Slashdot Mirror
Jamie Oliver's Website Serving Malware
jones_supa writes While routinely checking the latest exploited websites, Malwarebytes came across a strange infection pattern that seemed to start from the official site of British chef Jamie Oliver. Contrary to most web-borne exploits we see lately, this one was not the result of malicious advertising but rather carefully placed malicious JavaScript injection in the site itself. This, in turn, has been used to serve visitors a delicious meal consisting an exploit kit downloading the Dorkbot trojan. Malwarebytes has contacted the administrators immediately upon discovery of this infection.
That should be familiar to any Oliver fans and hardcore critics alike. For those in neither camp, Barbecoa was Oliver's butchery that was shut down last June after receiving an "A Hazardous" rating from the Food Standards Agency following complaints of food poisoning form several of his restaurants that also received poor FSA ratings for general hygiene. Oliver was also fined £17,000 over this scandal, consisting of just one specimen charge of violating the Food Safety Act, which is pretty fucking disgusting after his ironically calling the US fast food industry out for unsafe kitchen practices. He should have been shut down altogether. Oh, semi-insider info: I have it on very good authority that his restaurants have a higher staff turnover than practically every other sector. They are hellish places to work in. Certainly not worth the wage slavery. The management expect new staff to already know how it all works (in Oliver's eclectic kitchen system!?), training is not only nonexistent it's an inside joke that "training" is a curse word. Most of his staff are school leavers. The only ones over the age of 18 are upper management.
[ citation needed ]
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Ah, yes, that gospel of truth, The Daily Mail.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foo...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news...
http://www.theguardian.com/lif...
http://www.news.com.au/enterta...
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
"Once executed, Worm:Win32/Dorkbot.A .. modifies the certain registry entry to execute the malicious file every time Windows is started" ref
Your post is a hot mess.
So, you want Javascript to be secure, but not allow the user downloading it to be able to see what they are running? Do you even understand how Javascript works in a browser beyond "hitting F12?" For the love of WTF, they are not "seeing the Javascript on your site", you are letting them DOWNLOAD the Javascript to their computer and then run it.
How, precisely, do you expect an interpreted text file to be hidden from a web browser that downloads and executes an interpreted text file? And more importantly, WHY would a browser want to let you do that, unless to obscure what you are trying to run on a user's computer?!?
The sum total of Javascript exploits is a browser that allows Javascript exploits. If they were implemented correctly there would be no problem.
Oh and I even have a car analogy: the GPS guidance system [JS] in your car [OS] has no much power - it cannot impact directly your speed, wheel direction, breaks, etc... However if someone happens to inject some code into your GPS, and have it give wrong directions, your car is still not directly impacted by that hacking. However, the system may change your itinerary and guide you to a dangerous place you were not supposed to go would the GPS work normally.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Browser Javascript is already limited in what it can do and access.
And in this case even if you had NoScript installed (which is different from turning Javascript off entirely in your browser) and the main Jamie Oliver website whitelisted you'd still have been protected because what the JS was doing was creating an iframe to another site and loading Flash/Silverlight/Java exploits inside of that.
And note that even with a compromised site where they were able to inject their own JS that they still had to rely on Flash/Silverlight/Java rather than just Javascript to download and run the trojan.
So to answer your question: No, Javascript isn't really dangerous. Poorly written browser plugins are.
Why, always, 11, ... ?
In the US, the traditional time for networks to show their nightly news is 11pm, after the 'prime time' entertainment and kids have gone to bed. Any unsold prime-time commercial slots are filled with teasers for these news programs, generally of the form "Shocking ways that Foo can kill you! Details at 11," or "Weird tricks to save you money! News at 11."
[citation not needed]
The citation isn't needed not because that rant-with-a-personal-slant didn't require citation, but because it's off-topic. I'm not sure how his comment got modded 'Informative' - unless this is not Slashdot, but Buzzfeed, or Us magazine or some other gossip rag.
Without defending whatever nastiness went on in his restaurants, how does that relate to malware being on a website? It's highly unlikely that he personally oversees the restaurants, and even less likely that he personally oversees the website. At best one can fault him for having certain ideas about how to run things, that in turn lead to both restaurateurs and webmasters cutting corners and dropping the ball.
What's next? A report comes out about Forbes being hacked ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/th... ) and we point out how they let an article that was then vastly criticized by its subject ( The Oatmeal - http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tes... ) through as some sort of 'goes to character and general reputation'?
Actually, no it isn't illegal. Not in the US at least, though Jamies Italian Kitchen is probably in the UK.
People over forty are a protected class in the US, and can't be legally discriminated against (there are exceptions to this, like the military). But a thirty six year old person can be openly discriminated against without legal repercussion.