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!

Some Bing Ads Redirecting To Malware

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the which-is-worse-malware-or-av-nagware dept.

Microsoft 146

An anonymous reader writes "Security firm ThreatTrack Security Labs today spotted that certain Bing ads are linking to sites that infect users with malware. Those who click are redirected to a dynamic DNS service subdomain which in turns serves the Sirefef malware from 109(dot)236(dot)81(dot)176. ThreatTrack notes that the scammers could of course be targeting other keywords aside from YouTube. The more popular the keywords, the bigger the potential for infection."

cancel ×

146 comments

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

Posting (5, Funny)

c00rdb (945666) | about 10 months ago | (#45096439)

Posting to undo accidental mod

Re:Posting (3, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45096513)

+1 Clever.

Re:Posting (4, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 10 months ago | (#45096817)

Redirecting to Malware?

What!? It installs Windows on your computer?!?

Re:Posting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097837)

What!? It installs Windows on your computer?!?

You may jest, but there are billion dollar AV band-aid industries relying on Windows malware remaining a problem.

They're dependent on Microsoft and Microsoft is co-dependent on them and supports them (Eg with their OEM crapware installs). This MS/Windows/Bing/Malware/AV Industry hookup in is a tangled, dirty, FUD-filled mess, and I suspect it'll take several anti-trust lawsuits to untie them. Sadly, not something that's likely to happen in the US.

Re:Posting (1)

AlphaWoIf_HK (3042365) | about 10 months ago | (#45097101)

They're just helping people get great software such as Mighty Magoo installed on their 'puters.

Re:Posting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097889)

Why is this modded +5 Funny? I post when I accidentally modded something down to undo it...what's the deal?

Re:Posting (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 10 months ago | (#45097983)

it was first post, stoopid.

I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing but (5, Funny)

themushroom (197365) | about 10 months ago | (#45096479)

People use Bing?

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (2)

Aighearach (97333) | about 10 months ago | (#45096537)

And we get the MS logo instead of the Borg Bill. :(

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0, Redundant)

istartedi (132515) | about 10 months ago | (#45096583)

I started using it a couple weeks ago because https is a useless waste of cycles. The one party you'd like to hide your searches from is NSAGoogle, and https doesn't do that. Bing gives your searches to NSA too, but at least they don't force you to use https and heat up your CPU for no good reason. Also, Google isn't simple and clean like it used to be, so Bing's pointless eye candy is no longer such a big disadvantage.

That said, I'm thinking of switching back to Google because Bing's maps suck. Also, when using Chrome you get Bing searches from typing in the URL bar instead of the URL.

I'm thinking I might try Firefox again too. Plainly, my once stable browser and search preferences are in a state of flux. This is almost entirely due to browsers and/or search engines chewing my CPU for no good reason.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096657)

If your cpu is overworked by browsing 1 secure site, you might want to consider an upgrade.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096729)

I do it because as key lengths get longer, it is harder and harder to browse the HTTPS web using a telnet client. That is even with my pocket calculator nearby!

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

bmo (77928) | about 10 months ago | (#45096747)

I started using it a couple weeks ago because https is a useless waste of cycles. ...

but at least they don't force you to use https and heat up your but at least they don't force you to use https and heat up your CPU for no good reasonCPU for no good reason

What.

I had someone else trying to tell me that scp is slower because encryption slows the file transfer.

I.... I just don't know...

What the hell is going on?!

--
BMO

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (2)

_merlin (160982) | about 10 months ago | (#45097277)

Well it is. SSH protocol overhead is higher than the minimal TCP overhead on the data connection for an FTP transfer. Whether this is significant or not is a different issue, but the statement is strictly true.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 months ago | (#45096759)

Perhaps you should consider upgrading from a 200MHz Pentium Pro. Just sayin'.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (2)

vadim_t (324782) | about 10 months ago | (#45096831)

Whatever your problem is, it's not with SSL.

AES-256 on my old laptop works at 65 MB/s. AES-128 goes at 90MB/s. This might be a bit of a problem if you've got a gigabit LAN and are using it to full capacity, but given that googling stuff amounts to about 24K there's no way that is making a noticeable difference.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097117)

You DO know that microsoft hands over to the NSA everything from bing too right? And windows. Which is the true goldmine of information due to the on by default 'customer experience program' data windows reports... theres so much stuff buried in there. all about your pc. your data. and what you DO all day. Oh but you can opt out of that... If you find the option. It's like the wheres waldo option.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097483)

Right... Ok. Just like that magical kill switch that is sitting in all Windows OS's? You know, the one that hackers have continually found and exploited in the past decade. Or the credit card information that is also uploaded to MSFT -- the hackers have used that data stream too!

Chances are high that the data NSA gets is not from being 'inside' MSFT or GOOG or AAPL products, it's from sitting between them at major content distribution nodes around the net.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45099097)

Except that these companies are "required" (as in, forced to do it and/or paying them off; legally or not) to turn over ALL information to the NSA. And, even then, the NSA hacks into their systems or related systems and takes whatever they want anyways. See the NSA using a MITM attack on Google recently as that's the most fitting example I can think of off the top of my head.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097203)

I started using it a couple weeks ago because https is a useless waste of cycles. ...

Dude, the tinfoil is only supposed to be used to make a hat, not a damn hole-less ski mask that also cuts off your oxygen.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 10 months ago | (#45097457)

"I started using it a couple weeks ago because https is a useless waste of cycles."

Most people these days who use Google use more than just the search feature, but that being said, even if you don't that is a phenomenally ridiculous reason to switch search engines from Google to Bing.

". Also, when using Chrome you get Bing searches from typing in the URL bar instead of the URL. ... I'm thinking I might try Firefox again too. "

OK. You have to be trolling. You don't trust Google with your searches, but you do trust them with your entire computer. Excellent.

If you aren't trolling: News Flash: Google isn't protecting your data any less than Microsoft. If Google reports more, it means they are more honest. What you are doing is sleeping with the local whore who swears she never cheats on you because your ex-girlfriend "admitted" that she had sex against her will.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about 10 months ago | (#45096785)

People use Bing?

Yes. More than a few software packages try to incorporate a Bing bar plug in and set the search engine/homepage to Bing. That includes some software that is not outright malware (well, at least not before they chose to make money on pushing toolbars).

DirectX install tries to peddle Bing Bar which is installed with default settings.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097161)

Anything that sets anything on you computer without telling and asking in a way you what is happening is malware.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 10 months ago | (#45096803)

Hey man, google STEALS your information! MS told me so. So that must mean that MS doesn't do that. I mean, they'd be HYPOCRITES otherwise. So I use Bing to keep my porn searches safe. My sexual attraction to boobs and butts will remain safe from the NSA.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097519)

Bing is the superior search engine when it comes on porn. It's just like IE was better than Netscape for porn. It's like Bill Gates knew what we were really doing.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096835)

only if you're looking to get Scroogled.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097807)

Funny about his discovery while they're just running the "google put these ads in your email" scroogled TV spots...

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (2)

technomom (444378) | about 10 months ago | (#45096839)

Well there's Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer's mom, and Bill Gates' mom.......and that's about it.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

russotto (537200) | about 10 months ago | (#45098545)

Bill Gates's mom is dead, you insensitive clod!

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 10 months ago | (#45096939)

That was my first thought, too. My second was, "People still use Windows?"

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 10 months ago | (#45097121)

"People still use Windows?"

For certain values of "people".

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

Bremic (2703997) | about 10 months ago | (#45097469)

Surely if Bing gives you a link to Bing, then Bing is linking you to malware...

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about 10 months ago | (#45098271)

Apparently. And they both just got... sbinged?

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45098447)

Omg lol your so funny m$ sux I don't use there products at all but now their suck lol xd you

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 10 months ago | (#45099081)

I do when Google tries to be too helpful and fails to give me the results I actually want, assumning I mistyped.

Clearly most people have never used it, yet there seems to be a strong opinion that it's rubbish. I wonder how people know.

Re:I know it's another stereotypical diss on Bing (1)

James Andrews (2868439) | about 10 months ago | (#45099379)

Yep. 4 of them to be exact.

This also in... (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45096507)

...ad hosting network (that happens to be used by major search providers) compromised to serve malware.

I suppose you can be mad at Microsoft for not constantly scanning their customers, but "Bing ads" is still misleading in the usual headline sensationalism way...

Re:This also in... (5, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | about 10 months ago | (#45096609)

...ad hosting network (that happens to be used by major search providers)

...like Bing and Yahoo (whose search results come from Bing).

"Bing ads" is still misleading in the usual headline sensationalism way...

Yeah, it's not like the service itself is named [wikipedia.org] Bing Ads [microsoft.com] , or anything.

Re:This also in... (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 10 months ago | (#45096661)

I suppose you can be mad at Microsoft for not constantly scanning their customers, but "Bing ads" is still misleading in the usual headline sensationalism way...

Actually, you can't. A standard tactic is to serve regular, unmodified ads, to IP address blocks known to have businesses that to this. For example, the google crawler -- many websites will show different pages if you simply sub the user agent string in as Google; Bypassing compulsory registration, not displaying navigation ... adding piles of SEO words to the bottom of the page, and the list goes on.

Microsoft can't be expected to protect against stuff like this; Every website that allows javascript to be injected from a 3rd party website is equally vulnerable. And that's most of them; Including Slashdot; It has script links to rpxnow.com and fsdn.com. Hundreds of websites link into Google's ajax and analytics pages. A great many websites simply break if you disable 3rd party javascript.

So blame Microsoft if you want, but really, the people you want work at ORACLE.

Re:This also in... (2)

lorenlal (164133) | about 10 months ago | (#45096947)

Here was the comment I was looking for. I've seen third-party ads attack from plenty of reputable (and not so reputable) sites. As much as I love piling on MS, Bing, and IE, I don't think it's wholly fair to single them out for this issue. Of course, anecdotes are worth little more than the electrons that carry the information to your eyes, but I'm fairly confident most of us have been called in to clean up an infection from [typical site used by many].

Now, if you want to talk about Microsoft's awful ad campaigns, that's 100% fair, and please proceed.

Re:This also in... (2)

rk (6314) | about 10 months ago | (#45097343)

Oracle? Believe me, I've a got a hate on for Oracle and the list and litany against them is long and storied, but how are they responsible for 3rd party Javascript?

Re:This also in... (4, Funny)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 10 months ago | (#45098283)

When in doubt, blame Oracle. It works surprisingly often!

Re:This also in... (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 10 months ago | (#45097619)

Perhaps a legal review is required. How far should the advertiser be allowed to seperate themselves from the contents of the Ads they serve. The generate profits by promoting products and seem to be completely free from any responsibility for the reality of the advertisements versus what they actually promote.

At the moment advertisers make money by selling products, blatantly promoted with lies and regardless if the impact of those products upon victims the promoters get to wander off laughing with those profits generated by creating those victims.

I think it is about time, that those who generate income from products promoted by misleading advertising, start sharing the pain of the victims their actions are creating. You make money by selling lies, it about time when those lies get exposed that you start paying back the victims.

Re:This also in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097919)

Javascript != Java. We've been over this basic fact a hundred times before. Please pay attention.

Re:This also in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45099021)

The people to blame are those who made sites that depend on third-party javascript. If people trust me, and I betray them, I'm liable. If people trust me, and I pass that trust on to third parties who betray them, I'm liable.

Re:This also in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096695)

They can scan your email, why wouldn't they scan their own ads?

Does it affect Yahoo!? (1)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 10 months ago | (#45096521)

Nothing to be afraid of here, unless the same ads are place beside Yahoo! search results.

Re:Does it affect Yahoo!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096677)

All online ad peddlers will serve malware, refresh pretty much any website with ads a couple of 100 times.

Perspective (5, Insightful)

Empiric (675968) | about 10 months ago | (#45096539)

...and for those of us who think that ads -are- malware, just targeted at a different processor, AdBlock still takes out two birds with one stone...

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097197)

I like Ghostery a lot more than AdBlock -- it seems simpler to manage the blocked items and to see what a web page is serving up to you. I haven't used AdBlock in a while though so maybe it's similar now.

Proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096577)

Proof that blocking all ads, web beacons, HTTP(S) referrer, and a host of other things is prudent. If a business needs ads, they need another model to make money.

Re:Proof (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096617)

Says the person who wants all the content they can grab for free.

Nothing costs $0. Do you want ads or a paywall?

Re:Proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096679)

Says the person who wants all the content they can grab for free.

Nothing costs $0. Do you want ads or a paywall?

Don't forget the DRM to make sure the paywall isn't bypassed.

Re:Proof (1)

Servaas (1050156) | about 10 months ago | (#45096711)

They will get my money when I buy their product not before.

Re:Proof (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096713)

Paywalled sites *should*, in best practices, be more secure and *should* not include as many targeted ads. That isn't to say they aren't vulnerable to attacks or browser based hijacks that redirect traffic regardless. Unfortunately sites like Amazon video/hulu plus are jammed with ads even when paying for the service. What I need is for the internet to be something other than a place for advertisers to intrude on my privacy.

Re:Proof (4, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#45096795)

Nothing costs $0.

That's a tautology.

Re:Proof (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096983)

In that case I'll take seven of them.

Re:Proof (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096887)

Is every person _for_ advertising either in the industry or not old enough to remember what was? Business is the guest here, not the public, this is our network. If content makers can't make money without obstructing the people they want to encourage then I would rather not have their content. Ads or paywall? How about fuck you, get off my fucking lawn and take your stinking rat friends with you.

Re:Proof (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097027)

Unlike a hippie fantasy, content costs money, either in time, licensing, or other work. Someone is going to pay for that content, be it you with a paywall, or an advertiser. We see this entitlement for free content already as almost all reliable press sites have paywalled up in order to survive.

Deal with it, DRM, SEO, and ads are a fact of life now. Whining about the past gets you nowhere and makes you look like an anti-business Luddite.

Oh, and my rat friends drive better cars than you will ever open a door to.

Re:Proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097977)

We don't want free content, we don't want your content.

Re:Proof (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097087)

You're shouting this from Dice, Inc.'s mostly ad-supported lawn, gramps. It was ad-supported in times when it was Geeknet's lawn, too.

Why don't you start up your own web server for your grumbling and put it in an Old Farts Web Ring so people can find it? Because, you know, all the web search out there is ad-supported as well, and you won't have any of this, don't you?

Re:Proof (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45097345)

Why don't you start up your own web server for your grumbling and put it in an Old Farts Web Ring so people can find it? Because, you know, all the web search out there is ad-supported as well, and you won't have any of this, don't you?

If Slashdot disappeared, we would. Before the rise of the Glorious Advertisers' Internet you love so much, we would probably have been on email lists, which no-one paid for other than a few bucks a month from the person running them.

Re:Proof (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097551)

Right, "We'll post here, while clenching our teeth and hating your rotten ad-supported sellout guts. We could quit anytime we want, but we don't want to!". The fact is you all are coming to bitch about ads ruining Internet to an ad-supported site instead of flocking to some Ye Olde Indie Web to discuss it.

You could put your money where your mouth is and start it, couldn't you? It's just a few bucks for hosting. Or you could start a web search engine funded entirely out of your pocket, instead of all the ad supported ones. Or you could start an online news site, filled and provided entirely pro bono.

But you prefer Slashdot and all the other ad-funded services for some reason. It's like denouncing welfare state, while sitting home on unemployment payouts ("Hey, if they'd stop those pay outs, I'd find a job anytime!")

PS: By the way, who paid for the mailbox you received emails from those lists to? How many active users were there on the list?

Re:Proof (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 10 months ago | (#45097767)

From my Slashdot page:

Disable Advertising [X]
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising.

So, being "gramps" has its advantages you Johnny-come-lately ageist git.

Re:Proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097851)

Paywall
Like it's a special treat or something to see what crap someone wants to put on a website and have others pay for it to be there.
If you want to show things to people on a website or have people notice you or start a special forum or something, you should pay for it yourself or get off.

Re:Proof (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 10 months ago | (#45098527)

Says the person who wants all the content they can grab for free.

Nothing costs $0. Do you want ads or a paywall?

I think what most of us want is "no malware". Do I block ads on parents', friends', in-laws' browsers so they get stuff for free without distraction? No, I block them to minimize the number of malware infections I have to clean up.

Re:Proof (1)

CBravo (35450) | about 10 months ago | (#45099109)

And no website wants $1 when they can get $2. This is not about costs, it is about companies wanting to make profit.

Re:Proof (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 10 months ago | (#45097703)

If you aren't paying for the product you are the product.

Money is money (1)

pvianag (3392989) | about 10 months ago | (#45096595)

Why not? .... Money is money .....

One more reason for me to not use Bing (3, Insightful)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 10 months ago | (#45096633)

Aside from the other obvious reasons, such as "it looks awful" and "for the types of things I search for, it's vastly inferior to Google".

Re:One more reason for me to not use Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097223)

Care to post some examples? To be honest I've tried the "Bing it On" challenge and it was a 50/50 split across 15 different searches for me (I looked at my search history and retried them on bing).

And quite frankly, 50/50 isn't telling the whole story because the results were so similar I was just guessing "left" or "right" most of the time. Sometimes the wins/loses were more obvious though. I have no problem with how either of them look.

Re:One more reason for me to not use Bing (1)

Jamie Ian Macgregor (3389757) | about 10 months ago | (#45097927)

Re:One more reason for me to not use Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45098691)

Are you trying to make a point? If so, you seem to be failing.

Hmm: Don't click on the ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096641)

This is news somehow?

What kind of idiot moron (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45096669)

Clicks on ads? They deserve to be infected with sirefef. Plus, it's job security for me. Sirefef is a piece of cake to remove for me, but my customers are dead in the water. Money is money.

Re: What kind of idiot moron (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 10 months ago | (#45097183)

It's called a "drive by download". Ads cycle on web pages. Eventually one will cycle to an infected ad server and infect the users computer. In this case, Windows.

Obvious. (1)

msauve (701917) | about 10 months ago | (#45096767)

Security firm ThreatTrack Security Labs today spotted that certain Bing ads are linking to sites that infect users with malware.

What do they expect? Of course Bing is going to link to microsoft.com.

The actual article is here.. (5, Insightful)

Dynamoo (527749) | about 10 months ago | (#45096787)

The actual article is here [threattracksecurity.com] . TheNextWeb is a stupid site that doesn't work at all if you are not running Javascript. I choose to block most scripts, partly because.. a lot of ads are infected with malware. Yuk.

Re:The actual article is here.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097311)

Blocking JS entirely is extreme paranoia. What scandalous websites do you visit that requires you to block javascript? Almost all websites I build these days require JS to function properly because every client wants to have their website to use it one way or another. Are you going to block HTML-5 as well? If you don't want Social media sites tracking your browsing activity you can get plugins for firefox and chrome that prevents tracking for facebook, google, twitter, etc... If you genuinely have something about ads, then get ABP but donate money to the website you're using if you plan on doing that. A lot of sites these days may be free but they might offer a honor subscription plan to remove ads for you for a fee. If you don't like that kind of system then you wouldn't mind having pages entirely blocked because JS isn't enabled or you have Adblock installed right? Just remember, the internet is free because of ads, and if you don't support this method then you should at least stand up and donate your money for their lost revenue. I believe slashdot has an honorary subscription plan as well. Call websites like the one you quoted stupid for not allowing people access if JS isn't enabled but I believe you should look at yourself first on reasons why you blocked JS in the first place. To get viruses in this day in age even without virus protection is incredibly hard to do. Your paranoia knows no bounds.

Re:The actual article is here.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097459)

"Are you going to block HTML-5 as well?" Yes. History is already vindicating us and our 'paranoia', every little bit which makes it harder to track us helps.

Who's responsible for the ads served (3, Insightful)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 10 months ago | (#45096791)

I think the pertinent question is whether Microsoft or Google or Yahoo should responsible for the ads they show.

Take any given major website, turn off AdBlockPlus, FlashBlock (or alternatives), and NoScripts (or alternatives). How many ads can you count that are of the nature: "Learn that 1 wierd trick to lose 10 pounds" or "Enter your age to see if you qualify for money to go back to school" or "blah blah obvious scam".

They are everywhere. Now for me, I think much less of a website and the entity that owns it if they are serving these ads. I actually feel that if you get scammed through one of them it should be the website's fault for being party to a crime, because they served you the malicious ad.

If I had a brick and mortar business, and people paid me to stand inside my business and "demo products" or something, and you came in and got scammed, you would be pissed at my business. The business might also be liable.

Obviously the internet is different than meat space. Obviously you cant fix stupid. So who is responsible for serving a malicious ad?

Re:Who's responsible for the ads served (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097261)

Those "Learn that 1 weird trick" ads are the worst and I hope the people who create them get to see their children murdered in front of their own eyes and then are given a gun with a single bullet to do what they should've done long ago...

Re:Who's responsible for the ads served (1)

c-A-d (77980) | about 10 months ago | (#45097309)

Those "1 weird trick" ads did push me to install dnsmasq on my laptop. I've configured dnsmasq to handle domain lookups for lots of ad serving hosts and domains and it returns 127.0.0.1 for those lookups which saves me from said ads.

Re:Who's responsible for the ads served (1)

intangible (252848) | about 10 months ago | (#45097549)

Rather than making them all point at 127.0.0.1, I like just killing their dns lookup when using dnsmasq (this only looks in /etc/hosts for the dns entry instead of a 127.0.0.1 response)...

local=/zedo.com/
local=/infolinks.com/
local=/intellitxt.com/
local=/vibrantmedia.com/
local=/kontera.com/

It's faster / less resource hungry then 404s hitting myself (since I often run a local apache for some static content and development).

I mostly KILL WITH FIRE the stupid "textual" ad providers... I HATE when I hover/highlight over text and it pops up crap.

Re:Who's responsible for the ads served (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097843)

See your children murdered in front of your own eyes and then be given a gun with a single bullet to do what you should've done long ago with this one weird trick! ACs hate this!

Re:Who's responsible for the ads served (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 10 months ago | (#45097507)

I think the pertinent question is whether Microsoft or Google or Yahoo should responsible for the ads they show.

That's a very good question. Because the major search engines do not vet their advertisers very well. Google had to pay $500,000,000 to the USDOJ when they were caught willfully running ads for an obvious drug dealer. [wsj.com] (No, it wasn't about "Canadian pharmacies". Some Google apologists tried to spin it that way, but the details came out.) Google has since clamped down. They had to; they were on DOJ probation for two years, with felony charges hanging over them. "Oxycontin no prescription" no longer returns ad results. Same for "viagra". Bing now pops up an "Is it legit?" box for searches like that.

Google's clampdown was narrow. Searches with "foreclosure" and "credit repair" have a high population of scammers. Financial search keywords carry a high price, because the marks can be taken for big amounts.

It's possible to measure basic advertiser legitimacy. We do that with SiteTruth [sitetruth.com] , which tries to find the real-world business behind the ad. For over 30% of Google advertisers (by domain name), there's no identifiable real-world business behind the ad. (Running an anonymous business is illegal in some states and in the EU.) That's embarrassing, and highly profitable for Google.

All ad networks do this (4, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about 10 months ago | (#45096841)

Not defending Bing in particular here, but every ad network gets utilized to deliver ads by malicious parties. Every ad company you can think of has staff that work full time just to look for and filter out malicious ads. A pretty significant portion [securitybistro.com] of all malware is delivered my ads that are unwittingly served by sites from Facebook to CNN or any other site you can think of.

Here's a nice link to a NIST [pdfeigchxu....awccadrja] report on the matter that you can get to once the government gets back to work. The problem goes back many, many years, so why on earth is this being reported as news?

Re:All ad networks do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097011)

I have the 'do not track' flag set in my browser. So I'm safe right?

*GASP!!!* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097055)

Malware ads have NEVER occurred with Google!!!

lol

You deserve it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097071)

If you click on an AD, you pretty much deserve to be infected

AOL Search (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097181)

AOL.com gives better results than Bing, much to my surprise.

bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097335)

I always thought bing was a malware....

malware in ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097357)

i got infected with a fake antivirus program from an advertisment once. the weird part is that i was running an antivirus program too. must've been a really new malware that the real antivirus program couldn't detect.

i ended up running malware bytes anti malware and some other software to delete the malware. grr

Aw, that's so cute. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097359)

It's like Bing is all growed up now! Somebody should buy the tyke some long trousers.

surely i'm not alone? (2)

steak (145650) | about 10 months ago | (#45097547)

doesn't every body love bonzi buddy?

I use Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45097791)

I like the daily pictures and they don't use redirects for exit links (unlike Google) so there's one less area where I'm being tracked.

not remotely news (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 10 months ago | (#45098775)

This just in: a freaking buttload of Google ads redirect to malware. If you want an example, type in "[insert name of any manufacturer or anything] support" into Google. 100% of the paid results are fakes, scams, or install malware. This has been true for years. Why don't they do anything about it? $$$$$$$$$ of course.

This is why I block ads. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45099015)

This is exactly why I use AdBlock to block ads. It's defense in depth. Ad networks can be another vector for infection.

Bing (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about 10 months ago | (#45099289)

Because of this I was messing around and found the biggest act of defiance anyone or group can do is turn off cookies.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>