[IMG]http://media.bestofmicro.com/X/E/424994/original/ChameleonVirus.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Break out your ad blocker or your NoScript: Malicious advertisements have been discovered infecting the Web browsers of people who visited certain major websites between Aug. 19 and Aug. 22. Users did not have to click on the ads to be infected.
The "malvertising" was found on Java.com, DeviantArt, TMZ, Photobucket, IBTimes, eBay.ie, Kapaza.be and TVgids.nl, and eventually detected by Dutch Internet-security company Fox-IT. The websites themselves were not hacked; rather, the malicious ads had been spread through the online advertising network AppNexus. (AppNexus quickly removed the ads, which had abused an automated-bidding placement process.)
When victims visited websites containing these malicious ads, hidden links triggered a drive-by download. The victims' browsers were redirected to a malicious Web page hosting the Angler browser exploit kit, a software bundle containing exploits for several known flaws in browser plugins, such as Flash Player, Java and Microsoft Silverlight.
Like most exploit kits, Angler tries several different attacks until it finds one that gets through a browser's defenses. It then uses that hole to inject and launch malware — in this case, the Rerdom backdoor Trojan, which establishes a foothold for possibly more malware to be installed. Think of Angler as a hypodermic needle, and Rerdom as the stuff being injected into victims' computers.
Malvertising has been a problem for many years; even the New York Times website was hit in 2009. Unfortunately, the online-advertising industry has created many layers of buyers, referrers, bidders and networks, most of which use computerized processes to rapidly maximize effectiveness and revenue.
Website operators often have no direct relationship with, or control over, the ads that appear on their sites. The highly decentralized nature of the ad-placement process creates opportunities for malicious actors to inject themselves into the process.
What can you do to protect yourself from malicious ads? First, run a good antivirus program, which will detect browser exploit kits hidden in Web pages. We've reviewed our top antivirus picks on Tom's Guide.
Next, you could try to use an ad blocker in your browser. You can also enable click-to-play, a setting in modern browsers that bars each multimedia file, such as an ad that plays music or movies, from running unless you give it express permission.
However, both solutions may be incomplete. Some ad blockers "whitelist" certain ad networks so their ads display, and click-to-play settings won't affect simpler ads.
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.tomsguide.com/us/malware-infested-ads,news-19408.html[/url]
And people think I'm crazy for using adblock...
blocking google ads so i don't get a virus
Now I dont have to feel bad for ignoring sob stores about how adblock steals their money.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45837930]Now I dont have to feel bad for ignoring sob stores about how adblock steals their money.[/QUOTE]
I've never felt bad about it. Loads of ads on a lot of site networks are completely packed with adware, malware, and all kinds of other garbage.
On top of what you said, they don't make any money from you just seeing the ad. You actually have to click the ad for them to get money. With some adnetworks you actually have to subscribe to their product for the site hosting the ad to see any revenue at all.
As for the silverlight exploit, that's why I've seen constant silverlight installer prompts poping up every few hours.
advertising is the true cancer of our species.
And yet you misunderstand that advertisements on sites are the sole source of income for some people. It's not their fault if the ads have malware on them; blame the company they get the ads from for not screening them
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45837978]And yet you misunderstand that advertisements on sites are the sole source of income for some people. It's not their fault if the ads have malware on them; blame the company they get the ads from for not screening them[/QUOTE]
True, and now its the responsibility of said sites to cut ties with these sketchy ad providers. If they don't do that, then its just insulting their visitors/potential-customers by potentially infecting them.
[QUOTE=woolio1;45837924]And people think I'm crazy for using adblock...[/QUOTE]
Why would they think that? Adblock is like, a godsend.
The only people who'd say that would be people who see the computer flashing red lights with the word "VIRUS" on the screen and say "wheres muh music?"
[QUOTE=Map in a box;45837978]And yet you misunderstand that advertisements on sites are the sole source of income for some people. It's not their fault if the ads have malware on them; blame the company they get the ads from for not screening them[/QUOTE]
the site developers choose what ad companies they work with
i use adblock, but turn it off on sites i can trust in that regard (including youtube as annoying as some ads are)
Why don't they make all ads an image with a link? It would remove all possibilities of malware and improve performance of websites. It may even convince me to disable adblock just to see creative and funny ads.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45837930]Now I dont have to feel bad for ignoring sob stores about how adblock steals their money.[/QUOTE]
My favorite is Redtube and other porno sites.
"Pls disable adblock."
"Ok."
*Get bombarded with distracting and sketchy-ass ads*
Fuck em'.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;45837944]I've never felt bad about it. Loads of ads on a lot of site networks are completely packed with adware, malware, and all kinds of other garbage.
On top of what you said, they don't make any money from you just seeing the ad. You actually have to click the ad for them to get money. With some adnetworks you actually have to subscribe to their product for the site hosting the ad to see any revenue at all.
As for the silverlight exploit, that's why I've seen constant silverlight installer prompts poping up every few hours.[/QUOTE]
I think it depends on the ad provider and/or the contract. Some will pay per click, other will pay per view, etc.
This is pretty much the reason I keep ad and script blocker running, as well as ghost clicker. My system hasnt been this clean in years and years.
[QUOTE] Users did not have to click on the ads to be infected.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no?
I caught one off YouTube 2 years back, haven't browsed without adblock ever since.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;45837930]Now I dont have to feel bad for ignoring sob stores about how adblock steals their money.[/QUOTE]
I donated to adblock, so I figure it evens out.
Feel a bit of an idiot for allowing ads now on sites where I deem it non-intrusive. Surprisingly it wasn't this that changed my mind on the policy but simply viewing Fight Club for the first time.
I think websites have to rethink their financing models. I'd prefer to pay to get access to good content rather than having them rely on people not using adblock so their clickbait articles can generate as much revenue as possible.
[QUOTE=kila58;45838261]Uh, no?[/QUOTE]
Uh, yes. Didn't read the article I assume?
[QUOTE=woolio1;45837924]And people think I'm crazy for using adblock...[/QUOTE]
They're crazy for not using it. The internet is a much more pleasant without ads.
[QUOTE=DrDevil;45838366]I think websites have to rethink their financing models. I'd prefer to pay to get access to good content rather than having them rely on people not using adblock so their clickbait articles can generate as much revenue as possible.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I kind of like the paywall model sometimes. I can go over to WSJ.com and, provided I'm subscribed like I would be if I actually subscribed to their paper, I can read all the articles they're both printing and distributing online without ads, and it supports them.
Granted, subscription-based content access really only makes sense for things that were subscription-only to begin with.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;45838401]Uh, yes. Didn't read the article I assume?[/QUOTE]
I've read the article, I know they exist, but you have to do SOMETHING to make it happen. Something as little as accepting a java applet.
[QUOTE=kila58;45838490]I've read the article, I know they exist, but you have to do SOMETHING to make it happen. Something as little as excepting a java applet.[/QUOTE]
And if you even did your research, here's what you would find on Wikipedia:
[quote=Wikipedia]Drive-by download means two things, each concerning the unintended download of computer software from the Internet:
1. Downloads which a person authorized but without understanding the consequences (e.g. downloads which install an unknown or counterfeit executable program, ActiveX component, or Java applet).
[B]2. Any download that happens without a person's knowledge, often a computer virus, spyware, malware, or crimeware.[/B]
Drive-by downloads may happen when visiting a website, viewing an e-mail message or by clicking on a deceptive pop-up window: by clicking on the window in the mistaken belief that, for instance, an error report from the computer' operating system itself is being acknowledged, or that an innocuous advertisement pop-up is being dismissed. In such cases, the "supplier" may claim that the user "consented" to the download, although actually the user was unaware of having started an unwanted or malicious software download. Websites that exploit the Windows Metafile vulnerability (eliminated by a Windows update of 5 January 2006) may provide examples of drive-by downloads of this sort.[/quote]
If you visited TMZ, then you probably deserved it..
[QUOTE=kila58;45838490]I've read the article, I know they exist, but you have to do SOMETHING to make it happen. Something as little as excepting a java applet.[/QUOTE]
On things like OS X and Linux, yes, because they have better user protection. However, on Windows, an installer can be downloaded, executed, and ran in the background depending on what exploits are used to get it there.
Windows is full of security holes. OS X and Linux are less-so, because you actually have to accept an installation over there.
commonsense 2014 though right xD
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;45838515]And if you even did your research, here's what you would find on Wikipedia:[/QUOTE]
Usually those exploit addons that the user installed, thus the user made the decision to install an exploited addon, find me a site that infects a clean windows install. You won't because they are all either patched or rare enough nobody would run into one let alone come into contact with it in ad form.
I almost caught a rogue anti-virus from an ad all the way back in 2005, this shit isn't anything new. But I guess it's a good article for those unaware.
Ads should be clickable text or pictures only. Seriously, maybe then I'd consider ever disabling my adblock.
Yeah yeah, revenue and such but I'm sorry, I believe my computer's security and all of my personal data is much more important than your ad revenue. If I want to support a website, I usually find different ways like paid website features or a donate button, not letting potentially malicious ads wreak havoc on my day.
I only disable adblock on sites that promise text/image only ads, which are an extreme rarity.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;45838517]If you visited TMZ, then you probably deserved it..[/QUOTE]
No one deserves to go through the pain of removing malware, regardless of their browsing habits.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
