Beta
×

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!

Regular Domains Have More Malware Than Porn Sites

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the wouldn't-have-seen-that dept.

Security 122

SnugglesTheBear writes "New research pours scorn on the comforting but erroneous belief that Windows surfers who avoid smut and wares on the Web are likely to avoid exposure to malware. A study by free anti-virus firm Avast found 99 infected legitimate domains for every infected adult website. In the UK, Avast found that more infected domains contained the word 'London' than the word 'sex.' Among the domains labeled as infected by Avast was the smartphones section of the Vodafone UK website. The mobile phone operator's site contained a malicious JavaScript redirect script that attempted to take advantage of an unpatched Windows Help and Support Centre flaw (CVE-2010-1885) to infect the machines of visiting surfers."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

excuse me! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747010)

where can i score some nigger dicks?

simpsons quote (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747054)

ha ha!

"London" is a heavily spammed term (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747088)

"London", as a keyword, is a heavy spam target. I used to use "London Hotels" as a test case for SiteTruth's web spam detector. [sitetruth.com] Google used to do badly on that search. (Since they started handling travel destinations as a special case, the first 10 Google results are now either paid ads or results from the business search engine.)

Re:"London" is a heavily spammed term (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747622)

Who would have thunk it that sex is safer than no sex at all? :D

Re:"London" is a heavily spammed term (1)

FlyMysticalDJ (1660959) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749906)

That is why you should always practice safe sex.

Re:"London" is a heavily spammed term (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747834)

You may be 99 times more likely to get infected with non-sexual browsing, but sexual infections can be a bitch to clear up.
Herpes is forever.

And those caught infecting non-sex sites will get punished, but there's a stiffer penal code for sex sites.

Re:"London" is a heavily spammed term (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748514)

"London" frequently comes up in my searches for UK porn. Goes with my bad teeth and binge drinking chick fetish.

Now I'm confused (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749834)

Which category did they place www.sexlondon.co.uk in?

The question is (2, Interesting)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747112)

How many of those redirects lead to adult sites? A very large number I'd imagine.

Further actual numbers mean little - what percentage of porn sites are infected (or deliberately take malware related action) as opposed to legitimate sites?

Re:The question is (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747368)

Unless you think that porn sites make up less than 1% of the internet, the percentage won't dispell the idea behind this article. Further, deliberateness is irrelevant.

Re:The question is (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747484)

shh we don't want more attention on our porn sites. Although when will people learn to stop going to shady sites that require executables on their web page. I mean pictures are just that, pictures and so are videos. Stick to simple video and picture content that does not allow for executable content and you should encounter very few problems.

Re:The question is (2, Informative)

Syncdata (596941) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750788)

A few rebuttles to your comment and others on this thread. Downloaded plugins and such are not necessary on a website for malware to transfer. All that is necessary is for an advertisement to load which contains the means for a cross site scripting attack. You don't even have to click on anything once you visit the site.

And yes, these attacks happen on totally legitimate sites that are not very discriminating on the ads they run, or whose admins do not properly defend their server against worms/ teh h4x.

XSS attacks are the #1 growing attack technique by far. As long as there is money to be made in infecting computers, techniques will get more advanced as offense is always ahead of defense in terms of Malware/AV software. Simple image and video content is all you need to transfer malware.

I wish it was as easy as saying "Obey these 3 rules and you will not be infected", but that is simply not the case anymore. The people that write this software are honest to God,legitimate, Software Developers. You don't have to like em, but you do have to respect em.

The only way to be 100% certain that you do not end up with malware at the end of the day is not AV software, it's not being cautious, it's not using a mac or linux, it's virtualized environments. And one of these days, even that might not be a panacea.

Re:The question is (4, Funny)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747520)

So however you look at it, you get fucked.

The Answer is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747908)

If you want to rob people, you go to the busiest places.

So really if you use a search engine, and search for the most popular things then you may as well assume you are going to find something.

you want to view porn and not get bugs, run a different OS in a virtual machine, turn of javascipt in the browser and don't install flash. Or use a PS3!

Re:The question is (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750200)

VLC?

I have watched stuff accelerated with audio that seemed fine (there is something to correct for the chipmunk effect) and most of their features are platform independent.

Re:The question is (1, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747590)

Further actual numbers mean little - what percentage of porn sites are infected (or deliberately take malware related action) as opposed to legitimate sites?

Exactly. 99 regular sites infected to 1 porn site infected is rather telling if there are 1000 times more regular sites, which would mean that you have a ten-fold increase in risk on porn sites. As usual, this is a non-story that boils down to nothing more than a press release for Avast: "You're at risk! Buy our crap which will slow down your computer and probably won't detect much anyways!"

Re:The question is (3, Informative)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748154)

Exactly. 99 regular sites infected to 1 porn site infected is rather telling if there are 1000 times more regular sites, which would mean that you have a ten-fold increase in risk on porn sites.

Way to miss the point, which is that avoiding porn sites doesn't mean you won't get infected. This proves that there are many regular sites out there that are infected, ratio of anything be damned.

As usual, this is a non-story that boils down to nothing more than a press release for Avast: "You're at risk! Buy our crap which will slow down your computer and probably won't detect much anyways!"

Avast is free. It even says so in the summary.

Re:The question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748466)

As usual, this is a non-story that boils down to nothing more than a press release for Avast: "You're at risk! Buy our crap which will slow down your computer and probably won't detect much anyways!"

You're at risk! Install Linux!

Re:The question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747664)

How many of those redirects lead to adult sites? A very large number I'd imagine.

Here's TFS again, close-captioned for the reading impaired:

Web are likely to avoid exposure to <font size=48 color=red><strong> malware </strong></font>.

Re:The question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748378)

It's bad enough not to RTFM, RTFS, or RTFA -- but you couldn't even RTFBlurb that appears just below the text input box (the one that says Allowed HTML )? That's just pathetic...

Re:The question is (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748816)

"Getting it" fail. If you read my post again, you'll see that it must have had both <blockquote> and <b> in it, along with &lt; and &gt;. Besides, color= and size= are WAY deprecated.

Re:The question is (4, Interesting)

pseudorand (603231) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747858)

> How many of those redirects lead to adult sites?

Probably not many. After all, porn sites actually have a legitimate (or at least legal) internet business model with revenue. Why do they need to infect their customers with malware? The newspapers on the other hand are struggling to figure out how to get people to pay for their content.

What's more, I imagine mostly lonely guys visit porn sites. And who are lonely guys? Geeks! (present company excluded, of course :). And geeks use Firefox, NoScript, etc., so they're hard to infect. If you want to build your fleet of rooted zombies, I'd imagine sites that a bunch of old people who are still using IE 5 on unpatched Windows 2000 is your best bet. And unless they've responded to a Viagra e-mail, I would guess grandma and grandpa aren't visiting porn sites.

Re:The question is (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748050)

What's more, I imagine mostly lonely guys visit porn sites. And who are lonely guys? Geeks!

Well, you'd be imagining wrong, because the correct answer to the question who visits porn sites is EVERYONE.

Re:The question is (2, Informative)

FlyMysticalDJ (1660959) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750030)

being a porn site isn't the silver bullet that means you will make money. Also, there was a slashdot article [slashdot.org] saying that more porn sites were infected than expected. I'm not exactly sure how these two articles mesh up, but specifically that article had said that people in the porn industry tend to trade content to lower operating costs. So all it takes is one link in the chain putting malware in that content to infect multiple sites.

Re:The question is (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750730)

How about surfing from a live CD edition of a Linux distro? Talk about making a PC hard to infect!

makes sense... (3, Insightful)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747120)

there's competition in the porn world... they want to make money.

vodafone, like most carriers, will be making money no matter what.... thanks to monopolies, duopolies, market segmentation and such.
this creates a lazy attitude towards security, among other things.

is anyone surprised by this, really?

You are correct (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749144)

Enough said.

Maintenance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750092)

I agree, they have a business model.

Secondly, porn sites tend to be, you know, *maintained*. Software is updated, patched, so the website works.

"sex" is too vanilla to sell (4, Insightful)

zill (1690130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747126)

In the UK, Avast found that more infected domains contained the word 'London' than the word 'sex.'

Maybe it's due to my weird fetishes, but none of the porn sites I visit actually contain the word "sex".

Re:"sex" is too vanilla to sell (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747240)

Most people don't consider TechCrunch to be a "porn" site.

Re:"sex" is too vanilla to sell (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747546)

Lets check the current list of smut...

bigtube.com
deviantclip.com
extremetube.com
fantasti.cc
hardsextube.com
new.hardcoreporntube.com
newsextube.org
pornhub.com
pornmix.com
slutload.com
spankwire.com
stileproject.com
tnaflix.com
wankspider.com
xhamster.com
xvideos.com
youporn.com

    11.76% contain sex. And none will make you contract viruses of the electronic nor STD varieties.

Re:"sex" is too vanilla to sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747750)

FUKKEN SAVED!

Re:"sex" is too vanilla to sell (2, Funny)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748834)

Mod parent up 'Informative'.

Re:"sex" is too vanilla to sell (4, Funny)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747994)

Porn sites have words?

Re:"sex" is too vanilla to sell (4, Funny)

barzok (26681) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750032)

I read them for the articles.

Re:"sex" is too vanilla to sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748780)

... and of course everyone's favorite fetishes are the "London Bridge", the "London Broil", and the supremely intense "Jack London".

What are the percentages? (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747138)

It's all fine and good to point out that for every porn site there are 99 non-porn sites that have malware.
But what are the percentages of said catagories infected?
      What percentage of porn sites have malware?
      What percentage of non-porn sites have malware?
If the percentages are high enough for a category, it is a good idea to avoid that category, even if it is a tiny percentage of total sites.

Re:What are the percentages? (3, Insightful)

logjon (1411219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747314)

Assuming that porn sites make up > 1% of all websites (a pretty safe assumption,) then the ratio of (infected regular sites/uninfected regular) sites is still higher than that of porn sites.

Re:What are the percentages? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748924)

Fifty-eight times higher, I believe, based on recent data that 37% of websites are porn.

Re:What are the percentages? (4, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747322)

Over 37% of the internet is porn (http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/06/16/1722258/Over-a-Third-of-the-Internet-Is-Pornographic)

therefore porn sites have a far smaller probability for malware then non porn sites.

Re:What are the percentages? (2, Funny)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748590)

Then I vote for more pornsites on the net!

Either that or block everything but .xxx domains...

Re:What are the percentages? (1)

Wolfraider (1065360) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749766)

but but but...The Internet is for porn, or at least that's what the song said

Re:What are the percentages? (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747354)

No, I think the percentages are kind of irrelevant.

Basically what you are asking for is a census of the internet. And what qualifies as a porn site and what qualifies as a non-porn site can reeeaaaallly blur the lines. Suppose Break is used to showing off hot Swimsuit models? Pornographic? Probably not. They show a Pic of a spring break girl flashing? Ehhh it's hard to call it pornography even though theres nudity.

I think it generally boils down to what sites can you trust vs what sites you can't trust. And that just cums with experience.

Damnit I almost made it through the whole post without a pun...

Re:What are the percentages? (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748194)

I think it generally boils down to what sites can you trust vs what sites you can't trust.

Wrong. You can't trust any site.

Re:What are the percentages? (1)

tomkost (944194) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747604)

In other words, there are more people posting useless articles who are not name CmdrTaco than those who are. So, we should avoid those not named CmdrTaco since this article is definitely useless???

Re:What are the percentages? (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748288)

Except there are only two categories of websites:
Porn
Not Porn

So you should be able to extrapolate the data you want from there.

Percentage of porn sites (1)

SnugglesTheBear (1822258) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748324)

Researchers at Texas A&M are crawling the web and finding such statistics such as these. I do believe they have found that around 20% of websites on the internet are porn sites.

Re:What are the percentages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748650)

The malware planters put it on legit sites because they know the majority of porn surfers are cheapskates who are looking for freebies and therefore have nothing to steal.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong (4, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747164)

Does that still hold true in terms of traffic? It doesn't matter how many sites have malware, it matters how often those sites are visited. One high volume site with malware does more damage than a thousand sites that no one visits.

Re:That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong (0, Offtopic)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747830)

Are you sure? I heard of a study recently that fat women are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and STDs then normal weight women.

Re:That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747932)

Snicker.

So fat woman == lower self esteem == easier to convince her to ditch the rubber?

Re:That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong (2, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749010)

    Nah, she'll just sit on you so you can't pull out. She's been gaining weight for attention for years, she needs that little crying shitting bundle of joy so people will look at her.

    Makes me think of someone I saw yesterday. She had an oxygen tank and cane, because she could barely walk. She had a dozen gallon boxes of ice cream, and enough other assorted crap foods that could feed a normal person for a month (or more).

    I can hear the conversation with her doctor now.

    "No ma'am, the human body isn't designed to carry the weight of an elephant. And please don't bring a bucket of fried chicken into my examining room again."

    "Are you saying I'm fat? I'm not fat. It's genetics that make me like this!"

    "Ma'am, the only genetics at work here are the ones that make you too dumb to realize you eat too much. And, where's my nurse?"

    "Sorry, I was hungry."

    Unfortunately, she was wearing a dress, and I saw her ankles. Well, there were no ankles, just a huge chunk of flesh that went from somewhere I don't want to even think about down to her shoes that were crushed under the pressure. And she was with her fat kid, probably all of 12 years old, about 5' tall and 180 pounds. Ya momma, treat your kids like you treat yourself.

Re:That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749344)

That was the conclusion from the Doc reviewing the study as well.

Re:That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748716)

That is because they are high volume sites. Fat usually equals tits you know.

Re:That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong (2, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749376)

Off topic? We were talking about thousands of sites that rarely get visits. How are fat women not on topic?

How is this useful stats? (2, Insightful)

Xerion (265191) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747168)

"A study by free anti-virus firm Avast found 99 infected legitimate domains for every infected adult web site."

Maybe there are just 99 regular websites to every porn site out there.

Re:How is this useful stats? (2, Informative)

crazypip666 (930562) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747280)

I assure you there aren't. If you believe this story [slashdot.org] , then more than a third of the internet is porn.

Re:How is this useful stats? (1)

c+era (102193) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747312)

Maybe there are just 99 regular websites to every porn site out there.

You must be new to this internet thing.

Re:How is this useful stats? (0)

logjon (1411219) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747332)

I'm going to go with "probably not."

Embarrassing (2, Funny)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747188)

Vodafone UK infected... well, it WOULD be embarrassing if it was about any other company, but with all the bad things I've heard about Vodafone you probably get better quality service and stabler applications even via the infection than from Vodafone.

There's a reason for that (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747192)

People in the porn business are in it to make money. For the most part, they work together. Ever notice how they all link/ad/popup to more sites all within their clique?

There's more money in repeat subscriptions than regular joe getting infected with Malware.

Re:There's a reason for that (1)

Wowlapalooza (1339989) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747548)

People in the porn business are in it to make money. For the most part, they work together. Ever notice how they all link/ad/popup to more sites all within their clique?

No, of course I've never noticed that. No virtuous person would have knowledge of such things. Either that, or they're too busy looking at other things on those web pages...

Re:There's a reason for that (2, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747630)

Either that, or they're too busy looking at other things on those web pages...

Purely for research.

Re:There's a reason for that (2, Funny)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748112)

I was only there to get directions on how to get away from there.

Re:There's a reason for that (5, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748014)

    Actually, the reason you'd see the same or similar ads in a particular genre of porn would be that porn folks are usually pretty good at targeted marketing. For the successful ones, they watch their revenue streams very carefully. They learn (through trial and error mostly) which ad campaigns work, which ones don't, and the best placement on their pages.

    There are some shady dealings too, where folks running ad campaigns shave profits. If campaign A gives them 1:300 conversion rate, but campaign B gives them a 1:600 conversion rate, but all other things are the same (same type of content, same cost and membership length) you can look at the possibility that the company running the campaign is stealing from you.

    Popovers, popunders, jumping monkeys, or whatever aren't the biggest concern of the webmaster. If that ad method didn't make money, it wouldn't be used. It's not worth it for the webmaster to waste space and/or time with ads people don't click on, or worse, ads that don't pay.

    For most of them, it's far from their best interest, to have a malware infected site. If you go there, and your antivirus does kick off saying "This site is infected, run!", you're very likely not to go there again. You may tell your perv friends "Hey, don't go there, it has viruses." If it's a "clean" site (as in viruses, not smut level), you may be back every day, and tell your perv friends "hey, check this site out."

    Word of mouth doesn't seem like it would be that significant, but it is. I worked at one of the highest trafficked adult sites for many years. They got that big by word of mouth. SEO on the site was almost nonexistent, unless you are looking for their name only, which they usually abbreviated, making that useless too. It was in their best interest to keep it a safe place to go.

    I'd guess most of the malware stuff is either done by dirty webmasters who don't ever expect to have a repeat visitor, or (and more of) lost and lonely porn sites in virtual hosting environments, where the user permissions were all set wrong. Have 0666 / a+rw on your files is an open invitation for anyone else on that machine to cause you a lot of grief.

    A lot of times, people don't even know that the problem exists. I was helping someone out with a non-porn site. I pulled down a copy of the live site with wget. That was fine. I went to their location, and we downloaded the entire contents of their site, and there were two html files with javascript malware in them, that weren't linked from the live site. It appears someone else on the server had a script crawl through and add their malicious payload to any default.html that was world writeable. The script kiddies can't tell if the files are actually used, they just write to anything they can. Sometimes they'll stick it in any .html or .htm file that's world writeable, but that takes longer than just sticking it in any index.html or default.html that they can.

    Regular webmaster type folks usually only have a handful of sites. Porn webmasters usually have hundreds or thousands of them. It's all about how much exposure your content gets. If I have one site, the chances of someone tripping over my site are slim. If I have 10,000 sites, the chances get much better, which means my ads are seen and I can make more money. People rarely set up porn sites for their love of the topic. They do it to make money.

Re:There's a reason for that (1)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749978)

There's more money in repeat subscriptions than regular joe getting infected with Malware.

I don't have an opinion on what you just said. I just am happy to be discussing porn on Slashdot.

Due to stereotypes? (2, Insightful)

crazypip666 (930562) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747224)

I would imagine that part of the reason for this is that the idea that so many adult sites are infected drives adult sites to be very careful, so they don't get infected. If it gets out that an adult site is infected, there are plenty of others out there for people to go to, adult sites simply can't afford to become infected.

Huge conflict of interest here. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747294)

A "study" done by an anit-virus firm finds that there are a lot of infected web sites out there. Regardless of the validity of the study, it seems that there is a HUGE conflict of interest here. A company in the business of protecting users for malicous websites publishes a study showing that there are a lot of malicous websites out there.

Cue the bad jokes.... (2, Funny)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747328)

Uptime.
Penetration testing.
Viral infections.

Discuss amongst yourselves...

That is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747334)

I tend to stay on porn sites, it's much safer there.

I volunteer (1)

SolarStorm (991940) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747346)

To validate this study...

Which sites did they "study"?

Are you sure? (3, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749658)

Are you truly prepared to traverse the deepest darkest corners of the internet? Where unspeakable things happen and are best left untouched? Where your very soul is at risk and your sanity might be stripped from you with one wrong click?

Do you really got what it takes to fire up your browser and go to a mobile phone operator site?

I think not.

Things in common... (1)

Stick32 (975497) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747382)

This isn't surprising. In a way advertisers and malware authors have a lot in common. They both want to have their ware's in places with the highest visibility, and they both want you to get something you may not want or need... As much as we all love to joke about how much porn there is on the internet I think we all realize there's more to it than just that.

Headline is Redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747436)

"Regular" Domains..."Porn Sites"...

this just in (1)

tomkost (944194) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747552)

There are more people NOT named CmdrTaco than those who ARE. Yes, the total number is higher, but what about the percentage???

Tthe malware targets affiliate marketing ... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747574)

Get rid of those affiliate marketing schemes and the financial incentive for click-jacking, etc., goes way down.

Malware author: "If I can get credit for sending traffic to your site, then what's to stop me from infecting as many sites as I can and making money off it?"

Want malware to drop? Boycott anyone who uses affiliate marketing.

it depends (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747576)

what kind of infection are we talking about?

an adobe flash attack vector?

or hepatitis b?

Not only do porn stars use protection... (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747628)

So do porn sysadmins!

Re:Not only do porn stars use protection... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747828)

Actually that is really a valid point, porn admins are one of the most competitive admins I have seen.

Oh great .... (1)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747644)

Like I needed a reason to visit porn sites...

Java Issue (0, Flamebait)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747722)

Java in general is a security nightmare. Adobe had a huge hole in it because of the javascript that runs. Mysql has database injection holes because of the javascript that runs. This is part of the reason why adobe now has the option to turn off the javascript from running in Adobe Reader. Also why so many sites are getting away from being java based. They are trying to eliminate the security problems.

Re:Java Issue (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747786)

javascript isn't java

Re:Java Issue (3, Insightful)

bannable (1605677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747984)

JavaScript is not Java, and both the Adobe vulnerability and any SQL injection vulnerabilities that exist are the result of poor programming, not JS.

Red Light District ... (4, Interesting)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747762)

I lived in a centrally located but rather crummy neighborhood of NYC back in the early '80s. Late at night cars would be backed up up several blocks waiting in a line so they could turn down my street and pick up a hooker.

Funny thing is, the neighborhood seemed perfectly safe. I never had any trouble getting to or from my apartment at any hour of the day or night. I figured it was probably one of the safest areas of NYC because any crime would have been bad for business.

Re:Red Light District ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32749468)

By this fascinating logic, Mafia headquarters should be totally safe.

Re:Red Light District ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32749682)

I just had to reply, first time ever on /.

Yes. Mafia-controlled neighborhoods ARE very safe. It's the modern version of Pax Romana. Just don't challenge the status quo there.

Re:Red Light District ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32749972)

Of course. Why would they want to attract such attention to themselves?

regular domains w/ more vs. more regular domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32747792)

I didn't RTFA.

BUT, the title seems misleading, given what the summary says.

"Regular Domains Have More Malware"

from the summary:

"Avast found 99 infected legitimate domains for every infected adult website. In the UK"

This doesn't mean that regular domain have more malware. It simply means that there's more regular domains with malware, which shouldn't surprise anyone, since there are more regular domains period.

Re:regular domains w/ more vs. more regular domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32748196)

Do you really think only 1% of the internet is porn?

What is this world coming too.... (2, Informative)

puppetman (131489) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747794)

when swingers are more likely to have an STD than a prostitute [reuters.com] and a regular domain has more malware than a porn site.

Obviously, the sex-professionals, be it high tech or human beings, are far more careful than an amateur.

Porn sites have a built-in defense mechanism (1)

HouseOfMisterE (659953) | more than 3 years ago | (#32747798)

Porn sites have a built-in defense mechanism. It's hard to hack when your hands are busy.

Of course (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748024)

The porn site people are smart and dont want to load your computer with malware and get blocked in firefox as an attack site. They want to be discrete and keep you coming back. Its the hackers that who dont care who's site they ruin by sneaking in hidden iframes and fake anti virus scanners.

Analogy (1)

bradgoodman (964302) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748124)

Yea, but that's sort of like saying "Hookers take more Penicillin than Doctors do".

The answer is ... (1, Troll)

hduff (570443) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748476)

Don't use the web if you use a Microsoft OS and browser.

If a man is tired of sex (2, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748756)

he is tired of life...

Re:If a man is tired of sex (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32750302)

But if a man is tired of looking at glossy, retouched pictures and videos of food, he isn't necessarily tired of eating.

Am I the only one who isn't surprised? (3, Insightful)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 3 years ago | (#32748876)

Am I the only one who isn't surprised? I would expect porn sites to be less infected than regular sites.

Admins and designers who work on such sites are more likely, than those that work in more "innocent" areas, to be exposed to the lower end of human behaviour through using spammers and ropey affiliate schemes to draw in traffic. If you are aware of what nefarious things you do (or could do) and more importantly what your competition do or could do then you are going to be more clued up on how careful you need to be with site security.

Ignoring the lower end of human behaviour (there must be at least one or two porn sites out amongst the millions that don't spam/crack/what-ever to make an extra few $), to be successful financially a porn site need to be secure, otherwise people would just hack in and take the content for nothing. It is simply good business for them to be security concious, especially the smaller outfits/franchises that are run by a small team (where the designers/programmers/admins are more likely to be directly affected in the wage-slip if the site is hacked). Designers, programmers and admins working on a small and possible not very sensitive part or a much larger organisations output (like the vodafone example mentioned) may not be as directly aware of such issues. The "smartphones section" of their site, assuming this is a phone/contract sales area, is not likely to have cracking types trying to steal content. Now a site (or part there of) that is offering paid-for downloadable content I would expect to be "safer" than other areas for the same reason as a porn site: the content needs to be protected more than the content of a brochure page.

False Positives? (1)

lastrogue (1773302) | more than 3 years ago | (#32749030)

Is it possible that Avast could be finding false positives in the scans that the are running? I know it's quite possible on scanning of my local files and what not, but I'm not too familiar with the scanning of websites.

Doubtful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32750910)

Define: Legitimate site? (everything NOT porn?)
I highly doubt this study. From personal experience, ANY shady website (whether porn or not) is MUCH more likely to contain viruses. Heck, the only time I was infected in my life was on a porn site browsing with Firefox with Avast enabled - I think the shady sites have a decent incentive to create awesome mal-ware as they don't have a real business model. Granted, some porn-sites make plenty money without mal-ware and I'm sure those are just as unlikely to contain a virus as slashdot.org or google.com. It's not the porn that makes the site risky - but I will say porn-sites are more likely to be "shady".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?