Malvertising Campaign Hits MSN, NY Times, BBC, AOL

Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

And then they'll tell us to please unblock them so they can make money on our misfortune.

Re:Ad Blocking by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-03-16 03:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I always thought their pleas to unblock their sites should reflect reality: "Please let us serve you malware!"
Malware distribution via ad networks is a very old an well-known scheme. It would be stupid not to block all ads. As no point can effectively be made without a car analogy; would you not wear your seatbelt if the owner of the road came to you with such plea?

--
-SR
Re:Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 04:26 · Score: 0

And then they'll tell us to please unblock them so they can make money on our misfortune.
Wrong.
They will perform some perfunctory "clean-up" so that in 18-36 months time when the big crackdown on Ad-blockers arrive, the newspapers will be able to put the line "in spite of recent efforts by media companies like the NYT to remove malware, adblockers continue to deny websites income".
A storm is brewing for online-advertising. One policy change from the top 5 browsers, and an ad-free web could die overnight. The media has testing the waters on this for at least 12 months already. Someone is going to pull a stroke, and I don't think the web is ready for what is coming.
captcha: slowness
Re:Ad Blocking by wulfhere · 2016-03-16 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's an idea: How about someone writes an ad blocker that DOWNLOADS the ads, just like normal, but simply does not RENDER them on the screen, or execute any code? Seems like the best of both worlds: users that don't want to see the ads don't see them, and websites still get paid, since there's no way to tell if they actually got shown?

--
-- Sent from a computer.
Re:Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 05:11 · Score: 0

I'm hoping some judge can find that if a site forces you to unblock ads, and the site, directly, or indirectly serves up malware, that they are held responsible financially for any and all damages that happened.
The physical equivalent would be a rack that Duff beer, inc. set up in a grocery store. If it falls on someone, even though the grocery store has nothing to do with the display, it is the grocery store that is liable. Same with allowing malvertisers.
Re:Ad Blocking by KGIII · 2016-03-16 05:15 · Score: 2

The developer version of Opera now has built-in ad blocking. One of the neat things that it includes is the chance to load a page without it and with it, in a side-by-side comparison, and it's rather interesting because it also gives you a loading speed and then shows you the differences.
I've done some playing with it...
Normally, I block ads and scripting that's not from the originating domain. I don't see ads, I don't like ads, I will happily donate (and I often do) to keep a site up if it is looking like they need money. If a site requests that I disable my ad-blocking, I leave. I do not still use the site while blocking ads - I respect their property.
If I allow remote scripts to run and then use the ad-blocking comparison tool with Opera, it tells me that the average site I visit loads from 40 to 50% more quickly. Those are actual load times. I have no idea how much bandwidth is being saved. I usually have a fairly secure operating system so I'm not too worried that it's going to result in malware infections but that's probably a good metric to consider as well.
The gist of this post is that it's just practicing safe hex to block ads. It's not just good to block the ads but it's good to block third party scripts in general. One might go so far as to suggest blocking all of them - which I do, by default. I doubt most people are willing to go through that effort so I'm not going to suggest that everyone try that. I block all third party scripts by default. It does actually eat up some time BUT that time is well spent. I use a whitelist-based approach. I only visit so many sites and I do so with least privilege and then only enable what is needed for functionality and some cosmetics. I then save it and it gets pushed out to other machines that I use - it's actually fairly automated and I use a central repository that I can even access remotely.
I only visit so many sites where I want any additional features. I keep a lot of that stuff from even entering. I've got uMatrix set to, "Holy Shit Batman" mode. I block a lot of stuff and then just whitelist as I go. I even block some stuff on the first-party domain by default. Yup... Even that gets initially whitelisted and added as needed. If I don't need the cookie to function, I don't load it. If I don't need the script to run, I don't load that either. Hell, I've had images disabled by default but, gotta be honest, that kind of sucks.
So no, I don't recommend that folks do that. That's a lot of work - but only at first. After the work is done, it's saved forever and gets pushed out to my other devices so I need only do it once. Somewhere between doing that (or browsing in Lynx) is a viable solution that people should make educated and informed choices about. Security is a process, not an application. It's about trade-offs, pragmatism, and deciding what risks one will take in order to perform the desired task.
Basically, the web's dangerous. Practice safe hex.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 05:16 · Score: 0

Ad networks aren't that stupid. Calculating ad impressions is far more complex than simply having downloaded the ad.
Re:Ad Blocking by wulfhere · 2016-03-16 05:29 · Score: 2

I suppose that's possible. I'm definitely not an expert on the ad networks, or how they calculate ad impressions, but I fail to see how they could distinguish between an ad that's on my screen but that I don't interact with in any way (which is the vast majority of them) vs. an ad that was served, but not displayed on my screen. It's not like I'm doing a captcha on each ad to prove I'm a human and not a computer.

--
-- Sent from a computer.
Re:Ad Blocking by whoozwah · 2016-03-16 05:51 · Score: 1

how would downloading the ad in any fashion prevent the situation that's presented in TFA?
Re:Ad Blocking by wulfhere · 2016-03-16 05:54 · Score: 2

If the code is not executed in a browser. Just download anything from any of the ad networks to /dev/null.

--
-- Sent from a computer.
Re:Ad Blocking by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-16 06:26 · Score: 1

A lot of ads need the Javascript to run in order to display these days. If the Javascript fails they make sure the actual site content doesn't load either.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Ad Blocking by cweber · 2016-03-16 06:32 · Score: 1

Here's an idea: How about someone writes an ad blocker that DOWNLOADS the ads, just like normal, but simply does not RENDER them on the screen, or execute any code? Seems like the best of both worlds: users that don't want to see the ads don't see them, and websites still get paid, since there's no way to tell if they actually got shown?
Won't work anymore. Big advertisers want proof that their ad was seen, via Double Verify or similar, and only pay for ads that were in front of users for a certain amount of time. Javascript and CSS make this easy to measure, and hard to work around.
Re:Ad Blocking by fbobraga · 2016-03-16 06:37 · Score: 1

The developer version of Opera now has built-in ad blocking.
it was a feature on http://midori-browser.org/ since the beginning of development, if I'm not wrong...
Re:Ad Blocking by KGIII · 2016-03-16 06:57 · Score: 1

I've never noticed the page to tell the difference and it's really not as good as I'd like - I still see occasional ads and there's no way to refine it beyond that.
(I've got Midori installed - I just had it running a few minutes ago as I was checking a page's display in it.)

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Ad Blocking by wulfhere · 2016-03-16 07:47 · Score: 1

Interesting. Perhaps run the Javascript in a sandbox, but still don't display the resulting ad?
Oh well, perhaps the liability here needs to fall on the ad networks that are serving up malware without scanning it first. Sort of like if CBS started airing advertisements from some Evil Overlord that caused brain hemorrhages in people who viewed the ads...

--
-- Sent from a computer.
Re:Ad Blocking by The-Ixian · 2016-03-16 07:54 · Score: 2

The good news is that with a script blocker you also effectively cut out the malicious ads while still allowing the non-exectable ads to come through. This, to me, is a good compromise as it still allows for ad supported content from ad vendors that don't use obnoxious/dangerous ads.
No need for an ad blocker unless your actual motivation is just to not see ads period

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 08:11 · Score: 0

my issue with this is that a large reason i installed an ad-blocker is that loading a page (on certain sites) an take longer than 5 seconds with ads, but less than 1 with ad-block. i don't care if someonse has a static image displayed on a site as an advert, what pisses me off is when it takes me longer to do what i want because i am forced to wait for all the stupid ads (and often malware) to decide what to target to me and then download before i can use the site.
Re:Ad Blocking by fbobraga · 2016-03-16 08:11 · Score: 1

Strange: it uses the popular webkit engine to render pages * In my aging Acer Aspire One Netbook the difference of it to bloated Firefox/Chromium is very noticeable!
Re:Ad Blocking by StormReaver · 2016-03-16 08:42 · Score: 1

Downloading the ads but not displaying them is still stealing and wasting my bandwidth. The best solution is to simply block them.
Re:Ad Blocking by KGIII · 2016-03-16 09:08 · Score: 1

Yeah but it gets funky when you change the settings for scripting and the Netscape plug-ins and whatnot. So, I always check in Midori just to be sure. I even check in Lynx and do what I can but, alas, I'm not a good web designer nor am I at all artistically inclined. That's why I check in Midori. ;-)
If you're interested in light, check out Lubuntu with LXDE. It comes with Midori as the standard. It's what I use, even on much faster hardware, as it's my preferred desktop environment. You might be surprised at how much older hardware still has in it for life. Lubuntu is a great distro. Looking at the page you linked to, I suspect that you'd not even have to tinker a little bit and it would work like a champion. You could probably tweak the RAM and any CPU throttling could be altered. I doubt that you'd have to.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Ad Blocking by Darinbob · 2016-03-16 10:24 · Score: 1

Huge waste of bandwidth. That's a large problem with ads is that the amount of information and processing to serve up the ads is often greater than the actual content that the user wanted. If someone is on dialup this would be a horrible option to have.
Another problem is that this is deceptive. You're telling the ad agency that you saw the ad when you didn't, money changes hands, etc. Then the web site learns that this ad service is making it some extra money so it keeps the ad service, drops its plans to have curated ads, and is content in the false notion that everyone loves it and its third party malware provider. It's better to extend the middle finger and be honest that you're blocking ads and send the message to the web sites that you do not approve of the advertising from third party leeches.
Re:Ad Blocking by CanadianMacFan · 2016-03-16 11:21 · Score: 1

If I use an ad network to serve up ads I'm still responsible for the content that goes out under my site's name. It doesn't matter that I've outsourced it to a third party.
Re:Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 11:40 · Score: 1

It's not too difficult. The ad is not a static image but is loaded via javascript. The javascript is designed to calculate some parameters for the url of the image it requests. It then requests the image. If the webserver never sees the right request (and the URL parameters are there to make it more difficult to fake the request) come through, it knows the browser is blocking ads. Now you are forced to either run their javascript, or you have to reverse engineer their script to simulate the right request without having to actually run their code. Not impossible to get around, but makes it pretty difficult.
Re:Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 11:49 · Score: 0

If I use an ad network to serve up ads I'm still responsible for the content that goes out under my site's name. It doesn't matter that I've outsourced it to a third party.
"If you kill my children you are still responsible even if you do it with a bomber plane from thousands of miles away. It doesn't matter that you did it by signing an order to a soldier thousands of miles away". It's the same difference. Technically you are right. In practice there is SFA that some poor Syrian grandmother can do to Vlad the Impaler Putin.
Advertising is now a war and you are the collateral damage.
Re:Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 12:42 · Score: 1

But that is just pointless. Sites don't care if you download javascript or not. They care if you RUN it. If you download their adblocking detection code and don't run it you are still going to fail their adblocking detection. So why bother wasting the bandwith?
Re:Ad Blocking by grub · 2016-03-16 12:49 · Score: 1

Here's an idea: How about someone writes an ad blocker that DOWNLOADS the ads, just like normal, but simply does not RENDER them on the screen, or execute any code?

There is an extension called Ad Nauseum that does what you seem to want. Check it out.

--
Trolling is a art,
Re: Ad Blocking by fbobraga · 2016-03-16 22:02 · Score: 1

On the netBook, I use Midori with LXDE :P
Re: Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-17 00:54 · Score: 0

Midori kind of sucks, admit it.
Re: Ad Blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-17 01:40 · Score: 0

Could you redirect to a defined "fake" monitor in it's own window?
Re: Ad Blocking by KGIII · 2016-03-17 01:42 · Score: 1

I state the obvious when I say I agree entirely with your choices and think you're brilliant for having made those choices. I not only concur, I do similar.
However, I prefer a more robust experience with the web. I use Opera and have a set of extensions that enable me to do so.
I use a bunch of manually added searches in there.
A translator by some dev called "SailorMax."
uMatix.
FreeDictionary Plugin - I could probably just add the search.
SurfEasy (not really required).
uBlock (not really required with uMatrix but handy).
Stylish.
ViolentMonkey (GreaseMonkey clone.)
With just those, I'm pretty content and can even run on some rather low-end hardware - I know 'cause I've tested. As I recall, you've not got a lot of RAM in the netbook. You linked earlier but I'm lazy and don't remember but there wasn't a whole lot in them. I've owned an Aspire One before. I've also run VMs with really low specs to torture test and see how well it ran.
Firefox does not do well on older hardware or with fewer resources. Opera manages memory much better - even better than Chromium in my perception. I've been *very* happy with it and have been using it since it was a paid browser back in the 1990s. Yeah, it's literally going on 20 years now. That doesn't mean I don't use other browsers and won't change, it's just that I keep returning to Opera and that I've got others installed for various tasks.
Err... I'm kind of big on that separation of duty thing? I've got browsers that open a specific set of tabs by default. They have certain extensions by default. They are used for various tasks and just a subset of tasks. I have whole virtual machines for this. I'm actually in Florida, using VNC to connect to my home network in Maine, using a VPN, and then using a VM over VNC to send you this. I keep no data local and sometimes don't even bother using anything more than a Live USB instance as my local OS. I do have some configured for persistent data and whatnot but I can mostly get a Live instance up and running in less than ten minutes. I can then hibernate or suspend, plop the USB in my pocket, and plug it in when I reboot. If I want to dump the session, I just don't reboot to that instance. It works well as I typically use the hibernate functionality.
This is turning into a novella. It's what you get for being an interesting and intelligent person. 'Snot my fault that you let on that you're smart. At any rate, if you don't mind, what OS have you got running under your DE? What's your WM? I'm just using the default of OpenBox. I'm kind of used to it so I'm comfortable with it. I've always had Linux on a partition but I wasn't using it enough so I just stopped using Windows one day and haven't looked back. Err... It's been a while now. I still learn stuff - which is why I started using it as my default. I just wasn't learning anything and I'm getting old - I don't want my brain to turn mushy.
One thing I have noticed, it really doesn't much matter what OS you've got underneath. I love poking and tweaking but, truth be told, I do that for fun - it's not even really a requirement anymore. I have some obscenely fast hardware. This laptop is not actually a laptop. It's a full-on developer's workstation. I'm not really a developer. I just liked the laptop. I've gobs of RAM. I tweaked out an X4K model, literally top of the line with everything added except the OS, and am *very* happy with the choice.
If you want to splurge and get yourself a present:
http://www.titancomputers.com/...
Anyhow, sorry for the novella. 'Snot my fault that you're interesting, as I said. You did it entirely to yourself for being smart and demonstrating it. Midori gets installed and stays installed but it's not my default.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Ad Blocking by david_thornley · 2016-03-17 04:10 · Score: 1

I've found it impossible, in the past year, to look at the long list of third-party script sources and figure which are there for the page to work and which are for advertisements. I want to use these sites, and am willing to accept scripts they are using (and presumably think are safe). That may be foolish, but it's my decision. I do not want to use scripts the sites themselves have nothing to do with.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Ad Blocking by david_thornley · 2016-03-17 04:13 · Score: 1

I'd say so, yes. However, I don't see any way to make that mean anything in the real world. You're going to have a hard time proving that you got that malware from your visit to Vladimir's House of Russian Boobs instead of the New York Times (which has served malware), and if you can prove it good luck suing and collecting.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Ad Blocking by david_thornley · 2016-03-17 04:15 · Score: 1

I tried that. It turned out that the sites I used started using lots of third-party scripts. I'm willing to accept that, but I can't tell the difference between a source that makes the site work and one that makes the ads work. I installed AdBlock Plus, and simply don't surf where I'm explicitly not welcome.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Ad Blocking by KGIII · 2016-03-17 12:11 · Score: 1

I've kind of figured out which ones I generally need to allow to get the functionality I need/want out of it. It has taken a lot of playing but I had the time and motivation. I should probably document my findings somewhere.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:Ad Blocking by wulfhere · 2016-03-18 02:26 · Score: 1

That looks very interesting. Thanks for the informative response!

--
-- Sent from a computer.
Re:Ad Blocking by wulfhere · 2016-03-18 02:29 · Score: 1

I had no idea. Thank you for explaining how that works.
See people, sometimes Slashdot really can be a place for the thoughtful exchange and discussion of ideas. And trolls. Lots and lots (and lots) of trolls.

--
-- Sent from a computer.
Re:Ad Blocking by david_thornley · 2016-03-18 03:56 · Score: 1

I don't have the motivation, anyway, and I'm sure the list of necessary third-party script providers is going to keep changing.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

adblockers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:30 · Score: 1

And this is exactly why we need to run adblockers.

Re: adblockers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 07:51 · Score: 0

Here's the thing about ad blockers...

So the use of adblockers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:30 · Score: 1

is essential for safety? Got it!

Re:So the use of adblockers by KGIII · 2016-03-16 05:40 · Score: 1

Yes, yes it is. Well, at the very least you should practice safe hex and keep a least-privilege point of view with all of your computing activities. This is nothing different.
Why are people allowing more unknown code than necessary to run on their computer? And no, ignorance is no excuse - it's up to the user of the tool to understand how to use it properly. Some personal responsibility is important. Learning to safely use the tools is an essential part of using those tools and there are a whole lot of freely available resources for those who wish to learn about safe tool use.
Blocking ads is a part of safety - given the way in which they are blocked. Allowing third-party content is not a safe practice. Giving other people the ability to control your property means you're giving up control of that property. This is not a binary thing - you can pick and choose whom and how much. It's very much a sliding scale about what you want to do and what risks you're willing to accept to do it.
As I've said countless times, security is a process and not an application. That process includes controlling your tools and knowing how to use them.
I'm certainly not alone. We've been saying this for years. That you pose this as a question, if not being sarcastic, is disturbing. This is Slashdot, we're usually pretty smart and have known this for years. I was using an ad-blocking utility in the mid-1990s. I've used one to this day. I've since learned more and increased my refinement levels and am more selective as I learn.
I'm glad you've finally figured this out. Go grab a copy of uMatrix for your browser. There's even a copy for Firefox now. Stop letting shit in to begin with. Then, when you're done with that, you can add an ad-blocker on top of it.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by QuietLagoon · 2016-03-16 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I need to protect myself from their security incompetence.

The websites themselves weren't compromised

The ads appeared when I visited those websites, therefore it appears the websites are responsible for spreading the malware.

Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by nospam007 · 2016-03-16 03:45 · Score: 2

"The ads appeared when I visited those websites, therefore it appears the websites are responsible for spreading the malware."
And if they tell us to switch off our adblocker, it's aiding and abetting.
Somebody has to sue those idiots some time.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Aighearach · 2016-03-16 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

These companies forget why google exists, why they are successful. In the 90s, there were 2 choices; use an add aggregator and get lots of malware, or manage all the ads in-house and lose money because it isn't your core competency and is hard. Google was the one that didn't shop the ads out to fourth parties, they didn't let advertisers choose the HTML code. That meant no malware.
Users who don't have their own protection will rightly blame the website who exposed them. The scammers basically "are" the NY Times. It is like signing an "online power of attorney" when you let external ad networks choose what HTML you'll serve from your site. They won't ask for that ability in the first place because they have good intentions. If they had good intentions, they'd just want to provide their media, instead of code.
Not only are they responsible for what they serve, they explicitly chose to give these people the power to do this.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Zaowulf · 2016-03-16 04:01 · Score: 2

Ads are served from other networks through a really long and overly-complex system of stuff I don't care enough about to explain. Basically, they sell page space to other companies and set it up so those companies can inject their content into the site. Those advertising companies were compromised which caused the ads they provided to deliver the malware. "BBC" wasn't hacked but their ads were. The average user won't really know the difference, and because it's all so convoluted and everybody is sleeping with everybody, the best (and only) defense is to block all ads regardless of whether it's a site you trust. Until "the way things are" changes there is no other acceptable response.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by alexhs · 2016-03-16 04:07 · Score: 0

Maybe we should stop calling these plugins "ad blockers", because it's not what they are, as none of them is able to block self-hosted ads.
These plugins actually are blocking backdoors to third-party websites. That these third-party websites happen to be advertising networks is just a coincidence.

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by tnk1 · 2016-03-16 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is sort of a Catch-22 for the providers. They get money from the ad networks, who are all compromised, but have no way of stopping what is served themselves.
So, the right solution is to block ads.
However, if the ad blockers aren't turned off, they get no money from the ad networks.
Ultimately it is the ad networks who are responsible, and no one is able to hold them accountable except maybe some top flight content providers.
It would be better for the content providers if they could just shut off ads and find another way to pay for creating their content, but no one wants to reach into their wallets and pay money to do so.
The one thing that the ad networks do is that they do tend to make getting money to content providers a more simple matter than attempting to obtain and keep subscribers. Subscribers aren't sticker shocked for paying $10 for a site that they just wanted to read one story on, so the general public is paying indirectly by buying products and paying into a pool of advertising money.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Falos · 2016-03-16 04:23 · Score: 1

If an ISP can be hammered for providing an internet connection ("enabling piracy") we can certainly blame a website for what the third party did.

Real talk though, precedent or not these wide-net causality chains are bullshit. It's arbitrarily applied, which is another way of saying "weaponized against anyone that lacks power/authority/money/lawyers".
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Dr.+Evil · 2016-03-16 04:31 · Score: 1

Search engines in the late 1990s were being trashed by SEO companies. Yahoo's manual curating of the Internet (haha) couldn't keep up. The standard crawler/keyword search tools were generating page after page of useless results.
Google exists because they had a different algorithm. The fact that they managed their ads carefully is one of the very many reasons they're still relevant... but their existence is entirely because of their search engine.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by doconnor · 2016-03-16 04:54 · Score: 1

I think the grand parent is talking about how Google became the dominate online ad company, not how it became the dominate online search company.
Those who two separate events, both important in making what Google is today.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-16 04:55 · Score: 1

It's a shame that anti-virus companies are so spineless. If they really wanted to protect their users they would integrate ad blocking into their products, and then start to aggressively push blocking of third party scripts and frames. Add some tracker blocking like the EFF's PrivacyBadger.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by kaiser423 · 2016-03-16 04:56 · Score: 1

It's really symbiotic. Search engine users are worth more from an advertising standpoint, but it's unlikely that Google could have survived and grown without also creating AdSense where they got to keep a larger chunk of those revenues. It's still most of their revenue, and it's initial revenue is what gave them the money to continue to refine their search engine and keep it from being gamed. If they were just a search engine, they likely would have died.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by AmiMoJo · 2016-03-16 05:00 · Score: 1

It is sort of a Catch-22 for the providers. They get money from the ad networks, who are all compromised
Not at all. Google text ads have never been compromised, not least because they only let you set text and no images or Javascript etc. Sure, you get less money, but at least you don't open yourself up to massive financial liability for all the PCs you damage.
You can also serve the ads yourself if you are big enough, manually vetting each one. Again, you get less money, but soon it will be the only option as everyone starts blocking.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Rob+Y. · 2016-03-16 05:16 · Score: 1

Actually, it's not the ad that compromised the computers - it's the piece of software that the ad prompted the users to download and install. Presumably antivirus software could protect against that without blocking the ad. I assume malware that hijacks a computer is illegal, and presumably ad networks don't accept ads anonymously (or do they?). If so, how do they get paid? It shouldn't be too hard to track down someone trying to distribute malware this way...

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Phusion · 2016-03-16 05:40 · Score: 1

After the adblocker came the anti-adblocker blocker script, and it was good.

--
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 05:46 · Score: 0

Ads are served from other networks through a really long and overly-complex system of stuff I don't care enough about to explain. Basically, they sell page space to other companies and set it up so those companies can inject their content into the site. Those advertising companies were compromised which caused the ads they provided to deliver the malware. "BBC" wasn't hacked but their ads were

If I want to put an ad in some print media (newspaper, magazine) or broadcast media (radio, television) I send them the ad and if it contains something that is obviously illegal, they will refuse to run the ad. The New York Times would not accept an ad for the print version of their newspaper which said "Please contribute to the campaign to kill all niggers and fags. Send your donations to _________________."
Why should online advertising be any different? Any website which displays ads must be held accountable for the ads they display. If they have chosen to participate in a convoluted system that makes vetting ads difficult or impossible, that's *THEIR* problem. Like almost all problems, this one is only solved by holding people accountable for their actions (or inaction).
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by tnk1 · 2016-03-16 05:52 · Score: 1

I agree that the non-obtrusive ads, like Google's, are generally safer almost by definition.
However, there is a reason there has been a rush to completely shit up content with flashing, in your face, Javascript and Flash ads. There's a lot of money in text advertising (a fact that Google has taken to the bank), but there's a lot of money being left on the table without ads that catch the eye better.
I tend to think of the "acceptable" ads campaigns like the ad blockers are doing is sort of like the Washington Naval Treaty. Everyone knows it will cripple your site to keep in an arms race, but there are still people chomping at the bit to engage in that arms race because they think they will win. So they do everything they can to get around being even slowed down in their attempt to get ads in your face.
In the end, I hope content providers are looking towards a world where everyone blocks ads. They need to find a new solution because incidents like this are only going to increase ad blocking. Even people who are okay with tolerating ads to support their favorite sites are becoming scared of what the ads are loading on their computers.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by cweber · 2016-03-16 06:37 · Score: 1

The ads appeared when I visited those websites, therefore it appears the websites are responsible for spreading the malware.
If it were that easy this wouldn't be a problem. You've got a least three players here: The website running ads and trying to fight off the bad stuff, the ad networks which only sometimes care enough, and the advertiser trying to game the system into running bad ads. It's a continuous arms race, and as a website owner you end up in reactive mode, rather than proactive.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by phantomfive · 2016-03-16 07:49 · Score: 1

It would be better for the content providers if they could just shut off ads and find another way to pay for creating their content, but no one wants to reach into their wallets and pay money to do so.
Google contributor is an attempt to do that.
Personally, I've found that for most websites, when they complain about my ad blocker, I realize I don't really want to go there anyway. My time has been saved for better things.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Aighearach · 2016-03-16 08:11 · Score: 1

From my perspective as somebody not usually using anti-virus they seem like very different products, and I wouldn't want them merged.
And when I'm using a virus-scanner professionally, I don't want one that does extra stuff and has extra data to download.
Also, the virus scanner I would use changes over time. In the 90s, I would just use the McAfee free FTP server (password: ftp123, discontinued many years ago). Then for awhile Norton was the only one that worked well. These days I use AVG. I don't want them to bundle anything else at all because then users are locked in by non-core features and getting them to switch when appropriate is that much harder.
Probably 20% of the windows maintenance I've been forced into in my life ended up involving the "Symantec Software Removal Tool" or whatever it is called. My goodness, software sucks bad, don't ask for bundling.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Darinbob · 2016-03-16 10:31 · Score: 1

The web sites are intentionally going with a third party service to load up the ads. They pretend to keep their hands clean this way. If some company wants to have their own website then they should do the full work of it themselves rather than outsource the advertising side of their business to disreputable services. A print magazine does not send out it's content to a third party to insert randomized ads instead it has the advertising as part of its business, so a web site should be able to do the same thing.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Darinbob · 2016-03-16 10:36 · Score: 1

It's not a catch-22. The problem is that they insist on maximizing profits. So instead of serving up their own advertising like a responsible corporation they farm this job out to whichever ad agency provides the best monetization. The simple way to control what ads are presented on your web site is to choose the ads yourself. It's how television, radio, and print media all work.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Darinbob · 2016-03-16 10:37 · Score: 1

Agreed. The BBC, New York Times, and Newsweek are all large enough to handle advertising themselves. They're much larger than the average clueless blogger hoping to earn enough money from ads to quit his day job.
Re:And they wonder why I use an adblocker.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 12:50 · Score: 0

The websites themselves weren't compromised any worse than usual
Fixed.
If your site is unable to control the content being served then it is compromised. That means ALL sites that use ad networks are inherently compromised.

BUT ADBLOCK IS EVIL by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:32 · Score: 0

I mean, this wouldn't happen if ad companies weren't struggling to stay afloat! Think of the execs!

Maybe by Frosty+Piss · 2016-03-16 03:32 · Score: 1

Sure... Maybe... But this is based single reference to a short 5 paragraph "story" on a click-bait site.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:Maybe by QuietLagoon · 2016-03-16 03:40 · Score: 1

Here's another site with the story:
.
http://www.computerworld.com/a...

...Trend Micro wrote about the same attack on Monday. Segura said he delayed publishing a blog post while he contacted major advertising networks, including Google's DoubleClick, Rubicon, AOL and AppNexus, to get the malicious advertisements removed. He published a post on Tuesday. ...
Re:Maybe by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-03-16 03:40 · Score: 2

Some was probably pimping their shitty blog for ad impressions. Here is a link from Ars Technica.
Re:Maybe by RavenLrD20k · 2016-03-16 04:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Has anyone found a Forbes Link on this? I can't search there because I won't turn off my ad-blocker and Forbes won't let me past their page requesting that I turn off the blocker. It just goes through an endless loop.
Re:Maybe by phishybongwaters · 2016-03-16 04:13 · Score: 1

Forbes was serving malware infested ads not too long ago, save yourself the trouble and just block the site in your hosts file so you don't accidentally go back there
Re:Maybe by Sloppy · 2016-03-16 04:18 · Score: 1

Sorry, but one of the rules of this story is that your thread is supposed to say something about ad blockers. Where's your ad blocker comment?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Maybe by mrprogrammerman · 2016-03-16 05:55 · Score: 1

There's a solution for the endless loop if you use adblock plus that blocks the checking code.

But don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:32 · Score: 0

...ad blockers are still bad, m'kay?

Re:GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA - We wan to fuck ASS! by MightyMartian · 2016-03-16 03:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I hope you die horribly.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Good thing I'm one of those terrible people by Rhaize · 2016-03-16 03:38 · Score: 1

Who use ad and script blocking..

--
Within the arms of tragedy, there is little comfort in being right.

BBC? by Coisiche · 2016-03-16 03:39 · Score: 1

I've never seen an advert on the BBC site. I've just had a browse to confirm that. Maybe they have some geo-location check in place.

Re:BBC? by Richard_at_work · 2016-03-16 03:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Adverts are shown to users visiting from non-UK IP addresses on all participating BBC websites.
Re:BBC? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:57 · Score: 1

I don't see any ads there from USA. Oh wait... I use privoxy, ublock, and scriptblock.
Re:BBC? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 04:14 · Score: 1

Use a VPN or proxy, and try again. The BBC is an utter shitfest of adverts if you're not blocking them with tools like adblockers and privacy badger. Think geocities on a bad day. But then, why are you using the BBC site? It's just an extreme PC site pushing propaganda for infinite immigration and LGBT (or whatever they are this week), and celebrity shite.
Re:BBC? by phishybongwaters · 2016-03-16 04:15 · Score: 0, Troll

So you felt the need to comment on the fact that you don't see any ads on that site. You are running a privacy plugin, blocks and script blockers. Of fucking course you won't see any fucking ads, you've blocked the mechanism that allows them. AND you posted as AC. This is only slightly less pointless than the homophobic racist rant way back there.
Re:BBC? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 04:36 · Score: 0, Flamebait

A Douchebook user complaining about someone making a pointless post? Oh the ironing.
Shouldn't you be getting back to you all your "friends" so you can tell them about how you just finished taking a dump and are now heading out to a gay bar?

So, Forbes, Wired, et all by Snotnose · 2016-03-16 03:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

wanna tell me again why it's wrong of me to run an ad-blocker? Try to use bigger words this time, cuz when you use the smaller ones I understand 100% what you're telling me and my Deja-Moo detector goes off.

Deja-Moo - that feeling you've heard this bull before.

Re:So, Forbes, Wired, et all by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 04:00 · Score: 1

Deja-Moo - that feeling you've heard this bull before.
Deja Moo? I thought that was that new JavaScript library that's going to be way better than jQuery.
Re:So, Forbes, Wired, et all by UnknownSoldier · 2016-03-16 04:12 · Score: 1

/sarcasm The same reason it is "wrong" to close your eyes, mute your sound, and/or go do something else. Oh wait, you implied a valid reason -- there is none -- you're talking to fucktards who don't understand the concept of respect.
/sarcasm I have a simple solution: Ban all ads -- they are immoral, disrespectful, & malware. /Oblg. And nothing of value was lost.
Re:So, Forbes, Wired, et all by whoever57 · 2016-03-16 08:55 · Score: 1

Here is my suggestion to websites that don't want people to use ad-blockers:
Agree that website visitors will be fully compensated for any damage caused by malicious adverts. And when I say "fully", I mean that the website operator will pay for full cleanup of my PC by a qualified IT professional and pay for my loss of productivity because my PC is inaccessible.
Don't want to take on that risk? Then don't block people using ad-blockers.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Really? by Steven+Quartz · 2016-03-16 03:42 · Score: 1

And they'll prohibit us use adblockers and access their sites.

Adblocker = Malware blocker by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Adblocker & related tools should change their marketing from 'helping you to block ads' to 'helping you avoid Malware/trojans etc.'...e.g. they should advertise & promote themselves as a 'security tool'...everything out of their mouths, on their website etc should be focused on that use case. Any time some politician opens their mouth about how adblockers are 'stealing' or 'ruining' some business the makers of adblocking tools should retort with statements about 'helping users security' etc.

Re:Adblocker = Malware blocker by tnk1 · 2016-03-16 04:18 · Score: 1

I agree that they should play up the security aspect as much as they can, but ultimately I think they are best staying out of the morass of "security" products out there. They are picked by users because they block ads. People hate ads. They hated them before they realized that they were sending malware to their computers. Now they simply hate them even more.
I think the brand that ad blockers have is their biggest asset right now, actually. But they would definitely benefit by adding security as a big bullet point in their features, even running a campaign to highlight that customers aren't just blocking annoying ads, but also protecting themselves.
Re:Adblocker = Malware blocker by phishybongwaters · 2016-03-16 04:19 · Score: 1

Well you must have missed the day that one of the most useful adblockers got sold and started force feeding you "acceptable ads" and you can disable until you update the plugin again. They also indicated that they are working on a payment system to allow paid ads to circumvent the adblocking plugin. See, most people missed the point. We're 100% dependent on ad blockers and script blockers to safely navigate the internet. No on pays for these applications. Companies and coders don't do shit for free. "If something's too cheap someone is paying something". TRUTH. So the name of the game is for these adblockers to become a requirement (we are there already) and then they flip the table, drop the mic, and allow ad companies to pay them to push ads through their filters. That's the end goal of this, and anyone attempting to make a career out of script and ad blocking, who denies this goal, is a straight up motherfucking liar.
Re:Adblocker = Malware blocker by Cederic · 2016-03-16 05:50 · Score: 1

coders don't do shit for free
You do realise the internet is pretty much built on code written for free?
Re:Adblocker = Malware blocker by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 06:24 · Score: 0

I had been using adblocking software since 2003 for this very purpose. I didn't like that occasional porn popunder that happens on its own then
Re:Adblocker = Malware blocker by david_thornley · 2016-03-17 04:25 · Score: 1

Thing is, I don't care about ads that follow reasonable guidelines. I want the adblocker primarily for safety, and secondarily to avoid large annoyances. If ads don't autoplay any sound, flash too distractingly, make it hard to use the page, or serve malware, I don't really care.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Adblocker = Malware blocker by JazzLad · 2016-03-17 05:52 · Score: 1

Rob,

I don't know if you are new here or if you just stopped lurking & got an account, but you have made 3 particularly douchey posts (that I have noticed) on this topic alone. Please spend some more time lurking or figure out what is making you miserable in life and deal with that before posting on Slashdot.

I mean this sincerely, I don't like to see people as unhappy as you seem to be.

Bring on the 'flamebait' or 'troll' mods, I have Karma to burn & I felt it needed to be said. Not posting anon because I stand behind my words, they can be taken at face-value.

--
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Re:Adblocker = Malware blocker by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-17 05:55 · Score: 0

I may not agree with much you say, but this is spot on.

Far from the first time by fermion · 2016-03-16 03:46 · Score: 1

Several years ago this happened to the NYT. It was serving malware ads for the entire weekend. That was the point when I went from ambivalent to pro-adblocker. This is why Forbes is dead to me. Used to link to it a lot.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black

they're ALL malware by turkeydance · 2016-03-16 03:46 · Score: 1

every one of them

So where are the lawsuits? by Simulant · 2016-03-16 03:47 · Score: 1

Surely the ad network(s) or the sites themselves can be sued over this?

Re:So where are the lawsuits? by AntronArgaiv · 2016-03-16 03:54 · Score: 1

Surely the ad network(s) or the sites themselves can be sued over this?
It's all automated, right? The ad "network" has no idea where the ads are coming from or what they contain. Some simple checks, maybe, but the originator is behind several layers of middlemen, so it's hard to identify them. And of course, half the middlemen are in .ua, .ru or .cn domains, and change their names every week.
So, none of this is surprising and that's why I, too, will continue to run an ad-blocker, as well as noscript.
Re:So where are the lawsuits? by Simulant · 2016-03-16 04:28 · Score: 1

I agree it's not surprising but the only way it's going to change is if someone is held responsible. If they have "no idea where the ads are coming from or what they contain" then they shouldn't be embedding them in their web sites. We ne
Re:So where are the lawsuits? by AntronArgaiv · 2016-03-16 05:15 · Score: 1

I agree it's not surprising but the only way it's going to change is if someone is held responsible. If they have "no idea where the ads are coming from or what they contain" then they shouldn't be embedding them in their web sites.

I hear you. But I'm having trouble believing that "ad networks" who, even when they're operating legitimately, are showing ads offering to lower your credit card interest or help you sell your house, are going to be discriminating or responsible about what they accept or who they accept it from. The whole system's broken. These guys are about as responsible as robocallers.
Re:So where are the lawsuits? by KGIII · 2016-03-16 06:42 · Score: 1

You can sue anyone for anything. Really, that's largely true. Feel free to try to bring suit against them. You might just as well throw in (and I'm not kidding) the site, the hosting company, your browser's vendor, the person(s) involved in making the site, the hosting company (if applicable), the owners of the data center(s) (if applicable, the person(s) tasked with operating the data center, the ISP(s) involved, and anyone with "security" in their title at any of the above companies/providers.
You're not getting a damned thing but you want to name as many people as possible in your suit. I'm really not kidding about that - name anyone who might even remotely have been able to prevent it up to, and including, anyone who nominally was tasked with the specific area in question (in this case security). You won't even have to pay for a lawyer if you want, you read a few books, spend a little time in the library, and do some online research. You don't even have to do that part, but you should.
You can also sue for anything - pretty much. I mean, you can sue them for a pony or a rainbow. Really... You can sue them for a pink unicorn fart, if you really want to. You just stomp on down, appropriate paperwork and filing fees in hand, and submit your papers to the Clerk of Courts who will, in turn, ensure that they get to a judge. And, I can assure you, they *will* be read by a judge. At that point, one of several things will happen and you'll be able to go from there.
In this case, in particular, you'd probably at least be given a hearing - assuming that you've demonstrated that you have standing.
Have you, personally, been harmed by this or are you just unhappy? If you've not able to show how you've been harmed (most specifically, how a reasonable person would conclude that you have been harmed) then you don't have standing.
Which really brings us to the important place... You can sue for anything but you're not going to get anywhere without showing that you have standing.
How were you, personally, harmed by this?

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

By what definition were they not compromised? by Anubis+IV · 2016-03-16 03:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The websites themselves weren't compromised as the problem was with the ad networks these sites use

If you've configured your site to allow arbitrary content from unknown third-parties, your site is compromised by design. If the mere act of rendering the content that your site is sufficient to get malware, then, yes, your page is compromised. Doesn't matter if the source of the malware was in somebody else's ad service. If that service feeds data directly into your site that you then present to your visitors without any sort of vetting or filtering, then you've allowed that malware to compromise your site.

Take responsibility, show some respect for your viewers, and stop making excuses. Vet your ads. Serve them from your own servers. Make them first-party. Compelling us to turn off ad-blockers to access your content while not taking steps on your end to protect us from malicious content is sloppy, negligent, and shows an utter and complete disregard for your customers.

Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by Anubis+IV · 2016-03-16 03:59 · Score: 1

Oops, accidentally cut some text. Meant to say...

If the mere act of rendering the content that your site serves or otherwise provides is sufficient to get malware, then, yes, your page is compromised
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by phishybongwaters · 2016-03-16 04:22 · Score: 1

So slashdot is responsible if I post a fake link to an article in a comment that installs malware? Slashdot CONFIGURED their site to allow arbitrary content from third parties (me) and indeed says they are not responsible for said content. Funny how that doesn't hold up for torrent trackers, but I digress. I think you are mistaken. While morally the site is responsible, legally no one is. Not even the ad company. That's the kick in the dick part of all of this.
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-03-16 04:32 · Score: 1

No one said anything about legal liability, but, yes, it is the site's responsibility to vet the ads that are shown on their site. If they don't want to live up to that responsibility then they need to fuck off and die when they whine and complain about ad blockers.
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by jittles · 2016-03-16 04:34 · Score: 1

So slashdot is responsible if I post a fake link to an article in a comment that installs malware? Slashdot CONFIGURED their site to allow arbitrary content from third parties (me) and indeed says they are not responsible for said content. Funny how that doesn't hold up for torrent trackers, but I digress. I think you are mistaken. While morally the site is responsible, legally no one is. Not even the ad company. That's the kick in the dick part of all of this.
No. Slashdot does not redirect you to that website. Nor does Slashdot load any object from the URL you posted. Someone must choose to follow your malicious link. When you go to the NYT website you are forced to either accept 3rd party content that the NYT has no control over, or block the ad. Since it is NYT that is redirecting you to the malicious content, they are responsible.
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by radarskiy · 2016-03-16 04:41 · Score: 1

"If you've configured your site to allow arbitrary content from unknown third-parties, your site is compromised by design. "
Stronger version: If you have taken money to specifically configure your site to allow arbitrary content from unknown third-parties, you are an accessory to the resulting crimes..
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by Anubis+IV · 2016-03-16 04:42 · Score: 2

Slashdot CONFIGURED their site to allow arbitrary content from third parties (me) [...]
Our comments are not "arbitrary content" in the sense that I intended it with my previous comment. Our comments have a strictly enforced format made up of text and HTML tags that have been vetted to prevent abuse. Not so with ads, which oftentimes include some combination of iframes, Javascript, cookies, images, Flash, and any number of other objects, none of which have gone through the sort of vetting process that the permissible HTML tags have gone through here.
And I was speaking ethically, not legally. Whether or not they can be held legally liable, I have no clue, but as a customer, I hold them liable. If I as their customer view their site and then get a malware infection as a result of having viewed their site, then they're the ones that caused it as far as I'm concerned, if not directly, then through their negligence.
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by Anubis+IV · 2016-03-16 04:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The sites' customers are not you; you are the fucking product, dipshit. You are what they are selling to the advertisers, durrr.
Setting aside the silly ad hominem, let's go ahead and approach it from that angle, since I agree that it's a valid way to view the situation (it's the view I typically espouse, in fact). Our attention is a limited resource, and it's the product that these sites are packaging up and delivering to their actual customers. But just as loggers or fishermen will quickly find themselves in an untenable position if they show a complete and utter disregard for the natural resource they collect, so too will these sites find themselves in a similar position if they do the same. Even if they don't pay me the attention I'm due as a customer, they should still show a proper regard for me as the resource that they deliver to their customer. Or, at least, that's what they should do if they want to stay in business.
Incidentally, you've mistaken my thinking poorly of their design decisions for outrage. I think it's their prerogative to serve third-party ads if they want, just as it's my prerogative to block third-party content by default. I think it's their prerogative to block me because I'm blocking their ads, just as it's my prerogative to stop visiting their site in response to that block. They're acting within their rights, but as with pretty much any business decision, there are consequences, and I believe that they haven't yet weighed the pros and cons correctly.
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-03-16 06:26 · Score: 1

Great reply to douchebag AC btw...

I think it's their prerogative to block me because I'm blocking their ads, just as it's my prerogative to stop visiting their site in response to that block.
I agree completely and have actually stopped going to some sites for either this reason or similar.
I'm a big Football(American) fan and I love to read the analyses of this sport from many perspectives. There are a few NFL oriented sites that are such a clusterfuck that I just stopped going to them. It is not possible to selectively choose which things under their umbrella to allow through my browser, there is so much disparate gobblygook bullshit...

If I can't selectively block third party crap while just trying to read simple text then I won't hit the site at all.

If a site throws up a "We Hate Adblockers" page and won't let me in, then I won't hit that site either.

I know it sounds nutty, but I wonder if eventually this will drive people back to magazines, as the state of online media/content is just so "Wild Wild West".

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by cweber · 2016-03-16 06:49 · Score: 2

If you've configured your site to allow arbitrary content from unknown third-parties, your site is compromised by design. If the mere act of rendering the content that your site is sufficient to get malware, then, yes, your page is compromised. Doesn't matter if the source of the malware was in somebody else's ad service. If that service feeds data directly into your site that you then present to your visitors without any sort of vetting or filtering, then you've allowed that malware to compromise your site.
You do realize that a site only embeds the ad network code, not the final downloaded content? I.e. yes, a site takes some sort of responsibility when deciding to run ads from an ad network. Beyond that, however, every user gets potentially different ads. There are real time bidding platforms and user profiling code in the middle, completely outside the direct control of the website.
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by Anubis+IV · 2016-03-16 07:09 · Score: 2

You do realize that a site only embeds the ad network code, not the final downloaded content?
Yup. And that's exactly the problem. Just as we'd question the judgment of a ship designer who put a gaping hole below the waterline that let seawater and sea life in, and just as we'd question home builders who decided it was better to simply leave out one of the walls from the final construction, so too should we question any website design choice that entrails giving unknown, untrusted third-parties free access to put anything they want on a site. The fact that the hole was placed there intentionally by embedding the ad network code doesn't excuse the sites. Rather, it makes them responsible for anything that gets in through the holes they chose to add intentionally.
But, going back to your initial question, yes, I'm quite familiar with how this stuff works. My graduate research focused on topological approaches to spam site identification for use in optimizing web crawlers, which, while certainly not this exact area, should at least tell you that I have a decent interest in this sort of stuff. ;)
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by ChristophWeber · 2016-03-16 09:20 · Score: 2

Fair enough. Thanks for your clarification. In the interest of full disclosure: I head up the tech teams behind this and its sister site, but not adops or sales. Posting from my corporate account this time.
Re:By what definition were they not compromised? by Anubis+IV · 2016-03-16 10:30 · Score: 2

Backing up for a sec, thank you. You guys have been rocking it recently. Love the addition of HTTPS, and it's great to hear that you're bringing UTF-8 support as well in the future.
And back on topic, I'm know I'm being idealistic (perhaps even naive) in my viewpoint, since there are business realities about the world as it exists today that make the "right" way of doing things difficult or impossible. Even so, the way that ads are delivered today is broken by design and NEEDS to be fixed. That these techniques are ubiquitous cannot be used as an excuse for not trying to find better ways to safely deliver ads to site visitors.
To me, advertising as it exists today is more or less in slash-and-burn mode: they're reaping easy short-term profits at the cost of their long-term profitability. As others are pointing out in the comments, it's no longer simply a matter of blocking eyesores; it's about having malware-free pages that load in reasonable times. Adblockers are quickly becoming the Internet-equivalent of installing antivirus and are no longer relegated to power users and technophiles. The usable farmland is shrinking at a faster and faster rate.
To be clear, by no means am I against advertising as a business model, but I am against the means and methods of advertising delivery as they primarily exist today. I want great sites (like Slashdot!) to continue being freely available while also enjoying profitability, but I also want us, as a technology industry, to be forward-looking in our approach to the problem of delivering ads safely to our users. We should be trying to figure out what model comes next, because the one we're using today is insecure and unsustainable.

This is why I stopped using plugins by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 03:56 · Score: 0

I used to have a difficult time not using common plugins like Flash or Silverlight, or the likes of Java. But Java was pretty easy to ditch years ago, and I use a Mac and Silverlight is a performance nightmare on a Mac. Flash was the hardest plugin to ditch, but after seeing monthly if not weekly exploits and then patches from Adobe. I realized that nothing is so important that I need to accept the security nightmare called Flash. Even the risk is not totally eliminated if you use blockers because now many do deals with respectable ads so they are allowed. Given these recent attacks are operating on respected sites. One has to assume a user with a ad blocker is not totally immune. The only real prevention is to stop using Flash altogether.

I love host file ad blocking for this reason by millertym · 2016-03-16 04:00 · Score: 2

The guy at this site maintains a crazy list of advertisers and malicious site DNS records... then points them all to 0.0.0.0 using host file format. It has served me well for years now.

http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ho...

Re:I love host file ad blocking for this reason by phishybongwaters · 2016-03-16 04:24 · Score: 0

posts a questionably looking link in a thread about malware. Too funny. I wonder if that site is done by the douche that usually floods every article with "apps app the apps moo mooo hostfile" bullshit. If so, just die.
Re:I love host file ad blocking for this reason by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 04:54 · Score: 0

Haha, APK?
Re:I love host file ad blocking for this reason by millertym · 2016-03-16 04:58 · Score: 1

Well I can't speak for what the creator/maintainer of the giant Malvertiser DNS list may or may not do with post board spamming. But I do know I have very few adds show up on any site I visit, and know for sure they don't load because they all point to 0.0.0.0 when they try. And it's been working like that for years. And that's all that matters to me.
Re:I love host file ad blocking for this reason by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 05:18 · Score: 0

At least APK and app appers guy aren't ultra-vain Douchebook users like yourself.
Re:I love host file ad blocking for this reason by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 06:05 · Score: 0

well, it could have been APK, the guy who posts about hosts files
Re:I love host file ad blocking for this reason by KGIII · 2016-03-16 06:53 · Score: 1

I know, personally, the originator and some of the folks who maintain the list. It's all good - if you do the web-of-trust type of thing then I'll "sign their certificate." I extend my trust reputation to them. They're good people and do what they can to maintain a clean list. At the very least, you can easily scan it visually and ensure that nothing is out of place. So long as it doesn't send anything anywhere other than 0.0.0.0 there's not much it can do to actually cause harm.
Now, if they're including things (and they don't) other than IP addresses to the localhost there's a concern. That's not difficult to scan for, just open the file(s) with a plain text editor and page-down until you reach the bottom and watch as it goes by. You will notice anything that doesn't look right because it doesn't match the 0.0.0.0 entry. They use standard tab-widths for entries into the file.
'Tis not only harmless but run by a good group of people (though I've not kept tough) and the majority of them are still involved in some fashion. The actual originator is still involved. There's nothing really horrible that they could do that would cause much harm, not without someone noticing and not without a concerted effort from a whole bunch of other people. Then, probably, they could actually do some evil things like redirecting a popular site to an address other than localhost or redirecting a needed security site to localhost so that you can't reach it. That'd be noticed and, really, they're unlikely to trash their reputation that they've worked this hard to build.
You probably know that BUT there's a less informed group of people who may read and believe the site might be malicious. There has been an increasing number of posts made by people who haven't taken the time to learn to properly understand and use their tools. They may very well believe that the site is malicious - I'd not even be surprised a little bit by such a proclamation.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:I love host file ad blocking for this reason by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 09:59 · Score: 0

Only modern app appers app adblockers, not LUDDITE host files!

incorrect headline by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 04:02 · Score: 0

It should be "MSN, NY Times, BBC and AOL hit users with Malware".
They are not the victims, their users are.
If anything, MSN, NY Times, BBC and AOL are responsible. They allow unvetted crap on their website. (he, if that goes for movies and music, why not malware ?). If they use anti-adblock technology they are more than responsible, they are accomplices and should be in criminal court.

Ad malware is a serious issue by Lisandro · 2016-03-16 04:07 · Score: 1

At times it becomes impossible to browse the web from my phone - it seems like every now and then someone successfully pushes this crap to ad networks, and since 99% of all sites use them it becomes inescapable.

Google et al should be accountable for offering a service delivering malware. And, web publishers, i know this is not exactly your fault but i don't care. There are a good number of sites i'm no longer visiting because either they redirect me to porn sites every time or reject ad blockers, which i use to avoid this situation in the first place. Get your shit together.

Re:Ad malware is a serious issue by sexconker · 2016-03-16 04:51 · Score: 1

There are a good number of sites i'm no longer visiting because either they redirect me to porn sites every time or reject ad blockers, which i use to avoid this situation in the first place.
Same. I just go to the porn sites directly now.

Get your shit together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA - We wan to fuck ASS! by myowntrueself · 2016-03-16 04:31 · Score: 1, Offtopic

I hope you die horribly.

Hey don't bully 12 year olds online!

--
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.

Running Ad Blocker like running Antivirus by Chas · 2016-03-16 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seriously.

Sure, some people can (and do) run for extended periods of time without getting compromised without ad blockers or AV.
In the end, it's just a matter of time before they're infested.

And yes, compromises on large ad networks like Google may be somewhat rare. But that doesn't help me when a website using their network gives me a drive-by install of Locky or or something that totally hoses all my (or my company's) data.

As such, there is NO negotiation about ad blocking. It's happening. PERIOD.

Until the entire ad industry formulates an acceptable ad policy that people can live with, that DOESN'T pose a danger to its users, ad blocking will continue.

Now content providers are free to take their ball and go home. I don't much give a shit. If given a choice between having my personal and company data destroyed/stolen and watching every content provider on the Internet crash and burn due to lack of ad revenue? Let the fuckers crash and burn!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Running Ad Blocker like running Antivirus by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 13:59 · Score: 0

Until the entire ad industry formulates an acceptable ad policy that people can live with
They do have acceptable ad policies -- which forbid malware. That doesn't stop malicious users from sneaking it in, or more commonly, the ad servers getting hacked. Your proposal will not solve anything.
Re:Running Ad Blocker like running Antivirus by Chas · 2016-03-16 15:00 · Score: 1

Until the entire ad industry formulates an acceptable ad policy that people can live with
They do have acceptable ad policies -- which forbid malware. That doesn't stop malicious users from sneaking it in, or more commonly, the ad servers getting hacked. Your proposal will not solve anything.
Hence the "industry wide" qualifier.
Also, ad blocking would continue even then. Just, more sites would get white listed.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Ouroboros by ThatsNotPudding · 2016-03-16 05:12 · Score: 1

Adblocker & related tools should change their marketing from 'helping you to block ads' to 'helping you avoid Malware/trojans etc.'...e.g. they should advertise & promote...

May the circle be unbroken.

Can someone explain the enumeration aspect? by BUL2294 · 2016-03-16 05:17 · Score: 1

So, here's my question... According to the Trustwave article (and someone who doesn't know Javascript), buried in the 12,000 lines of code...

Our suspicions grew further when de-obfuscation of the script revealed that it tries to enumerate the following list of security products and tools in order to filter out security researchers and users with protections that would prevent exploitation ... If the code doesn't find any of these programs, it continues with the flow and appends an iframe to the body of the html that leads to Angler EK landing page."

So, if I understand this properly, if the Javascript code finds these files, it doesn't serve up the malware landing page. So, if I understand it properly, adware networks, along with any other site's Javascript code, can see what files I have on my PC? WTF--can I shut off that ability? I can see no justifiable reason why any Internet site, short of one or two I might whitelist, would need to be able to access such info...

--
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00

Re:Can someone explain the enumeration aspect? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-03-16 05:34 · Score: 1

I thought Javascript only had the ability to open a file via a prompt asking the user to select which file to read.
Who knows, maybe it's Javascript + Flash or Javascript + Java or some other insane mix.

Damnit by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-03-16 05:19 · Score: 2

I guess I'll have to turn off Adblock and NoScript so I can take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to get my free malware.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Re:GAY NIGGERS OF AMERICA - We wan to fuck ASS! by KGIII · 2016-03-16 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I hope you die horribly.

Why? I don't like what they have to say and, as is known, I'm even part black. It neither bothers me nor does it make me wish death (or even horrific death) on them. There's lots of things that people say and do that I don't particularly like. I don't have to like everything.

If we eliminate things we don't like then, eventually, there will come a time when you're in the group of people that is disliked. You don't think morality stops with just what you want, do you? I can assure you, there are people who don't like the things you say - and want you to die, horribly. If we could all just get a little bit past that sort of thinking, the world might actually be a nicer place - even though we'd still have people trolling like the AC that you responded to.

Hell, as I said, I'm part black and I'm not even the least bit offended by them. No, the word nigger does not offend me - even when used as a pejorative. Hell, if anything, I'm more unhappy (but not wanting them to die horribly) when it is used in a non-pejorative way.

I don't get why you'd want someone to be dead just because you don't like what they are saying. That literally makes no sense to me. None. I've tried to suss it out and reason my way to understanding but humans confuse me. Yeah, they're idiots. Oh well... The world is full of idiots. I can't imagine why I'd want anyone to die horribly. To me, that would make me equally horrible.

Shit, I agree with the death penalty (just be honest about it) and I still don't want them to die horribly. No, I want it to be as painless as possible. I'm not really sure what that has to do with it but it seemed salient so I figured I'd add it. It's right up there with wanting people to be raped and beaten in prison or hoping they never get out of jail. No, I hope they get better and they're in jail as punishment and not for additional punishment.

Seriously, explain your reasoning/logic to me - if you can. I've asked others before (in very similar circumstances) and (ironically) gotten replies like, "Fuck you faggot." Yup... From the same person I've asked to explain. So far, not one has ever been able to explain how they reasoned themselves into holding and voicing such a position. It's not like you're the first person to express such views. Others do advocate for censoring them, that's a little more logical than wanting them to die. Others often express a desire to be the person who physically harms the individual, that's even less logical.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

Just abolish advertising by Archtech · 2016-03-16 05:38 · Score: 1

Long ago I saw a story about a CEO who admitted cheerfully that half his advertising budget was wasted. He just never knew which half. I couldn't help wondering how he knew that it wasn't all wasted.

Perhaps people like the average slashdotter find it hard to understand why advertising works. After all, we tend to be well educated and inclined to focus on facts and logic. (We like to think...) But surely it suggests a very disparaging view of the average consumer to think they would be powerfully influenced by ads. There is a small subset which are useful: those that tell you about something you want, can afford, and would actually like to buy. But most of them are aimed at making us buy stuff we don't need, don't even really want, and can't afford.

So what would be the effect of completely abolishing advertising? (Just as a thought experiment: we can think about how to do it another day). A lot of people might stop buying things they don't really need or want, so sales would go down somewhat. But wouldn't that turn resources free to be used making things we do want and need? Surely Douglas Adams can't have been wrong.

In a world where kind, decent people see fit to create and maintain FOSS, and give us all the Web as a free gift, why should it be used to earn money from conning people?

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.

Re:Just abolish advertising by Howitzer86 · 2016-03-16 09:23 · Score: 1

I tend to think that one reason we still have an internet is because commercial businesses found a way to monetize it. If they had barriers to doing so, there would be a lot less of a reason to develop it, and more push back against it. (Much like the push back against the torrent aggregators or the piracy focused file sharing websites).
Bitcoin is still legal here because businesses found a use for it and they don't care about the drugs or money laundering. But if they couldn't use it, those other issues would be highlighted by their lobbyists to get it blocked and every Republican under the sun would be talking about it.
So long as it works for them, they're fine letting us have it too.
Also, I have a demonstration video on Youtube of a plugin that I sell. It's the main way people find out about my work, and there's a lot of people like me out there who advertise on YouTube and elsewhere. We're little guys, and there's no way you were talking about us, but a law banning all advertising online can have some wide reaching consequences, not to mention 1st amendment free speech issues. Even if you changed the wording to allow my advertising but forbid Comcast's, I'd be against it on principal... and I hate Comcast.
You can have your FOSS internet, and we can have our commercial internet, and we can live in peace without trying to ban each other's behavior.
Re:Just abolish advertising by painandgreed · 2016-03-16 11:48 · Score: 1

So what would be the effect of completely abolishing advertising? (Just as a thought experiment: we can think about how to do it another day).
As somebody that hasn't watched broadcast TV in 20+ years, seen the decline of magazines and newspapers, and stopped reading even the local weekly newspapers, I can tell you some of the effects. First, I found myself completely out of touch with pop culture. People would talk about things or I'd see some of the advertisements I didn't miss, and there would be bands, celebrities, etc that I've never heard of but had been big for years. I didn't really care for them but some of my friends did, usually the ones of the generation after me. No real loss to me, but the shear ignorance causes others to doubt anything else you say. We see this a lot on /. as people dismiss anything they dislike as worthless. Then I found out that I was completely missing movies that had made it to the theater and left without me ever hearing about them. Then concerts and shows in my city that I actually would have liked to have gone to, but I never knew about them. Also, although I'm in the tech industry as glorified desktop support, my knowledge of computers was practically nil as I wasn't looking for a new computer and wasn't seeing what was new in magazines. Even /., Ars, Mac rumors and others give some general knowledge, but mostly high level view stuff, not what is common trends in technical details of systems which I usually gleaned from reading ads. I've found myself actually picking up the local weekly papers when I can remember it just to check the ads for concerts I want to see, because as I and my friends have aged, they've stopped talking about and going to them, thus I've stopped finding out about them.

good reporting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 05:44 · Score: 1

This so called "article" from spam-site HelpNet is based on these 3 reports.... which actually make more sense than their copy-pasted article: http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/malvertising-campaign-in-us-leads-to-angler-exploit-kitbedep/
https://www.trustwave.com/Resources/SpiderLabs-Blog/Angler-Takes-Malvertising-to-New-Heights/
https://blog.malwarebytes.org/malvertising-2/2016/03/large-angler-malvertising-campaign-hits-top-publishers/

Next time, replace their link with ArsTechnica, maybe we can get some decent reporting around here.

Why not? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 07:10 · Score: 0

Why not hope the little shitstain dies as soon as possible? Nobody is saying to go out and kill them, but the world would be a nicer place as soon as they were dead.

It's just a fact.

Re:Why not? by KGIII · 2016-03-16 07:45 · Score: 1

There's a big difference between wanting them to die and wanting them to die horribly.
The first one, I guess I can accept the reasoning behind that. The second one baffles me. I'm not sure how my prior comment is a troll but it's all good, I've got karma to burn.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

WIndows update disablers by Billly+Gates · 2016-03-16 07:38 · Score: 0

Enjoy your malware and your ransom. But hey, you don't get Windows 10 right?

For those infected who say they turn off Windows Update with a smile all I can say is told you so!

--
http://saveie6.com/

Welcome to advertising 101 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 08:04 · Score: 0

How am I supposed to track physical clicks and charge for them if I download everything? Entire systems would have to be rewritten for this metric.

I do serve ads on my site by rsilvergun · 2016-03-16 12:01 · Score: 1

but I stick with google's ad program. It doesn't pay much (more than enough to cover the hosting costs and buy a little hardware now and then for testing/development. What can I say, having kids means I don't get to spend paycheck money on hobbies anymore :( ) but in all that time I haven't had my site taken down when users report I've been serving them malware for week...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2016-03-16 13:10 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

World-wide-web is just a mess! by DNX+Blandy · 2016-03-16 21:03 · Score: 1

This is why I run an ad-blocker, simple. The HTTP protocol has been abused so badily, what started as an amazing step for computer science decades ago, has been ruined by ad companies who themselves dish out malware / crapware. Someone asked me a while back how to browse online safely... I told them to not go online.

Re:World-wide-web is just a mess! by DNX+Blandy · 2016-03-16 21:05 · Score: 1

Adding to this, the ad companies might as well ask us to turn off the anti-virus as well, which is basically what we are doing when we turn off our ad-blockers. Total bellends! I will never turn my ad-blocker off. If you try to force me, I'll take my business elsewhere, (you lose).

Sue them! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-16 21:13 · Score: 0

If contributory copyright infringement is something you get in trouble for as a hoster, then this has got to be worse. I think anyone who got infected should be able to bring a class action using CFAA, RICO or the PATRIOT Act. I.e. use some of those badly thought out laws to make a point or two and a buck.

Adblocking browser addons = inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-17 06:22 · Score: 0

Can addons do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security & reliability (+ more efficiently)?

1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talk
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talk
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talk
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get past dns blocks
12.) Avoid dnsrequest logs
13.) Speed up surfing (adblock & hardcodes)
14.) Works on anything webbound multiplatform.
15.) EZ datacontrol
16.) Block ads more efficiently

Answer's NO on addons doing it well or @ ALL + hosts = on devices natively - not illogically inefficiently "Bolting on 'MoAr'".

(Ads on same site = rare: Advertisers don't trust webmaster click counts)

Addons = blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ by native browser methods: Untrue for hosts (part of IP stack).

APK

For the best possible hosts file by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-17 06:56 · Score: 0

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

* Less power/cpu/ram+ IO use vs. local DNS servers + addons w/ less security issues vs. DNS + routers. Less complex vs firewalls (needing layered filtering drivers - hosts don't + firewalls block less used IP addresses, hosts block more used host-domain names) complimenting 'em. Antivirus = reactive. Hosts = proactive, blocking infection BEFORE you get it. Gets its data from 10 reputable security community sites.

APK

P.S. - Hosts get you more speed (hardcodes + adblocks) & faster vs. addons, security (vs. bad sites/dns security issues), reliability (vs. downed/poisoned dns), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) vs. other "so-called -solutions'" w/ what you natively have. Unlike Adblock/UBlock/Ghostery, hosts != blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ... apk

No advertisement is acceptable to me by Baki · 2016-03-17 08:03 · Score: 1

Advertisement is a huge waste of resources:

Companies spend a part of their profits to spread subjective (i.e. false) information.
This is paid for in the end by the consumers themselves, as the advertising budget is paid from the profits.

So we as consumers pay, to get annoyed, to get our time wasted, and to get false information.

Advertisement is a plague of humanity, I'll do everything to shield myself from it.

Best adblocker & more (for speed + security) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-20 02:25 · Score: 0

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

* Less power/cpu/ram+ IO use vs. local DNS servers + addons w/ less security issues vs. DNS + routers. Less complex vs firewalls (needing layered filtering drivers - hosts don't + firewalls block less used IP addresses, hosts block more used host-domain names) complimenting 'em. Antivirus = reactive. Hosts = proactive, blocking infection BEFORE you get it. Gets its data from 10 reputable security community sites.

APK

P.S. - Hosts get you more speed (hardcodes + adblocks) & faster vs. addons, security (vs. bad sites/dns security issues), reliability (vs. downed/poisoned dns), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) vs. other "so-called -solutions'" w/ what you natively have. Unlike Adblock/UBlock/Ghostery, hosts != blockable by ClarityRay/BlockIQ... apk

Slashdot Mirror

Malvertising Campaign Hits MSN, NY Times, BBC, AOL

159 comments