Slashdot Mirror
Now Even YouTube Serves Ads With CPU-draining Cryptocurrency Miners (arstechnica.com)
YouTube was recently caught displaying ads that covertly leach off visitors' CPUs and electricity to generate digital currency on behalf of anonymous attackers, it was widely reported. From a report: Word of the abusive ads started no later than Tuesday, as people took to social media sites to complain their antivirus programs were detecting cryptocurrency mining code when they visited YouTube. The warnings came even when people changed the browser they were using, and the warnings seemed to be limited to times when users were on YouTube. On Friday, researchers with antivirus provider Trend Micro said the ads helped drive a more than three-fold spike in Web miner detections. They said the attackers behind the ads were abusing Google's DoubleClick ad platform to display them to YouTube visitors in select countries, including Japan, France, Taiwan, Italy, and Spain. The ads contain JavaScript that mines the digital coin known as Monero.
Because itâ(TM)s getting out of hand and they will fix everything.
This is why I run an adblocker and a script blocker.
And why I refuse to visit sites that insist I turn it off.
Speaking of which, anyone know any WebExtensions that do anti-anti-adblock? The old one was XUL.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Can the workloads really be broken down into such small chunks that running during a 15-30 second ad gets any useful work done? It seems coordinating breaking up and putting back together such small work parts would be more computational power than its worth.
Quick! Everyone stop using Youtube so we can swing the apocalypse back into the hands of the creators.
The work is small. Just with a really low probability of success. This is why "mining" is usually done on GPUs, more tries more winnings.
One that comes to the top of my mind is Mineblock.
It specifically blocks cryptominers of all kinds, even ones that the usual script blockers and other antimalware stuff miss.
It's not the only one, and I'm sure that eventually the others will catch up to these types of extensions, but it's still relatively early days for this kind of infestation.
Keep up to date on whatever you use, and those leeches won't find you an easy meal.
It's the age of browser tabs. People open a tab with youtube and it stays open, often for hours.
This is why I absolutely refuse to to surf without adblockers in place.
The whole online ads thing has been a shit-show since the word "go".
And they piss and moan about it, while taking ever greater liberties with computing resources THEY DO NOT OWN.
You can't even trust GOOGLE for chrissakes! And they're a browser vendor? How VERY convenient!
You wanna block me from viewing your content because I don't let you infect, destabilize, and take over my system?
Fine, I don't need to see your shit content that bad. I'll go do something ELSE.
Online advertising is a Herpes infection.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
"Unoccupied CPUs" were a waste back when a CPU used the same amount of power idling as working.
Today, giving my "unoccupied CPU" a task for your benefit is theft of my battery life (time until I need to recharge), battery lifetime (total number of cycles), electricity (both direct device usage and indirect cooling needs), and device lifetime (hotter devices fail sooner).
Now, if you'd like to offer me payment for these things you wish to consume, we can talk.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What makes you think they all unload when you leave that site?
There are lots of them that just keep running and eating up your resources even when you want to use them.
That's the problem with people secretly sticking their hands in your pocket, you have no idea how much they're going to take or how long they'll be doing it.
The very fact that they hid this from you is ALWAYS a bad sign.
Does it really matter? They're still collecting:
1 - A theoretical dollar for the video view
2 - The ad revenue, and they get to top it off with 3:
3 - Tiny fractions of a monero-cent
Adding #3 is free for them. Why not include it?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It really depends.
Visiting from a desktop PC with adequate cooling? OK, I guess.
Using a laptop, tablet or mobile device? Bad, really bad.
Then it's a matter of how much mining is being performed and where. I assume most people leave a few tabs open, for example one with e-mail, one with news aggregator, a few community websites, maybe a couple social media tabs. If all of them cryptomine, you're in deep shit. Also if they mine while the tab is in the background, you're also in deep shit.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Consider an algorithm such as Yescrypt (http://password-hashing.net/wiki/doku.php/yescrypt) which is a valid CPU cryptomining algorithm. My CPU (Broadwell i7 6800K) finds a share every 5 seconds with 11 threads running. I extrapolate a quad core CPU would find a share every 15-20 seconds. Those shares add up if the receiving wallet and mining pool are the same. This means wallet "iourthoesruithjvansoivrzupaweo" could have a swarm 10K workers mining for 30 seconds each on the same pool, and find 10K shares every 30 seconds.
Let's see what this adds up to in terms of cash.
My CPU (taken as reference) makes about 1.5 dollars a day. A Quad-core CPU (average desktop PC CPU) would make about 0.5 dollars a day through cryptomining. Multiply that by 10K miners (dynamic swarm), it adds up to 5K dollars a day. It's a hefty sum, assuming the website really has 10K active visitors at all times.
1K active sessions would yield 500 bucks a day, 100 active sessions would net 50 bucks a day. Even 10 active sessions would be 5 dollars a day, every day. Not bad, I'd say.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Right now we don't have that option. Because everyone who does this, does it without telling the user. Until it becomes a CHOICE, they can fuck off.
you list about four costs that probably add up to a penny or two per hour, particularly if the mining javascript has its intensity set below 40%, which was the default last time i checked.
you aren't being paid because the idea is YOU are paying a tiny microfee (in the form of an advertisement, or in this case a minor uptick in your cpu usage) for access to the content you are viewing.
i implemented a Monero JavaScript on a website i run, but it was an option that was DISABLED by default, and my users could voluntarily opt-in if they felt like donating some CPU cycles to me. It was 100% transparent and voluntary. A few did.
i could live a little longer in this prison
I don't know why this is the first time I'm realizing this, but "ads" that cryptomine seem like a great idea. Given the amount of web browsing that is just that, with an otherwise unoccupied CPU, I'd much rather the sites I visit be earning some money directly from my use than displaying crappy ads all over and splitting that income with the middlemen.
I would be fine with this in place of ads if a) it's fully disclosed b) it's opt-in, and c) it's set to consume no more than say 25% of my CPU.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
you tube isn't very popular
O_o
your comment
#DeleteFacebook
you can definitely break the workload into small chunks that only take a few seconds.
multiply all those small hashrates by tens of thousands of pageviews, and you start pulling in quite a respectable ROI. The hard part is finding a Monero pool that doesn't ban you for making tens of thousands of tiny connections.
i could live a little longer in this prison
At least Chrome limits background tabs to 1% of CPU and will, in future, pause javascript entirely in those pages.
The problem is that if given the choice between extremely intrusive ads, or ads that cryptomine, most advertisers will happily take both, and you will still get the "free iPhone" popover ads, that burn your CPU as long as they can, running up your energy bills.
There is no real negotiation. The ad guys want to trespass and seize as much of your devices and your attention as possible. The only thing stopping them is the fact that OS vendors and browser vendors have to do something or else people will change platforms. If the ad guys could run a keylogger, install malware, run miners on all your stuff, then encrypt your files to demand a ransom, they would do it in a heartbeat.
Best thing is to run your browser in a VM, where it is limited on how many cores, and what percentage usage it can use the cores. That way, if stuff does get around the OS and browser, what it can steal off your machine is limited.
Does the Javascript have to stop running when the ad completes? If it could stay up for the entire time you watch a video, that could make a mint.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How do you figure the cost of losing half your battery time? From what I've directly observed, having a few badly-behaved Web pages open can take me from six hours of battery life to two or three.
I've been known to pay for ad-free access to content, and I've been willing to accept ads as a way to compensate content providers. Ads are simply getting too expensive to accept now -- the electricity cost is small, but the costs in battery life, stability, and safety are just too high.
(And that's omitting the attention costs. Static ads? Fine. Static ads for things I'm actually interested in? Heck, I'll click through them! But autoplay video, distracting animations, malware? Nope. Bad for my perceptual and cognitive health.)
I repeatedly surprised (and appalled) when I visit a favorite site on a machine other than my own (the horror!!)
Now, if you'd like to offer me payment for these things you wish to consume, we can talk.
Were you able to see their content? You got paid. You're not going to get reimbursed for the power consumed by your TV or DVR while you're fast-forwarding through commercials either.
I don't like the miners either, but I understand that ads are the price of content. The alternative is paid content, which you're free to switch to.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Forbes
I know dedicated mining operations are way more efficient, but botnets can get pretty large.
Are there any estimates on just what proportion of crypto-currencies are mined through illegitimate means?
I stole this Sig
You have to enable AdBlock first, OK?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Fair use for personal reasons says go fuck yourself.
You should share what the name and address of your site are. Plenty of people here wouldnâ(TM)t mind boycotting a site whose operator thinks their copyright overrides the fact that ad networks and the websites who employ them are shitty and should be avoided.
If you're not willing to support my site, feel free to boycott it. However, stop stealing from me. You're not required to go to my site, but you're not welcome to violate my copyright with a derivative work in order to steal revenue from me.
Could you clarify exactly how I'm violating your copyright by blocking intrusive, annoying, and sometimes malicious ads?
Why are ads even allowed to run javascript? It's one thing for double-click itself to be implemented in javascript, but why on earth do doubleclick/youtube allow the ads to include javascript? Shouldn't they just be an image or gif or video?
I'll be more than happy to boycott your site. Malvertising is the #2 cause of malware spreading, next to Trojans, and with the absolute disinterest ad companies have in policing themselves, their stuff is hostile. I'll keep my security, and your site will remain free of traffic. Sound fair?
Note: Even Forbes has caved on on the mass adblock-blocks. Adblocking is as part of computing as firewalls and AV software these days.
Bzzt! Wrong. Of course you are trolling - but not very effectively. If you don't want your precious stuff on the internet, don't put it there. But if you place files on a public web server I can sure download them. I don't have to download other files from often malicious ad servers. Nothing about copyright says anything about that. In fact, you can't copyright it because you don't even know what god damn ad is going to show up.
Weird... Forbes comes through loud and clear with uBlock Origin + NanoDefender.
If we really want to use this role-reversed metaphor, they're paying me (with their content) for my attention (to their ads). Ideally, my favorable and engaged attention, not my swearing-at-the-site-as-I-try-to-close-my-hung-browser attention.
In point of fact, I've decided that many sites offer inadequate "pay" for the resource hit they impose, whether from ads or just bad coding. Sometimes I switch to viewing them in a different browser that mitigates these resource attacks. Most often, I just stop visiting.
Anti-adblock detects failure to load ads and removes the article's text from the DOM until the user disables protection. Running a blocker for a specific behavior gives you a bit of plausible deniability and room to complain to the site's support department about misdetecting an ad blocker.
I put up with adverts in newspapers and magazines because I understand they subsidise their production costs, but they don't track me and do shit behind my back.
Same for TV
Same for radio
Yet more and more websites display 'please disable your adblocker'.
NO. It's precisely because of shit like this that I run one and I have no intention of disabling it.
You want to display adverts on your site to bring in revenue, fine I get that. But do it the old way, with simple graphics that don't run unvetted shit on your viewers machines.
You want to block me from viewing your content 'cos I'm running an adblocker ? that's cool too, there's plenty of other sites out there.
If you're not willing to support my site, feel free to boycott it. However, stop stealing from me. You're not required to go to my site, but you're not welcome to violate my copyright with a derivative work in order to steal revenue from me.
First of all, they're not violating copyright by simply downloading content.
Secondly, if you're using one of these scammy ad networks (and, to my knowledge, there isn't a single one that *isn't* scammy), then you're just going to have to accept that fact that one one gives a shit about what you want.
Third party javascript nonsense had gotten so far beyond the pale, that it behooves everyone with a computer to enable ad blocking technology, for their own personal safety. This youtube crypto thing is just one of countless examples of malicious code forced upon people. If you derive income from this bullshit, then you're complicit in this and deserve every bit of scorn anyone heaps on you.
If you don't like it, then set up a patreon account so people can be assured that you're getting paid directly without they themselves getting screwed in the process with malware.
It's probably less than 25% in that a single page's javascript operates on a single logical core and a dual-core processor w/hyperthreading has four logical cores.
They are compensating you for these things by paying the people who make the content that you're watching so that you don't have to pay for that content. I agree that it's wrong of them to extract this service from you without your knowledge or consent (after all, in a normal commercial transaction, you should know how much something costs before you make the purchase), but I don't see anything wrong with a company offering people media access on the condition that they run mining software while they watch that media - as long as they're upfront about what they're doing.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
-Voltaire
AC a lot of sites now ask to be whitelisted to allow their "ads" to be displayed. Extra code with that ad is now a real risk.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
AC it would be a great idea if the user was asked and could see an amount been created for an account on that site.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
... browser vendor ...
Google doesn't sell a browser.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Putting JavaScript in ads causes too many problems, from drive-by malware to this (and many other things too). And it leads to annoying ads, like those pop-ups that never leave your field of view.
Yes, yes, I know it's because advertisers want to draw attention to their product. However, I suspect that many people would object less to ads if they weren't so annoying: compare to advertisements in (print) newspapers, who seem to have got along just fine without ads in -- what? -- several centuries so far?
If we banned JavaScript in ads, malware authors would have a lot more difficult task pushing their crap.
(Have to admit: only half-serious here, but still ...)
Defeat ads via DNS before involving your browser: https://pi-hole.net/ I've been using it for a few months now. Knowing my TVs are no longer sending logs to Samsung is very gratifying. I discovered a forgotten Jenkins install that was hitting Github every 5 minutes.. oops :(
I've only had to white-list two URLs for my kid so far.
That's OK. I'll just filter the advertisements myself on my end.
Google even ran it ad free for years after they bought it.
If any company offers you anything for free, it's limited while they get you hooked or they're getting something from you that you haven't noticed.
You can't tell me a multi billion dollar company can't afford something.
Being able to afford something has nothing to do with it. TANSTAAFL. Everyone's in the game to make a profit and there's never enough.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
https is such a falsehood. Sure the connection between you and one site may be secure, and you may actually trust it. But what about all those third party trackers and ad servers that load into the same page? Yes I am oversimplifying and https is about the connection and not the server's security - but as soon as a third party content is loaded shouldn't the underlying https connection become tainted in a way that it has something like one of those big red Xs on it for https+non-https mixed content? Maybe a middle finger emoji to the end user.
I wish for a day whereby disabling loading of third party content is enabled by default - and websites still work.
If you don't use an ad blocker by now, or even better something like umatrix extension - please add one to your favorite browser. (umatrix is from same guy as ublock origin, and sure it has a learning curve but we are supposed to be nerds reading this, and be amazed at all the third party junk on your favorite websites).
Stick with it, OK?
You'll get it after you've been on the Internet a while.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
What if they install something that keeps mining after you leave the page?
What if they install something that keeps mining as a system service that starts up automatically whenever you boot your machine, and maybe sets up a proxy for them to communicate with other systems inside your LAN?
After all, if you've viewed their content, they're entitled to compensation, right?
I think we fundamentally agree that informed consent is the important thing, but I'm not willing to venture very far down the slippery slope of "compensate content producers by letting them run whatever they want on your machine".
I have NEVER encountered a site that requires you disable adblock. I have been to maybe two sites that asked politely to turn it off, and did nothing to keep you out if you didn't.
There are news sites that shade articles until you white list. Just a giant unremovable popup. Some I can remove by inspecting and removing the offending div layer but some change the site itself so it's not hidden beneath an immovable layer.. it IS the immovable layer. I don't encounter those sites often to be fair.
Just another second banana
It's probably less than 25% in that a single page's javascript operates on a single logical core and a dual-core processor w/hyperthreading has four logical cores.
JavaScript has been able to work with multiple threads on modern browsers for quite a while now. Just google "web workers".
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I understand why an ad network like Yahoo or Doubleclick might use javascripts. But why would the individual advertiser need a custom javascript? Just provide a PNG or JPG or MP4 and be done with it. The idea that the ad networks permit arbitrary code in the ad is utterly ridiculous.
I use uBlock Origin and have Firefox's tracking protection set to always on. Forbes seems like it works for me.
Yea electricity isn't free and very few places have 100% green energy. Unauthorized crypto mining is a borderline malicious waste of all of our resources and my money.
But you paid for Chrome, right?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
However, stop stealing from me.
So you give someone something openly, and then because they refuse to let you kick them in the nads you're claiming you're being stolen from? You're delusional.
You want to protect your content put it behind a paywall, until then we're not stealing shit, not even in the RIAA piracy is stealing way.
1 why should there be content from domains not in the adress bar? (you dont expect there to be pepsi inside a can of coca cola!)
2 site designers need to keep content on their own site! (if you dont own the content, link to it, dont steal it)
3 100+ connections to load a single site is unacceptable! (and not cool to other users on public wifi)
4 ssl/tls is worthless with crossdomain content! (and please support ipsec/dane certificates to stop the certificate marfia)
5 all audio/videos should be click to play! (possible crossdomain, but need to be clicked just like any other links)
6 crossdomain cookies, are just another name for tracking cookies! (you dont need cookies to track users on you own site!)
7 external javascript libraries, are just as bad as windows dll hell and linux dependency nightmare. (just compile them into you page)
8 for webapps you need to install/give premission, for them to use site x. (not have a stupid allow header on site x!)
9 adsence/analytics is the real big brother wathing you. (and he is not alone..)
but its not happening as long as the browser makers are in the pockets of the ad/spam supliers.