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!

Facebook Adds Malicious Link Protection

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the click-away-grandma dept.

Facebook 113

wiredmikey writes "As any IT security department knows, social networks pose a significant threat to users across the board as they blindly click links which often lead to spam or other malicious sites that could result in malware infection. In a move to further protect users of the world's largest social networking site, Facebook is adding a new feature to help protect users from links to these malicious sites. Starting today, when a Facebook user clicks on a link it will be checked against a database from Websense in an attempt to determine if the link is malicious. If the link is determined to be risky, the user will be given the choice to continue at their own risk, return to the previous screen, or get more information on why it was flagged as suspicious."

cancel ×

113 comments

Facebook vs. others (5, Insightful)

tech4 (2467692) | more than 2 years ago | (#37588932)

Sure, it might be used for blocking malicious links now.. but what about when competing social networks, like Diaspora, emerge? Looking at Facebook's history I'm sure they will use it to block users moving to Diaspora and reading about Diaspora. It will be used as an opinion suppression tool.

Re:Facebook vs. others (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37588978)

Or, to use a simple comparison to something that both exists NOW and ISN'T a Duke Nukem Forever-like vaporware joke (both in persistent nonexistence AND inevitable lack of impact if/when it finally is released), links to Google+ streams.

Re:Facebook vs. others (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589224)

Apparantly Suckerborg himself donated to Diaspora to help fund its development. Would be interesting to see his motivation there. Was he simply donating to a "good cause"?

Re:Facebook vs. others (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589306)

He was basically laughing at the idea that Diaspora would turn out to be anything but a never-left-the-ground wankfest for the RMS-style dot communists.

G+ probably has him worried. Diaspora is a joke.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589876)

the majority of the population wouldn't be able to type Diaspora when drunk, even if they could remember it, which they won't because it has no meaning to them in the first place like a large number of stupidly named OSS applications.

It's doomed from the start simply due to those factors which is as tragic as it is maddening. It's obvious some people know nothing about 'selling' their product, even when it's a free one.

Re:Facebook vs. others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37592872)

It's obvious some people know nothing about 'selling' their product, even when it's a free one.

Anyone worth a damn at selling their products sells them for money.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#37591084)

Yup. I just took a look at diaspora and the instructions seem barely usable for setting up a server.

I got to about the second line of the install script and it died since it wasn't running as root. If they need some ruby libraries installed they should supply a list so that they can be installed using your package manager, not tell you to use some 3rd-party package manager that will stick who-knows-what in your root filesystem. Or, they should just have it install stuff into their own directory tree.

Granted, this is as much as an inidictment of Ruby/PERL/etc as of Diaspora - they just chose to use those mechanisms which are fairly distro unfriendly. I'm not about to try something new and end up with 4500 orphaned files on my system that I have to later try to clean up lest they cause me problems.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589364)

but what about when competing social networks, like Diaspora

Diaspora is a competitor to Facebook like Miss Ruth's Finishing School for Girls is a competitor to the State University of New York. Sure, they occupy the same generic space. Sure, they are both institutions of 'higher learning'. However, they don't attract the same kind or number of people and never will.

I know you people have this dream where every large company goes bankrupt and the underdog wins. When that happens, the underdog becomes the company you want to destroy. You're being anti-success, and that's just stupid.

Re:Facebook vs. others (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589454)

I don't know how to break this to you, but there are other social networks. Some of them even existed before Facebook!

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

Trilkin (2042026) | more than 2 years ago | (#37593800)

Pfft. Whatever. Soon you'll tell us WoW wasn't the first MMO either.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590394)

Wait, you still think Diaspora is ever going to amount to anything at all?

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590734)

Speaking of this, I was on Facebook the other day, and a friend was telling me about Facebook censoring links about Facebook. This particular link was an article about someone trying to put a gay kiss photo on Facebook and them getting all uptight about it (removing it). The weird thing was whenever the guy tried to post the link, it would disappear.

So there seems to be something about it. Makes me a bit uneasy that FB would do something like that. The link to Diaspora worked, however. Not sure what exactly is different about it, and why it couldn't happen there.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

burkmat (1016684) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590986)

1. Go to TPB. 2. Grab any random link (such as http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6718164/BLACK.DAWN.2005.StV.DVDrip.Swesub.XviD.AC3-Mr_KeFF [thepiratebay.org] ) 3. Try to post it to Facebook. Noticed this a while ago when trying to link to the movie Steal This Film, a documentary about The Pirate Bay, published through BitTorrent by the producers. I wonder what else is on that blacklist...

Re:Facebook vs. others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37599420)

Facebook crowd-sources its content filtering, which means that if you're friends with a lot of random asshats who report your photo, it gets removed even if it doesn't violate any terms of use. You have several recourses: unfriend random asshats, filter them from seeing the photo, or re-report the deleted photo as having been wrongfully removed and it should (eventually) get restored.

Welcome to the internet. Virtually every website does this. Even Slashdot (well, almost nothing really gets removed... just less visible). It's too time-intensive to verify every single complaint.

Want your photo to stay up? I only know of two ways to ensure it: host it on your own server, or upload it onto omploader. Every other image host I've tried will delete any innocuous photo after it's been reported a few times (which I verified by uploading an innocuous photo and then reporting it a few times - within a day or two the photo disappeared).

Re:Facebook vs. others (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37592380)

Facebook already blocks links to the pirate bay, they have had the power to block any links they don't like from being posted or sent in chat.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37593564)

To be fair there are often malicious programs included in torrent files, especially cracked games and secondly facebook is out to make money and don't want to have to hire a bunch of lawyers to fight the Homeland Security or the RIAA. A P2P where you own your social graph and bear the cost of hosting is the only way to make a social network serve it's users rather than the powers that be.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

Unequivocal (155957) | more than 2 years ago | (#37592382)

That's quite unlikely. Facebook's biggest threats are as a monopoly or for "unfair business practices." Doing something like you describe would just open them up to tremendous liability. Google is being scrutinized right now for the same behaviors: are they unfairly favoring their own links against competitors. Just b/c they can do something technically doesn't mean they can do it legally. I think it is highly unlikely that FB's spam link protection tech would ever be used for anything other than spam protection. I see this action by FB as actually good for consumers and an important recognition that link spam is getting out of control just like email spam.

I have an idea.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37592558)

Don't use it. Facebook is under no obligation to allow their infrastructure to be used to promote competitors. Can't believe the amount of whining on this thread.. jesus..

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 2 years ago | (#37593444)

fighting malware and virii are a lot like fighting real diseases as soon as something is cured some new disease tends to come along. lets put it this way, i once heard of a server being hidden in a wall, just to protect it from accidental resets because it was vital to booting the whole college network. the thing is that admin moved along and the next guy didn't have a clue when the server used up its lifespan, the next guy spent weeks trying to fix it. eventually tracking down the box from its ethernet cable. so lets say facebook stops known phishing or virus sites -- then something else comes along... death is part of healing its the part where something broken that can't otherwise heal is ended. the part that i understand is this, trying to end all virii will never work. why? because everything has the ability to be broken. as long as there is a computer there will be someone trying to explain why it is broken and has to be thrown out.

Re:Facebook vs. others (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 2 years ago | (#37597002)

Sure, it might be used for blocking malicious links now.. but what about when competing social networks, like Diaspora, emerge? Looking at Facebook's history I'm sure they will use it to block users moving to Diaspora and reading about Diaspora. It will be used as an opinion suppression tool.

I remember a while ago when the lamebook website (posted screencaps from Facebook that were amusing) was in legal arguments with Facebook over trademarks, links to lamebook on Facebook did not auto link properly.

I think they also don't auto link (or hinder posting) any link that has the word "torrent" in it.

Both of these might be out of date now, so I don't know if they still do it.

Malicious (1)

ePlus (1041568) | more than 2 years ago | (#37588944)

Does facebook.com come up as malicious?

Re:Malicious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37596632)

So now can we have http://mal.icio.us

Hm. (2)

scxw65d (50032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37588956)

Ignoring potential future abuses, wouldn't it make more sense to disallow the posting of likely-malicious links? The vast majority of users won't read the warning text and will just click through.

Re:Hm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37588980)

Seems they already do that. I can't post piratebay links to my brother.

Re:Hm. (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589076)

If they did that, they would have no excuse for intercepting and tracking the links you click.

Death to Facebook (1)

said213 (72685) | more than 2 years ago | (#37588958)

That is all.

Link is broken (3, Informative)

miaDWZ (820679) | more than 2 years ago | (#37588968)

Re:Link is broken (4, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589150)

That's what the submitter included, but Slashdot's "useful direct link TFA" blocking technology kicked in.

Re:Link is broken (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589262)

Maybe Slashdot thought that link was malicious.

Re:Link is broken (1)

InsertCleverUsername (950130) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589966)

I was just thinking, it would be nice if Slashdot had some anti-malicious link tech blocking their advertisers. Swear to god, last drive-by spyware attempt I intercepted was from clicking on some dumb ad (some curiosity, but more to give /. a little click-through love).

What about bad apps? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37588994)

I've yet to have a relative's computer contract a virus because of a Facebook link, but it seems that every other day they've got some Facebook app spamming everyone on their friends list because of the promise of free online poker or whatever. When does Facebook intend to do something about that? Ever?

I think that is the aim of this initiative. (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589404)

It is to add Malicous Link protection, which is the issue you are discussing.

Re:I think that is the aim of this initiative. (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589468)

I'm talking about malicious links inside Facebook; Websense identifies malicious links outside facebook.

Re:What about bad apps? (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589500)

Funny thing that. Now with the new news feeds...if I use anything other than the default, all the stupid apps I told it to block updates from for EVERYONE have come back. Great. Because now when I look at the "Work Friends" list I want to see a wall of this crap. It took me like 10 minutes to hide all the new things that showed up there. I wish they'd do what Google+ does and put it in a separate area so I can NEVER EVER GO THERE.

Re:What about bad apps? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590458)

They will collect their cut of the profits

Re:What about bad apps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590688)

Facebook apps suck. They were vaguely entertaining at first, but I refuse to use them anymore

I had and indecent over a year ago on my Macbook. At the time it was running 10.5 Leopard in Firefox 3.5 with Adblock Plus I had a Facebook app take me to a site with Windows XP Antivirus 2008. I thought it was cute when the web page said I had 10 viruses in the C: drive of OS X. Then all the sudden I saw a prompt that said the system has no handler for EXE and VMWare Fusion was starting up my Windows XP VM to run the malware. I though to my self, "oh shit." Luckly BootCamp partitions need a password to start in VMware Fusion.

Editors (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589002)

it will be checked against a database from Websense database to in an attempt to [emphasis added]

Guys, come on!

In all seriousness, this'll be helpful for home users much more than it will in the office. I'm just surprised they've taken this long to do it; they've MITM'd every link for at least a year and a half.

Re:Editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590588)

Websense is the newest database used, there's also an internal database and several other providers of external databases - i think this article came via a press release from Websense which made it sound like this was a new protection and not an expansion of existing systems

Google+ (3, Informative)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589010)

Let me guess... Google+ is listed as a malicious website.

Re:Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589342)

Yeah, probably though Facebook itself should be in that database.

yay more censorship of links by braindead computer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589062)

Will they use the same list of domains as MSN do and block my entire website because someone has used my ddns provider to serve malware?

The more you protect users from their stupidity the stupider they get anyway. Not only that but the malware peddlers have to get cleverer and their techniques get more advanced so they catch the non-morons as well grr.

Re:yay more censorship of links by braindead compu (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589352)

Why don't you just get DDNS through the same company through which you bought your domain?

Re:yay more censorship of links by braindead compu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589558)

It's a free sub domain. And as such is entirely useless because once one person has used one to peddle malware everyone else is blacklisted forever after the provider has kicked the abusive users.

Yes I know, can't complain, get what you pay for etc. I'm still pissed off by it.

Facebook IS the malicious link! (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589068)

Facebook and their omnipresent Like buttons is the largest source of intrusive monitoring on the web. I highly recommend the antisocial [adversity.uk.to] subscription for adblock, it's not only reduced the amount of information leaking to google and facebook but it's also improved average page load times by about 40-50% (guestimation).

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589192)

you wouldn't want to accidentally click through to the wild internet, now would you. I wouldn't trust any page that didn't have a Like button to run FaceBook's protective scripts. It also would add a measure of security to know that if any page did anything really bad, FaceBook could pull the plug on them, by cutting off the user traffic it was sending their way via links. I like where the Internet is going...

And people will go anyway (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589216)

You could put up 10 warning screens like that and people will still go "BUT I WANNA SEE THE CUTE THING MY FRIEND SAW"

What threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589222)

As any IT security department knows

127.0.0.2 www.facebook.com

Re:What threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590478)

Implying that an IT department would use and maintain a hosts file on all workstations in order to block websites?

Implying they don't have a decent firewall... or are incompetent boobs like APK...

Re:What threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37596768)

No I think it is implying that security can be massively improved simply by sending facebook to the abyss.

Danger-Well (1)

Cartman's Mom (1956666) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589228)

That should do it.

checking or tracking? (1)

snaggen (36005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589266)

Am I the only one that think it is a little fishy that they are not checking the links when they are published, but only when user are clicking on them. So instead of doing one check per link they think it is better to do million checks... or this is just another excuse to track which user are clicking which links... but I guess that is just me being paranoid.

Re:checking or tracking? (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590708)

First, it's better to check each time -- because a link that was just dandy when published could become malicious over a few days' time. If it only checked once, that'd be an easy way to circumvent the system.

Secondly, of course Facebook is tracking who clicks on what. And if you don't think any other major site is doing the same, including every search engine result on Google (not just G+), then you are in for a shock.

malicious link detection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589274)

Is that protection from malicious links or protection of malicious links? With Facebook it is hard to tell.

I genuinely read it in the second sense the first time I saw the headline.

wrong.. wrong.. wrong.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589280)

This has been occurring on the mobile version app for at least a week now, and it doesn't check.. every damn link you hit does the "this is an external site.. do you want to continue" crap. Its annoying. *IF* it only did it with suspect links like Google does with its search results or chrome does when it detects something, that'd be ok... but its done it for every damn link so far.

Not to mention I can't stand websenses listings (old employer used them and stuff was incorrectly classified all the time)

Wait... (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589282)

So Facebooks goal is to secretly collect data on you, then sell that data to whomever will pay the most, often criminals and totalitarian governments, and they are now offering protection against links that may lead to sites that do the very same thing? Thanks Facebook!

Chrome already does this (2)

CuriousGeorge113 (47122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589336)

This sounds a lot like the 'Safe Browsing' feature already built into Chrome. It provides a warning screen on a suspicious page, and then allows the user to continue, or to go back.

As long as there is an opt-out setting, I really don't see what the big deal is. Am I missing something?

Opera does too, via "Haute Secure" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589596)

is the service they use for similar features for security online!

I supplement BOTH of those browsers "built-in features for security" (Opera also has a urlfilter.ini/filter.ini file for this locally also) with HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats, which can & DO get "recycled" by malware makers), + firewall rules tables (for IP address based known online threats (these don't last that long usually & cannot be recycled/reused by malware makers as easily)).

* I do this, for BOTH better online "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", but, also for more online speed (details in link below from another post I did here today)...

APK

P.S.=> It just works -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589432 [slashdot.org] &, on the SIMPLEST PRINCIPLE OF ALL (i.e. of -> "You can't get burned if you don't go into the malware makers' kitchen", more-or-less)...

... apk

Re:Opera does too, via "Haute Secure" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591442)

Whitelist, who needs depth?

Surf where you know there is no sharks.

A problem w/ that alone... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591544)

It's not so much the sites you KNOW are done well/as secured as can be in code/db engines etc. (plus OS + Serverware patch levels. et al), but... It's ALSO the possibilities, of this occurring:

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

* As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

APK

P.S.=> Now, "top that off" with the possibility of "DNS-Poisoned" (redirected really) DNS Servers too? It goes up yet again, as to "absolutely trusting" sites you're actually seeing (& disabling javascript GLOBALLY but only using it where you absolutely NEED it (think 'e-commerce' type sites for example), & only enabling it for TRUSTED favs. & yes, there's way to check OS patch & WebServerWare OS patch levels online (or in Opera's dev tools via a GUI no less)) ...

Me, & how I "get around" a LOT of that? HOSTS file entry "hardcodes" of favorites, + The DNSBL filtering 'secured' DNS Servers listed here

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37590456 [slashdot.org]

("Secured" ones that actually FILTER vs. online spam/phishing, malware servers, maliciously scripted sites/pages, known botnet C&C Servers, & more that is bogus)

Sure - yes, some "moving parts", but, each are low-cost FREE ones that work together in unison with HOSTS file layered security too & things like browser addons like AdBlock + NoScript, etc., perfectly... & yet, gain you speed as a bonus WITH better layered security/defense in depth also...

... apk

"know your enemy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37600488)

I have met the enemy, and the enemy is APK. Alexander Peter "Petey" Kowalski.

For grins, visit the Onondaga County Dept. of Finance Office of Real Property Services [ongov.net] , click "Click Here for Public Access", and search for Tax ID # "009.-13-12.0". Be sure to check "Owner/Sales" while you're there.

Re:"know your enemy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601160)

Shows Jan Kowalski owner not Alexander Peter Kowalski. Wrong name\property. You're your own worst enemy it seems because you didn't get anything right.

Shows Jan Kowalski PRIOR owner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601426)

Nope, you just fail at following simple instructions. You can't even get that right. Or maybe you don't know the meaning of the word "prior".

Re:Shows Jan Kowalski PRIOR owner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601672)

Don't see a problem. Taxes are fully paid. How's he an enemy if he pays taxes?

Re:Shows Jan Kowalski PRIOR owner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37602598)

You thank apk for paying his taxes on time. You have your welfare because of him http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2452862&cid=37601944 [slashdot.org]

How's owning a home make ME an enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37601646)

Is that against the law?? I don't owe on it (paid in full), & taxes are paid up in full currently - we should ALL be such "enemies", lol... I mean, lol: IF THAT is being an "enemy" on my part, then, We all ought to be "the enemy" as you called me, lol, for Pete's sake! I mean - what exactly is YOUR idea of being "good"?? Not paying taxes???

* I wonder - can YOU say the same as I did above, in that you own your own place paid in full and taxes are up to date as well???

(For some reason, I doubt it... )

APK

P.S.=> Man, you are one hell of an online psycho-stalker freak, lol, looking into that to try to "discredit me", & all you ended up doing was making me look like what I am: An upright tax paying citizen... thanks!

... apk

Re:How's owning a home make ME an enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37602502)

Paragraphs, mother fucker. Two separate paragraphs, two separate things.

Why didn't you answer my question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37602672)

I'll quote it for you again, so you can answer it (& PROVE IT too):

"* I wonder - can YOU say the same as I did above, in that you own your own place paid in full and taxes are up to date as well??? (For some reason, I doubt it... )" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, @01:55PM (#37601646)

Well? How about answering what I quoted above?? We KNOW the answer already (NO)... lol!

APK

P.S.=> Plus, in the end? You should thank the merciful Lord guys like me are around paying taxes, so you can get your welfare check @ least, lol...

... apk

Comprehensive list of things I must prove to APK: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37603348)

I have a large penis.

Are you dodging simple questions? Yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37604256)

Why's that -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37602672 [slashdot.org] ?? LMAO!

APK

P.S.=> Also, I must THANK YOU (again) for making me out to look good as per your off topic ac trolling usual, & in that YOU PROVE I AM A GOOD UPSTANDING TAX PAYING CITIZEN (which judging on how you avoid questions I put to you? Clearly I am QUITE unlike a welfare case like yourself, obviously)... apk

Sorry for stalking you online apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37604518)

I admit I have a tiny penis and I made apk look good by proving apk pays taxes on time and owns properties. I am on welfare and I stalk apk online with anonymous coward posts on slashdot that really show I am a zero. That's why I troll and stalk apk and because he also has blown me away and humiliated me everytime I have tried it on technical issues in computing too. I just can't get over my obsession and geek angst. I have clear issues.

Re:Sorry for stalking you online apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610930)

Bugger off, shitstain. You're APK and we all know it. You are the only person I have ever known to use the phrase "geek angst" - Google has less than 5000 results for that exact phrase. But here's one that might interest you: lose some weight, fatty [arstechnica.com] .

The Adventures of "CapTaiN-PaRaNoiD" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611062)

Part # 1 of ? -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37610930 [slashdot.org] and we find it funny how you project your own weaknesses of being overweight onto others, as well as how you avoided simple questions (proving you're a penniless "ne'er-do-well" (do you like, stalk apk or something? You claim to "know him so well", & that is only possible if you stalk him as you are clearly doing now, illogical adhominem attacks & all). Too bad your puny plays always backfire on you eh, ac stalker-troll?

Re:Sorry for stalking you online apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611288)

Mr. online psycho-stalker AC off-topic obsessed with apk troll: Consider psycho-therapy 4 UR obsession with apk, and take your meds, lol. You need them. I have seen you stalk apk all over this forums only to make yourself out as a fool every single time. It's hilarious watching apk and others make mincemeat out of your obviously limited intelligence based attempts at attacks of apk.

Re:How's owning a home make ME an enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37603166)

apk struck a nerve in ur profane reaction n avoidin' questions. How's welfare?

Re:How's owning a home make ME an enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37610890)

Wouldn't know - I've never been on welfare in my life. Perhaps APK could tell us.

By the way, that "profane reaction" was actually a Pulp Fiction reference.

Re:How's owning a home make ME an enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37611132)

APK fully owns a home and pays taxes on time. You couldn't prove you do the same. Your constant psycho-like ac online stalking of apk here shows us you're an obsessed geek angst ridden off topic illogical adhominem attack using troll that apk has clearly gotten the best of so many times, you are still stinging with geek angst at having been gotten the best of so many times and yet you still try the same. Some people's definition of insanity is repeating the same things over and over expecting different results. Your results here? Hilarious. You only made apk look good and showed he is a model citizen who pays his taxes. Why did you avoid proving you're a good citizen like apk that pays taxes on homes they own? Easy: You don't own a thing, you penniless "ne'er-do-well", lol.

Re:How's owning a home make ME an enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37614156)

APK fully owns a home

Yeah, sure. How long did it take you to save up the pennies? Did you have to take a $1 loan? Maybe your mommy gave you an extension on your allowance.

You couldn't prove you do the same

I told you already, the only thing I have to prove to a grease-stain like you is the size of my humongous cock. Wanna peek?

Re:"know your enemy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37604772)

Man pays taxes timely + on property paid in full. Sounds like a good citizen. Ur problem's what? U can't prove the same as apk can??

Well that's clever (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589368)

Since social networking sites pose a significant security risk, facebook will of course block other social networking sites.
For your safety.

In this case, I applaud Facebook (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589380)

This is actually an issue they should have addressed a long time ago. Lots of people have their accounts hijacked and then they start sending out malicious links. And the bots are getting better at faking normal people.

I like saying "Boo Facebook" as much as anyone, but they need to do this. I don't believe this particular initiative is meant for political censorship. They already have those capabilities. I think the only thing they really gain from this partnering is the ability to block malicious links sent from hijacked accounts.

FUCKTHEM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589384)

This is in response to multiple CSRF vulnerabilities I posted to their white hate research group, took a month or two to implement, and guess what... I never saw or heard any whiff of my $500...

They

Same as I do with HOSTS files... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589432)

For decades now, via a custom HOSTS file here, that @ this point's 1,586,590++ entries strong here via a Python system (multiplatform which is why I switched to it from a Borland Delphi system mostly) which deduplicates, alphabetically sorts, & periodically refreshes + updates the MAIN hosts file from a temp. 'scratch copy', every 15 minutes vs. known malicious sites/servers, vs.:

1.) KNOWN malicious sites/servers/hosts-domain names
2.) Bogus adbanners
3.) Adbanners in general (which slow you down & rob you of bandwidth + speed YOU PAY FOR OUT-OF-POCKET)
4.) Botnet C&C servers

* & more... gaining you not only added "layered-security/defense-in-depth", but, also speed!

And, even more speed than above in blocking out adbanners alone, but also even MORE SPEED, by "hardcoding" your fav. sites into it, so they resolve LOCALLY off of harddisk read speeds (far faster than calling out to a DNS roundtrip = approx. 70ns or more) of sub-11ns typically (faster off SSD as I do it too no less, nearly no seek/access time is how/why)!

(Instead of via a potentially redirected or downed DNS server (plenty of problems there for years now that way etc.))....

For security? That's for host-domain driven malware (which most are, because they can "recycle" domain names they buy, & they do that)...

Firewalls' rules tables work for IP address based ones (and host-domain type too) for layered security.

APK

P.S.=> Because what you can't touch? Can't hurt you... period! Simplest principle in the world... &, as you can see plainly from this article?? Even the "big league" IT Pros & big shops are "into it" as well, albeit slightly diff. means, idea's the same...

... apk

Supplement HOSTS w/ better DNS too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590456)

Mainly these 3 (which integrate into your IP stacks' settings & hardware router/firewalls too) - Each has a writeup on how/why/when/where they work too:

---

Norton DNS:

https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/faq.do [norton.com]

OpenDNS:

https://store.opendns.com/get/basic [opendns.com]

ScrubIT DNS:

http://www.scrubit.com/index.cfm?page=faq [scrubit.com]

---

* EACH does a heck of a job supplementing online security (in addition to my custom HOSTS file + Firewall rules tables I noted in my prior post I am replying to now)...

APK

P.S.=> It's ALL about "layered-security/defense-in-depth" first of all, but the nicest part? Well... THAT, is the added SPEED this layered security setup of mine yields (in addition to hardening the TCP/IP stack vs. attack, mostly via this -> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff648853.aspx [microsoft.com] )...

... apk

$500 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589478)

This is likely in part to multiple CSRF vulnerabilities I submitted a month or two ago, and I never saw or heard anything about $500...

Should I acquire a lawyer or is there anyone willing to stick up for a little guy that they trampled on?

They are getting Security Consultants to work for FREE by saying vulnerabilities are worth $500, but obviously this is BS.

Just for a second (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589568)

Just for a second I thought they were protecting the links not protecting the user from clicking on the link. I have to remember to always read though the article.

Click Tracking (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589654)

Of course this tells them which links you click on. And if Chrome does this, too, then google is not only aware of your searches but also the links you click on outside their domain.

Neat.

IE9 offers protection on that account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37589958)

@ least, via its "TPL's" (tracking-protection-lists), here (free too):

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com]

APK

Re:Click Tracking (1)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37593382)

Exactly. The content containing the link is already on their servers. The could check it there and annotate. What they want is to know if you've clicked it.

It will work fine... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589860)

for five minutes. After that, the malware writers will identify the Facebook servers and show them a different page.

If visiting a site can result in malware infection (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37589930)

then you have much bigger problems than Facebook.

Re:If visiting a site can result in malware infect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590158)

YES! Mod this up to +5. I came here to say this very thing.

If merely visiting a link in your browser can do jack shit to infect your machine, your machine is DEFECTIVE and it should not be used to connect to the internet.

It is bewildering that no, in 2011-almost-2012, people STILL refuse to learn.

Europe vs Facebook BLOCKED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590220)

http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html

Hurry before Facebook blocks it.

Piratebay equals MALWARE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37590336)

Try sending yourself a piratebay link on Facebook messages....you'll find its blocked.

Oh Facebook

even better protection from Facebook links: (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590512)

DON'T USE FACEBOOK

So which comes first? (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37590770)

Quote from article: "Starting today, when a Facebook user clicks on a link it will be checked against the Websense database in an attempt to determine if the link is malicious."

So... Do the malicious links people post always end up in the WebSense malDB before anyone views them?
Or... Does the hosting provider of said malicious link take the "site" down first?

All I read is another FUD-calming act. Read: "Look what we've done to make our site better for you to belong to today!"

Just Block Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37591134)

What responsible IT department even allows outbound connections to Facebook? Facebook's done. Put a fork in it already.

Facebook blocking malicious links... (1)

Nos9 (442559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37594202)

So Facebook is going to block links to sites that are full of spam, or attempt to take all of your personal information in order to make money from it...
  So, as best I can tell, Facebook has deemed Facebook.com to be a malicious link...

Malicious Link threat to Windows users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37596194)

"As any IT security department knows, social networks pose a significant threat to users across the board as they blindly click links which often lead to spam or other malicious sites that could result in malware infection"

Correction: social networks pose a significant threat to Microsoft Windows users ..

Link protection easily broken (1)

mepholic (2477146) | more than 2 years ago | (#37609872)

Hey guys, just want to let you know that the Link Protection is easily broken [slashdot.org] . So much for protection, eh?
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...