Slashdot Mirror
Torrent Sites Earned $70M After Dropping Malware On Visitors (softpedia.com)
jones_supa writes: One in three torrent sites is spreading malware, claims a recent joint report (PDF) from Digital Citizens Alliance and RiskIQ, which compiled data from over 800 sites. Most of the time, the sites expose visitors to drive-by attacks that silently download malicious files on computers without any user interaction. These types of attacks are usually carried out through malvertising campaigns. It turns out that this is actually a good business for the operators of the pirate sites: depending on traffic, they can make between $200 and $5,000 per day. In total it is estimated that this type of covert agreement between malware distributors and pirate site operators has pocketed the latter about $70 million per year.
Now, there is a reason not to download pirated media. If only most of malware on internet were on illegal torrent sites!
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
The websites send files to auto-download and it fills up my download folder a bit.
If you're computer-saavy enough to use torrents, you should be smart enough to disable the "automatically run downloaded files" feature of your browser.
Actually, one thing that really bugs me is those damn websites that force a file download when I try to view a PDF file inside my browser.
I see this as a much bigger threat to piracy than any enforcement of copyrights on individuals. Just a though.
"How Content Theft Sites and Malware Are Exploited By Cybercriminals to Hack Into Internet Users' Computers and Personal Data"
And you've blown any credibility you may have had.
Shocking Company funded by movie companies gives reason not to use torrents.
Again it falls under - if you're not paying for it, then you're the product. From facebook to bit torrent, this is a guiding force of the internet.
This report is from something called the "Digital Citizens Alliance". Sounds good, right? Sounds like a bunch of pro-freedom net citizens protecting all of our rights, yes?
Would it surprise you to learn that the DCA is a lobbying group involved in trying to get Google to take down search results? Here's a sentence from their materials:
Does anyone else smell an agenda here?
You are welcome on my lawn.
And this shit is why I will never, ever be willing to treat ads as anything but malicious and dangerous affronts to my privacy and security.
I lump all analytics and ads into the same bucket: evil greedy bastards who I will never trust, never allow to run scripts, and whose content I will block as long as I have the means. Because, quite frankly, I don't see the difference between the "legitimate" ones and the "shady" ones.
The only way to win is not even play. Once you start running blocking stuff and realize the amount of shit embedded in every web page, you just treat them all as parasites or shit on your shoe: you remove them with extreme prejudice.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I think that's called "capitalism".
There's no need to visit a site when your client has built in search across whatever you want to configure it with as well as sensible defaults and no malware included (I'm looking at YOU SourceForge).
I highly recommend qBittorrent for that, as one reason among many. I've used it for years and is the best client I've encountered.
Also, who visiting a torrent site doesn't use ad blocking? Why would you do that to yourself?
Details like:
What internet browser did they use?
What basic security measures did they use?
What does "Exposure" mean? Did the malware actually infect the computers exposed or did their security catch it?
What sites did they test?
I note things like how this very article LIES: 55% are user-initiated downloads, only 45% are drive-by downloads! Or how, while it is true that you're 28 times more likely to be "exposed" to malware on the piracy sites. . .it's a rise from 1 in 333 to 1 in 12. And again. . .Did those computers exposed actually get infected by the malware, or do basic security measures stop it?
what operating system?
Flash or Java vulnerabilities?
nuthin useable.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Is there a name for an activity that earns you money, but less than the value of the damage you cause, making your activity a net negative for society? Any example of well-respected professions that would qualify?
Lawyer?
Oh, you said "well-respected". My bad.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Using a different OS altogether for something stupid like browsing torrent sites seems unnecessarily laborious. Specially considering extensions like noscript and umatrix exist.
For the most part, people who download torrents understand the risks and are voluntarily subjecting themselves to the risks of a quasi-legal enterprise. People are less apt to complain about the consequences of choices they have made, and less likely to protest that people who don't understand the realities of downloading are getting taken for a ride.
On the other hand, the music industry is a big, legal business which screws everyone involved with it but at the same time, protests that it has the moral high ground simply because the law says it gets its privileges.
The reality is that they're both problematic, but the download sites are less inclined to pretend that they aren't an inhabitant of the Wild West of the Internet.
LOL ... Moo you damned torrenting cows, moo.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The answers to your two questions are:
Liberalism
Politician
See also "broken window fallacy ", on which most liberal economic thinking is based.
Exactly. Somebody just pulled these numbers out of thin air, and didn't even try to make them look convincing.
Given the "estimates" usually made by companies paid by big media for piracy studies and the like, that makes me think that 70 Million is lot lot less by several levels of magnitude.
This is a major reason I've pretty much abandoned torrenting, instead I just use Kodi with Genesis. No more pop-ups, malware, etc.
Wrecking Ball Operator?