointed @ say, ICANN & patched vs. the Kaminsky bug too))...

Which "opens the door" to the security vulnerability below, AND OTHERS LIKE IT too (see link, has a list of such things over time & ONLY partial too, mind you).

Especially doing DNS servers in a separate machine (but same running on a single system too just not as much), since it's more complex to work with, as well as overheads in RAM, CPU cycles, & other forms of I/O used, and massively VULNERABLE worldwide even 1/2 a decade later vs. the Kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw - especially since MOST ISP's worldwide haven't patched for it!)

APK

P.S.=> The program works with a native file that's TIGHTLY INTEGRATED into the IP stack itself running as efficiently as possible in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode (vs. browser addons known to slow down browsers, already slower by laying over them, & they are in far, Far, FAR SLOWER usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 also)... & this "lightens the load" on DNS servers as well (by avoiding them, & faster IP address resolutions result than from remote DNS servers too - double bonus!)...

... apk