backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Jul 3 at 2:50 PM


Don't worry internet surfers -- surfering pornographic sites is apparently safer than visiting the rest of the internet, according to a recent study.  (Source: She Knows)

For ever 1 porn site that was infected, 99 non-pornographic sites were found infected.  (Source: Entertainment Agent Blog)
More infected domains contain the word 'London' than 'sex'

Recent studies have revealed that as much as one-third of the internet may be composed of pornographic webpages.  But other studies have cast doubts on the safety of those pages, warning that malware and other nasty surprises like dialers await porn visitors.

Those claims are a load of bullocks, though, says UK free-antivirus firm Avast.  The firm says that in a recent study it found 99 infected non-pornographic pages for every infected porn page.

They found that many seemingly "safe" sites, including sites of high profile businesses, have been compromised to include malicious attack scripts designed to take advantage of unpatched Windows flaws.  One high profile find was the smartphones section of the Vodafone UK website, which ran a Javascript to exploit unpatched Windows Help and Support Center flaw (CVE-2010-1885) and download malware to the users' computer.

At the time of release, the site sub-domain blackberry.vodafone.co.uk still contained malicious code, but the site from which the attack payload was to be downloaded from was no longer online.

Avast researcher Miloslav Korenko comments, "Users browsing Vodafone domain should be safe - until new hack/updated hack will be performed.  Of course, the Blackberry section of Vodafone.co.uk website needs to be cleaned as well - to prevent future attack similar to this one."

Similarly compromised business pages were frequently found elsewhere.  On a UK hotel site (http://kensington-london-hotels.co.uk), the blogs section was altered to run malicious scripts that would deliver malware payloads.  Other infected legitimate sites included Brazilian software download site Baixaki and a variety of small business websites in Germany.  One in five website infections are similar to Vodafone's -- using a script to attack an unpatched Windows flaw and deliver malware -- according to Avast.

In contrast with the multitude of infected non-pornographic sites, pornographic sites examined in the study actually demonstrated a remarkably low infection rate.  This is in line with the recent UK study that identified that while roughly a third of the internet was porn, only a small percentage of porn sites were unsafe.

Avast CTO Ondrej Vlcek states, "We are not recommending people to start searching for erotic content but the statistics are clear - for every infected adult domain we identify there are 99 others with perfectly legitimate content that are also infected."

Pornographic sites have long been scrutinized for possible attacks as in the early days of the internet they 
were a source of attacks, and still continue to be a promising candidate merely because of the vast amount of traffic passing through them. But now that browsers have become more wary and employed safer browsing practices when visiting such sites, malicious parties have increasingly taken to attack legitimate sites, it appears. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Really?
By TheMan876 on 7/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/1/2010 9:37:53 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
How about a [NSFW] tag? Or better yet, a non questionable image.


Really? I thought for an article about porn the image was pretty kosher. I doubt it will get you fired if looking at articles about pornography statistics doesn't get you fired.

And doesn't the headline kinda indicate [NSFW] in very conservative workplace settings?


RE: Really?
By B3an on 7/1/2010 10:44:15 AM , Rating: 5
Nothing remotely wrong with the image at all.

But then this is a yank site, and in the U.S:

Violence = Perfectly acceptable.

Bit of skin showing or a nipple slip = End of the world.


RE: Really?
By Anoxanmore on 7/1/2010 12:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
Its the lesbians he finds offensive... ;)


RE: Really?
By Motoman on 7/1/2010 9:40:31 AM , Rating: 1
That's less skin than Pink shows going to Taco Bell.


RE: Really?
By oralpain on 7/1/2010 10:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
Which image are you referring to?


RE: Really?
By hpram99 on 7/1/2010 11:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
The images really are safe for work in most settings. If your business place is that conservative (I assume you also cannot browse cnn.com or have a TV in the breakroom) then just don't click on a link that has "Porn" in the URL.


Statistic at its worst
By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2010 9:42:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
For ever 1 porn site that was infected, 99 non-pornographic sites were found infected.


The statement is as worthless as saying, for example,
For every traffic accident occurs in the China, there are 99 accidents in US

There are more car ownerships in US than in China, even though driving in China may have been more dangerous




RE: Statistic at its worst
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/1/2010 9:56:33 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The statement is as worthless as saying, for example,
For every traffic accident occurs in the China, there are 99 accidents in US

There are more car ownerships in US than in China, even though driving in China may have been more dangerous


You are technically correct, they unfortunately did not adjust that figure to account for the higher number of non-porn sites versus porn sites (probably because 99 sounded like a catchy number).

But, bear in mind that the ratio of porn to non-porn pages online is thought to be roughly 2:1, so that's what the expected ratio for attacks would be (if the two were equally safe), not 99:1.

So while your point is valid, the general conclusions still stand. I guess a more accurate way for them to summarize their conclusions is that you are approximately 50 times as likely to get attacked on a non-porn site.

That said, I'm sure you could level more serious criticisms at their choice of websites, number of sites sampled, etc.


RE: Statistic at its worst
By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2010 10:00:27 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

There is also the important factor regarding the ratio of unique visits for pornographic sites and non-pornographic sites, which would give a more objective representation of risks associated.


RE: Statistic at its worst
By milos on 7/1/2010 12:33:43 PM , Rating: 5
Good afternoon to all. I'm Milos ... the stats comes from me and yes I do work at avast - in case somebody wants to ask ;o)

Comments from Jason about the statistics are correct. Let me just explain couple of things...
a) First, our intention was and is to inform the public. Majority of internet users still think that avoiding dodgy sites and avoiding downloading = being safe

b) What is the study sampled on? The data is based on automated reports from our user base. Our users could choose to participate in what we call CommunityIQ. If you participate and visit a website that is infected - a report about the infection and the website is send to our virus lab. There is no connection between the user, his license number and the report. It is strictly annonymous. How do we know the site is infected? If it is known virus - it's piece of cake ;o) If it is unknown piece of code, the Behavior Shield will evaluate what it does and decide on the allow / deny - report or not. Needless to say, this gives us great source of info on new viruses. Monthly, we prevent about 35 to 40 mio avast users from accessing infected website. That is quite robust I guess

c) Statistics? ;o) Yes it has implications... We don't know how many of our users have visited safe legitimate sites and how many smut sites were visited - yet safe. I have no reliable statistics on the proportion of smut vs. no-smut. On the other side. We have over 100 mio users. Yes you could say that our 100 mio users are the nice guys who do not search porn ;o) That could result in finding only legitimate infected sites (not the smut once) Nice idea because that would mean the other brands have the porn seekers. But somehow I don't believe it ;o) The sample is too big and btw avast has users in every single country in the world and therefore good statistic representation.

c) So is it really 99:1? No it is not. We have said clearly that a porn site is marked as porn because the domain name contains any of the typical smut key words. So if the porn site has name: mylittlefunnyponny.com we would not mark it as smut (actually we call it dodgy or dodgy index ;o)

d) Back to first point. Right now I'm looking at the Polish statistics (so domains ending .pl) Imagine that any bigger city in Poland... from Warsaw to all regional cities that have official municipal webpages... are infected and most of the webmasters don't know or don't care. So whether it is 99:1 or 90:10 or 50:50 (which it is not ;o) if the publicity reaches the internet users and webmasters it will be worth it

Btw. Excuse my Enlish and typos.


Proof?
By damianrobertjones on 7/1/2010 11:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
We only have to look at when Dailytech started serving (or should I say the banner services) up malware re-direction.

NICE!




RE: Proof?
By SuckRaven on 7/1/2010 5:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.tomshardware.com/us/

is using the same pic of the girl in the red dress for a notebook hard drive article...at least the pic is there on their main page. =)


I wonder...
By kobymu on 7/1/2010 5:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
More infected domains contain the word 'London' than 'sex'


What would be the result if they compare the word 'London' against 'Viagra'...?




RE: I wonder...
By milos on 7/2/2010 3:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
In UK for .uk for the last 30 days identified infected pages (total 718) the score is: London 12x Viagra 0
For the .com pages in last 30 days: Viagra 0

That doesn't mean the word is not used in the website itself and would not trigger search. But it means "viagra" is not used in the domain name or url address of any of the identified infected websites.


By Lerianis on 7/3/2010 6:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Every single virus I have ever gotten has not been from the numerous porn sites that I go to, but instead from sites like (of all things) Cartoonnetwork.com, 4Kidstv, etc.

Cartoon websites and video viewing websites, akin to Hulu.

This 'porn sites have viruses' thing really needs to die. MAJOR porn sites are not going to want the black eye from having viruses on their website, it drives away customers. Major topsites don't want that blackeye as well, it drives away advertising revenue.

It's only the very small topsites, run by malefactors, which are virus-laden paradises.




Jason Mick
By JonnyDough on 7/2/10, Rating: 0
In other news
By SandmanWN on 7/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: In other news
By Quadrillity on 7/1/2010 9:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
I was still under the impression that porn occupied at least 99% of the internet...


RE: In other news
By quiksilvr on 7/1/2010 1:25:12 PM , Rating: 5
No, porn just occupies 99% of your bookmarks.


RE: In other news
By sviola on 7/1/2010 10:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
Not true. From another study published here at DT, 1/3 of the web is composed of porn, so the non-porn sites would have a 2-1 margin (not a very large margin).


RE: In other news
By SandmanWN on 7/1/2010 11:13:57 AM , Rating: 4
It said 1/3 of the content and web searches were pornographic in nature. It made no justification for how many of the sites were actually porn based.


RE: In other news
By ecat on 7/1/2010 10:18:33 AM , Rating: 1
Just a passing thought, could you at least read the very first sentence before commenting?

quote:
Recent studies have revealed that as much as one-third of the internet may be composed of pornographic webpages.


RE: In other news
By SandmanWN on 7/1/2010 11:02:23 AM , Rating: 5
Yes I did, you apparently didn't. It's a false statistic backing up another false statistic.

The link points to an article about search terms and content on pages. Most sites were just redirects to other sites. Its called shilling and does nothing but enforce a false statistic.


RE: In other news
By ecat on 7/2/2010 2:58:52 PM , Rating: 2
Many sites these days contain redirects: bloggs, price comparison sites, news aggregators. I wonder just how much of the web is original these days and how many 'sites' exist simply to gather advertising revenue by providing a link and perhaps a summary?

So, 30% of the net isn't porn related? Should we say 20%, 10%? Regardless it does not change the result of the study

quote:
"...for every infected adult domain we identify there are 99 others with perfectly legitimate content that are also infected"


So, by all means pick your own % of porn penetration and argue your point or raise your concerns over their position. No one is asking you to swallow anything unsavoury, but please understand that the unqualified phrase "a very large margin" is as meaningless as the world of statistics to which you allude.


RE: In other news
By SandmanWN on 7/3/2010 2:50:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So, 30% of the net isn't porn related? Should we say 20%, 10%? Regardless it does not change the result of the study

You have no clue do you.
If you were 30% likely to get a virus with the notion of 33% of the web is porn related, which direction do you expect the potential infection rate to go if you were to discover that porn sites only encompass <1% of the net?

Which isn't a far stretch of the imagination by the way. When compared to something like social networking sites with millions upon millions of pages, do you think porn sites can even stretch out 1/3 of the content against them alone? Then you have to think about every industry you see and interact with as you walk down the street in your daily life. How many of those have a website... Your bank sites, grocery store sites, oem sites, software sites, wiki and learning sites, part sites, automobile sites, sales sites, it goes on and on and on.

Registrars don't even bother to categorize sites. Anyone can buy any domain. The statistics taken from the article are based on search statistics. They have no bearing on whats really out there. Get a clue.


RE: In other news
By inperfectdarkness on 7/1/2010 11:51:56 AM , Rating: 5
actually, this result makes sense.

considering how many networks or computers are set to ban illicit websites, infecting innocuous websites makes more sense than infecting pornographic ones.

it's really no different than scripting a virus for a mac vs. windows. if you want greater ROI, you'll infect a popular website and/or something that isn't "questionable".


RE: In other news
By SandmanWN on 7/2/2010 1:23:42 PM , Rating: 3
yes it makes good sense. the problem is the study. It doesn't take into account things like popular search terms which is somehow being relegated into website numbers through these authors sources. It doesn't add up to the physical size of the porn industry versus a typical business. Is porn really 1/3 of all sites or do they just have larger media presence per site. 1/3 content I can see, 1/3 of all sites is preposterous.

Your typical nude celebrity search counts as a porn search hit but the website it might lead to has nothing to do with porn and in this case can be solely designed to lure people in from search engines to catch an opportunistic virus. Using porn to infect a machine with a virus doesn't have to be a direct porn page/search to virus correlation.

In any means, I don't think the study means a whole lot given email is this the largest threat of viruses. The study seems to be trying to divi up what sub-section of the #2 virus infectious category might be.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki