Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Porn Sites More Infected Than Thought

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the we-need-some-um-research-funds dept.

Security 170

nk497 writes "Porn sites are five times as likely to host malware as previously thought, with 3.6% offering up a digital infection of some sort, according to a researchers who set up their very own adult sites for a new study. One reason for the high rate of malware is that the online porn industry makes use of affiliate programs, where one site will drive traffic to another in exchange for links, cash, or simply free pornographic material to use. Because such programs don't check who they're doing business with, and sites use disguised links and other clandestine methods to drive people to different pages, it's easy for criminals to abuse the system to spread malware. Researcher Gilbert Wondracek said, 'They inadvertently have created an ecosystem that can easily be abused on a large scale by cyber criminals, and that's worrying.'"

cancel ×

170 comments

Not only that but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551386)

I hear fag pr0n sites are working on Linux malware since 99% of their visitors are Linux users.

Re:Not only that but... (2, Insightful)

blai (1380673) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551462)

Not yet [failblog.org] ?

Re:Not only that but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552140)

Looks like someone here don't know what fag pr0n is.

So many dumb bitches around here anymore.

That's ok... (4, Funny)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551396)

But that's ok... only ethically bad people use pornography, right? Right?

What? You mean risks to one part of the internet make it less safe for the rest of us? Gasp!

Re:That's ok... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551716)

I used to be involved in the porn business (no, I didn't fuck any girls on camera but I did get a blowjob now and then). Let's just say far more than 3.6% of the girls I worked were infected. We don't have time to wait for her outbreak to clear up so we had to use odd angles, prop placement, or just keep her panties on.

Re:That's ok... (3, Funny)

Technician (215283) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551812)

You are here cruising Slashdot, where visitors can post links and such to stories, news articles, photos, and even porn sites posted by trolls. Just because you don't visit porn sites intentionally, dosen't mean someone with bad intent won't provide a link to a site. Mods often mod them down to troll before the general public provides lots of traffic.

How do you know the link below is safe? The name of the site doesn't always indicate the contents.
http://crazybuilders.com/ [crazybuilders.com] Note, the link is safe for work.

Re:That's ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552604)

_I_ know it's safe because I block all scripting with noscript. Adblock plus helps too...

Re:That's ok... (-1, Redundant)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551834)

>>>only ethically bad people use pornography, right?

Wrong. Sex is not a crime - it's perfectly natural. It includes both bad and good people. - As for the danger I think you should be okay if you stick to safe sites like www.domai.com or www.google.com which either don't link to other sites, or else filter out the crap (google blocks dangerous sites). And of course keep your NoScript on. Plus Web of Trust for dual protection.

Re:That's ok... (3, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551850)

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic/rhetorical

Re:That's ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552606)

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic/rhetorical

Facetious even.

Re:That's ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552440)

Your sarcasm detector seems to be broken, you might need a replacement.

Re:That's ok... (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552666)

But that's ok... only ethically bad people use pornography, right? Right?

According to quite a few people, yes. Pornography exploits women by treating them as objects or "pieces of meat" for sinful men. There are many who hold such opinions and who argument and lobby strongly for pornography to be heavily censored or more preferable banned in order to protect women and especially children.

Funnily enough, most of these same people beleive a woman's place is in the home, subservient to her husband, and largely removed from the democratic process. So something tells me they're not in it for the women they're supposedly fighting for.

Simple one-person solution... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551410)

For random web browsing on assorted sites, boot up from a Linux boot CD. Your entire OS will be in memory, nothing on your HD is touched.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551528)

And here I was thinking your "simple one-person solution" was to browse porn sites...

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551552)

I'd rather use a condom.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551578)

For random web browsing on assorted sites, boot up from a Linux boot CD. Your entire OS will be in memory, nothing on your HD is touched.

Except perhaps your data files.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

yotto (590067) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551778)

Assuming you mount it...

Re:Simple one-person solution... (4, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551852)

Yeah as long as you don't mount, you should be okay.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552380)

Yeah as long as you don't mount, you should be okay.

That's what SHE said.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551964)

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!

Then mount them read-only (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551788)

Your entire OS will be in memory, nothing on your HD is touched.

Except perhaps your data files.

A well-made live CD operating system mounts your internal drives read-only, requiring escalation to administrator (cancel or allow?) to enable writing. Your files are safe.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (4, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551866)

...nothing on your HD is touched.

What hard drive? ;-)

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552170)

"What hard drive? ;-)"

Someone with mod points mod up!

Live CD/DVD booting is handy stuff, and will keep you going even if your hard disk dies.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552220)

You should ask your doctor about Viagra.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551910)

Right, because I have nothing better to do than reboot my computer 100 times a day.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551984)

I think the solution was aimed at those who don't flick quite so often between porn and work as you evidently do.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552146)

"Right, because I have nothing better to do than reboot my computer 100 times a day."

So use a Linux VM instead. It's trivially easy nowadays.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552552)

So use a Linux VM instead. It's trivially easy nowadays.

And, to get that "live CD" behavior, configure the VM software to revert to the base snapshot each time the VM is rebooted.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (2, Insightful)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552354)

Because when I want to take a ten minute break for random browsing, I *really* want to shut down everything I'm in the middle of doing and reboot twice.

OTOH, if more porn sites said they were best viewed on Linux, I'm sure it would help market.. er... penetration.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552598)

Don't worry, all the Linux users already know all the best fag pr0n sites.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552478)

For random web browsing on assorted sites, boot up from a Linux boot CD. Your entire OS will be in memory, nothing on your HD is touched.

Unplug your HDD too. Otherwise your Linux CD can often mount your drive read/write, and if it has a vulnerable version of FF, you're owned since the default user usually has passwordless sudo privs.

Re:Simple one-person solution... (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552554)

For random web browsing on assorted sites, boot up from a Linux boot CD. Your entire OS will be in memory, nothing on your HD is touched.

No touching. Nice.

3.6% (4, Funny)

deadhammer (576762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551434)

I'd better run a full scan just in case.

Not like I've been to as many porn sites as would be necessary to be statistically likely to have gotten infected. Several times over. Nosiree!

Re:3.6% (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551562)

Noscript, adblock plus, spybot/blaster, a few good i/o monitors, weekly scans, no worries.

It's easy to get infected with low-lying malware, which is everywhere now. Everywhere.

I'll only be concerned when they can past the moron line of defense.

Funding (0)

zonker (1158) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551450)

Wonder where they got the porn for their study? Did they submit their own collections? Or did they purchase it? Love to see the PO on that one.

Re:Funding (2, Informative)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551550)

Did they submit their own collections?

Porn SITES .

Yea right (5, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551452)

according to a researchers who set up their very own adult sites for a new study.

Strictly for research purposes :)

Re:Yea right (4, Interesting)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551580)

We may joke all we want but it's about time porn distribution sites be managed by scientists. Meticulous classification of each video, maybe they can track usage statistics for fetishes etc.

Re:Yea right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551920)

wow, that would be awesome.

Usage statistics for fetishes (3, Interesting)

Vekseid (1528215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551972)

I have experience in this area (see my sig). Harmless fetishes have a bit of a viral quality to them, sometimes following a pattern of Step 1) Revulsion Step 2) ??? Step 3) "You know, that's kind of hot."

Re:Yea right (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552058)

Tags are the way to go for porn. The first person to open up a website creating lists of tag words based or MD5 sums for your porn file collection to import in a file tagging program will be rich.

Re:Yea right (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551874)

No doubt the professors/ researchers got some volunteers from the local coed community.
(blinks)
So where was this site again?

Re:Yea right (4, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551960)

Coed: Why are you doing these things to me and taping it again, professor?
Professor: For science!

Uhmm... no, duh? (3, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551454)

Wow... what a shocker! Porn sites have lots of malware! Who woulda guessed?

Really... who on earth is actually surprised by this?

Re:Uhmm... no, duh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551478)

No shit. File this under "beyond obviousness."

Slashdot needs to focus on real nerd stuff. For example, my computer is really slow lately and should have more links on how to deal with that!

Re:Uhmm... no, duh? (2, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551594)

They just did. This article is on exactly that topic. :-P

Re:Uhmm... no, duh? (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551498)

Unsafe behavior leads to spread of viruses, film at eleven.

(Eleven what?)

"Film at 11" explained (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551820)

Unsafe behavior leads to spread of viruses

We knew that qualitatively. The article provides a quantitative measure, which allows drawing stronger conclusions about how to improve security against distribution of malware through ad networks. It's the difference between "are there infections" and "how much".

film at eleven.

(Eleven what?)

Eleven hours after high noon. Before modern electronic news gathering, television news would often report the story at 6 PM and then have the "film" (footage shot on the scene) available for the 11 PM newscast.

Re:"Film at 11" explained (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551906)

Later on, they realized it's also a good marketing technique. Good for the pocket-lining, not necessarily for the customoproducts[1]. Keeps people drawn in until the money-shot. "Something you eat every day might kill you tonight! Find out more after your dinner is long since consumed!)

[1] We need a new word for this. Television shows, web sites, newspapers, etc. make their money from advertising, but do provide an actual product or service to entice people to view the adverts. In other words, there are two groups of people giving custom: the ad agencies, and the viewers, but one group is also the product for the other group. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly witty enough to come up with an appropriate term, so custom-o-products is what ya get.

Re:Uhmm... no, duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552450)

This is really depressing - whichever way you go (manual/virtual or real meat) you always have consequences and they often enuff manifest as viral infections......

I have thought however that the 'dangerous' sites are more widespread - 3.6& as in TFA does not seem be much. Another thing - can you imagine disappointment when a pr0n hungry human does a search on pron sites and some given links lead him/her to TFA - I mean there are surely no examples of baits used or.....

Weird (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551460)

Weird.

That is WAY lower than I'd have expected.

Re:Weird (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551998)

You're probably surfing the more -- er -- specialised stuff, then.

Alternatively (5, Insightful)

SamSim (630795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551468)

I don't know the stats, but maybe it's more correct to say that malware sites are more likely to host pornography than they are to fall into other categories? It's probably the best way to attract large streams of users.

Re:Alternatively (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551698)

Ya I think you need to work to separate sites that happen to have porn on them for various reasons, and sites who's business it is to sell porn. Just because a site has porn on it doesn't make it a porn site, at least not for a useful definition of the term. Now while I'm sure there are actual porn sites that are shady, I'm betting that there are far less than shady sites that try to use porn to lure people. After all, if your business is charging people a monthly fee for access, you want to keep them happy. Infecting them would be stupid. So you make a few bucks for the malware infection, but lose $20+ per month because the subscriber goes elsewhere.

Re:Alternatively (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551720)

I don't know the stats, but maybe it's more correct to say that malware sites are more likely to host pornography than they are to fall into other categories? It's probably the best way to attract large streams of users.

This.

We saw the same thing with captcha cracking porn and rom sites. Both parties are getting something that they want out of the exchange.

Some ROM sites are clean (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551838)

We saw the same thing with captcha cracking porn and rom sites.

But some ROM sites are clean. Wii Shop Channel has plenty of (legit commercial) ROMs; the only viruses it has are in Dr. Mario Online Rx. PDRoms.de also has plenty of (legit freeware) ROMs; the only viruses are (again) in the occasional Dr. Mario clone.

Re:Alternatively (3, Insightful)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551816)

Well, there are tons of ways to attract large streams of users, but I think you are write hear. From what I have seen, most porn sites infected with maleware are literally stealing the porn from other sites, none of it is original, and you can never actually reach good porn, just links to porn that link to virii.

To be honest, it sounds to me like the porn industry hates those bastards as much as we do.

Also, having a stream of users that is not in a clear state of mind, frantically looking for something good to get off on, so they are really not as likely check the credentials of the site or think at all before clicking on something. It probably makes them easier to manipulate, and therefore easier to hack.

Just like in real life... (3, Insightful)

GilliamOS (1313019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551482)

You might catch something playing the field if you don't use protection!

Re:Just like in real life... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551856)

Fortunately, slashdot users never run into that sort of "real life" problem.

So basically (0)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551516)

Porn sites are like porn stars, both are heavily infected.

Re:So basically (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551740)

Fuck off you Christian Taliban scum. "Oh noes! Somebody is having unconventional sex outside of the bounds of a Christian marriage! They must be infected with all kinds of diseases!"

Re:So basically (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551762)

Actually no. Sex professionals take their occupation quite seriously. It is the non-professional who is lose and fast with their machines and their sexual practices. Do you think just "keeping a high moral standard" will keep you safe? Think again.

Just as with computers, preventative measure and testing are needed. For me, I run Linux, Firefox, no-script and adblock. Testing isn't quite as required for me, but I routinely check processes running and the like. Sex workers frequently get tested and people in the industry know what other people in the industry have been up to for the most part. "average people" get sex diseases a LOT more often than sex industry pros.

And you know this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552416)

how?

Re:So basically (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552496)

How much condom porn is there? Not much.
How much unprotected 'face shot and swallow" is there? a lot.
How much preventative measures? Very little.
How much testing? Monthly!!
But only HIV will kick you out of the business.
The other STDs are very common if scientific reports are to be believed. Outbreaks for the other stuff prevent work for a week if AIM Healthcare is to be believed.
So if you take infected as being HIV only, sure, porn stars don't hardly have it. The other stuff can be up to 30%

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892037/ [nih.gov]

Re:So basically (2, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552540)

They do test, but the window period [wikipedia.org] can be as high as three months with plain ELISA, down to a month if you spend extra for Western blot, and that means that when someone comes out positive, all his/her partners within that period have to be tested as well as their respective partners. It happened in 2004 (5 infected) [msn.com] and 2009 (16 infected) [latimes.com] .

Back on topic: I haven't gotten anything from the web *ever*, perhaps for the simple discipline of not authorizing ActiveX components, applets and other gimmicks.

But that's me; I guess less computer-literate *and* porn hungry guys make easier targets - "Yes, Ok, Yes, show me the movies already!".

Re:So basically (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552660)

Back on topic: I haven't gotten anything from the web *ever*, perhaps for the simple discipline of not authorizing ActiveX components, applets and other gimmicks.

But that's me; I guess less computer-literate *and* porn hungry guys make easier targets - "Yes, Ok, Yes, show me the movies already!".

I do the Linux/Firefox/Adblock/NoScript thing and also don't do the usual stupid stuff.

But that puts me in the minority and I routinely re-disinfect the computers of Windows-using friends and relatives who are not stupid and try to be careful when they browse the web or install software.

There are many ways to infect a system (even Mac and Linux) and more will always be found. It's a battle that can't be won as the economic incentive for the "enemy" is to great to cease their innovation and onslaught and the software too complex to ever "fix" completely. and there will always be trade-offs between convenience and security.

One can only take reasonable precautions and expect reasonable, not perfect, results.

The attack vector through porn sites is not likely to be fixed (no financial incentive to do it and the site operators likely don't care about malware infections they may be passing along), so you can either avoid them or use on old computer dedicated only to porn browsing (or the Linux or Windows on CD approach) .

Tits or GTFO (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551524)

Only old men that get caught by their wives via porn mailing lists use porn sites. Kids nowadays use 4chan, which are typically more tech-savvy than their old male counterparts. Whomever uses porn sites with java on gets what they deserve. If you need to turn on java to see pictures, it's probably not a safe site. Also, providing log-in info and an e-mail address to access porn to a website that is likely compromised is a bad idea, which is why 4chan is great because you don't need to readily sign up for a premium account (lol).

Funny Off-Topic-But-Related Note (5, Interesting)

no1home (1271260) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551554)

I work for a facility where a large number of our computers are for public use. We do not filter access (but if children are near someone known to be surfing porn, we have that person stop surfing such material). We all know some people choose to surf porn here, though it boggles the mind why.

One day, I saw an older lady take a wet-nap style cleaning towel from the container we provide and begin cleaning the keyboard with it. I expressed my concern over using a WET-nap for an electronic part (they're for cleaning the desk, seat, hands, etc.).

Lady: But you know they watch porn on these PCs, right?
Me: Yes. We aren't allowed to filter the content. But cleaning the key...
Lady: And you know these porn places are infected with all kinds of viruses, don't you?
Me: ....?

Re:Funny Off-Topic-But-Related Note (1)

JansenVT (1235638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551610)

That old lady is either a comedic genius or a fool. Good one :D

Re:Funny Off-Topic-But-Related Note (2, Funny)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552104)

Must be a genious. When I talk I'm having real trouble separating bold from italics, and she combines them without even trying :)

Re:Funny Off-Topic-But-Related Note (5, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551756)

On the other hand, the kind of person that surfs for porn in a public place is the kind you want to clean up after, computer viruses or not. She's making a smart move, if for the wrong reason.

Re:Funny Off-Topic-But-Related Note (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552680)

On the other hand, the kind of person that surfs for porn in a public place is the kind you want to clean up after, computer viruses or not. She's making a smart move, if for the wrong reason.

She should just glove up before keyboarding if she's that concerned. That even reduces the risk of getting a cold. Places that provide public-use computers might even want to make gloves available.

But-Related (3, Funny)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551886)

Haha, you said but-related.

Re:Funny Off-Topic-But-Related Note (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552460)

Who and where is this facility? :P

uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551566)

DUH

welcome to 1995 your just now figuring this out?

So can we..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551568)

call these MTDs?

Tagged as std? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551582)

Shouldn't this article be tagged as "std" ?

Bad Advertisers in General (4, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551592)

Porn sites aren't the only ones promiscuously mixing affiliates: there's a great deal of it going on with otherwise decent web advertisers as well, with results that range from the merely annoying to just as dangerous. It's very difficult to track the sources down beyond the first few layers because the whole thing is a bunged-up mess.

Re:Bad Advertisers in General (1)

Vekseid (1528215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552040)

Monetizing adult sites is a difficult proposition. Selling material directly is difficult, with so much available for free. Setting up donations for adult sites is nearly impossible for a multitude of reasons, and mainstream advertisers like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft won't touch them. To top it all off, you are paying for even higher bandwidth costs.

So when someone creates a large adult site, and starts feeling the pinch of hosting costs, the "Get 25 cents per visitor who installs our software! We're not evil, really!" convinces some when they see tens to hundreds of thousands of visitors.

Because traditional advertisers won't touch adult sites, it forces porn purveyors to take shadier deals. Which gives the industry a worse reputation, which convinces traditional advertisers that they were right in avoiding them, and so on.

Gambling sites (2, Insightful)

Grand Facade (35180) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551598)

probably take a close second to pron.

e-crabs? (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551614)

We are doomed!

Mmmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32551678)

I'm eating vanilla pudding.

Re:Mmmmmmm (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551718)

I'm eating vanilla pudding.

Did you raid the refrigerator at the F&E clinic?

It's a ripe environment for scammers (4, Insightful)

Perp Atuitie (919967) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551684)

not only because of the sloppy tech, but because of the clientele. Lots of money flowing from folks trying to lose their real identities and who are less likely than most to try and seek investigations if they get scammed. Doesn't get better than this.

Hmmm... (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551830)

Porn Sites More Infected Than Thought

I'm pretty sure "thoughts" aren't subject to the same kinds of infections...

Right but they... (2, Funny)

hsoftdev17 (1701106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551896)

Right but they also have boobies! Maybe but me, but everything is about risk versus reward. Malware, boobies, malware, boobies... hmmm.... Seems worth it to me.

Re:Right but they... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552214)

You must live a very sad and lonely existence.

Yikes I read that title wrong... (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32551930)

At first I thought it said "Porn Stars More Infected Than Thought"...

safe sex (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552036)

Is there any kind of sex that is safe? Real sex and netsex can result in an infection.

Re:safe sex (5, Funny)

PatPending (953482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552172)

Is there any kind of sex that is safe?

My dog humping your leg?

Anyway, here's a true story:

When I was self-employed, my dog, Jake, used to lay on the floor by the check-out counter.

One day while a guy was checking-out, Jake started licking his balls.

Seeing this, the guy commented, "Gee, I wish I could do that!"

I replied, "Go ahead--Jake won't mind.

Re:safe sex (4, Funny)

PatPending (953482) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552230)

Clarification:

One day while a guy was checking-out, Jake started licking his (Jake's) balls.

Re:safe sex (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552586)

I was kind of freaked out at first. Trying to imagine a store where someone would put their (naked) balls on the check-out counter. For whatever insane reason I kept imaging it being the local hardware store, probably because there is a dog there too.

Porn itself is a virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552054)

I'm just saying.

Ubuntu Conversion (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552126)

by Means of Natual Selection.

What's this? (1)

supertrinko (1396985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552142)

Porn!? On my malware sites??

This "research" is stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32552238)

Hello Humanoids, If you setup your own fake porn sites & they get hacked the only person to blame is yourself not the "porn". The content of the site has NOTHING to do with security and why slashdot would post this is absolutely freaking disturbing. Slow news day?

Selecting targets... (3, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552240)

I think most of us realize that scammers, cheaters, criminals, and fraudsters prefer 2 types of targets:

1) Those who are safe/easy prey.
2) Those who they can justify doing it to, or even deserve it.

Because of too many people find porn to be embarrassing or shameful, some people may not want to report or fight back. They make themselves into easy marks. Also, it's easy to find people who want porn, especially free porn (because of embarrassment, lots of people don't want their identities and payments traced back to them for these sites).

Also, because porn is perceived as such a shady thing, it's easy for some to justify screwing over these types of people.

In the end it's about getting away with it without being plagued by a guilty conscious.

Re:Selecting targets... (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | more than 4 years ago | (#32552312)

well, if i owned Avira or any other anti-malware service, i'd hit these porn sites with some stuff only i could fix. Microsoft Security Essentials could monetize this to the moon.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...