Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Click Here To Infect Your PC!

Posted by kdawson on Wed May 16, 2007 04:47 AM
from the proving-a-point dept.
It's funny. Laugh. Security
Email me for FREE viruses writes "Just how many people would click an ad saying "Is your PC virus-free? Get it infected here!"? According to the security researcher who ran that very ad on Google for 6 months, 0.16% (409 of 259,723) would click on it. 98% of those people were running Windows. The Google Adwords campaign cost $23 in total, which works out to $0.06 per infection had the site actually been malicious."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Click Here To Infect Your PC! 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • How many slashdotters (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 16 2007, @04:51AM (#19142723)
    Then went and clicked on the link in the article? :P

  • It's hardly a surprise (Score:5, Funny)

    by Xiph (723935) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @04:51AM (#19142725)
    to tech professionals, that users need clue distributed by bat

  • Sad... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday May 16 2007, @04:52AM (#19142733) Homepage
    The sad thing is that using something more enticing like "Free boobs this way" would send millions of clueless Joe Windowses your way... All ripe for the picking.

    • Re:Sad... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Architect_sasyr (938685) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:04AM (#19142795)
      Which way did you say?

    • Badsense (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dogtanian (588974) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:53AM (#19143035) Homepage

      The sad thing is that using something more enticing like "Free boobs this way" would send millions of clueless Joe Windowses your way...
      I can see the advert now:-

      Free boobies for all! [wikipedia.org]
      Cute booby chicks for your delectation! aff
      en.wikipedia.org

    • Re:Sad... (Score:5, Funny)

      by ZOMFF (1011277) * on Wednesday May 16 2007, @07:39AM (#19143663) Homepage
      It's true. Free porn is a great way to get people to click on things they usually wouldn't click on. While I was in college about 8 years ago, I set up a porn share from my computer that was password protected. I also included a file called GET_PORN_PASSWORD.EXE which popped up a box with the password. The EXE also installed the client stub for Sub7 (a type of back-orafice program). Since Sub7 was fairly new, none of the antivirus software picked up on it. Over the next 24 hours I had pretty much 8,000 machines that I could fully remote, pull data off of, log key strokes, etc (my personal favorite was opening the cdrom drive and playing a "FEED ME" wave file).

      Luckily I was never questioned about the matter and by the time most people caught on, Antivirus definitions were updated to detect the Sub7 stub.

  • 0,16% (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JanneM (7445) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @04:53AM (#19142737) Homepage
    At a click rate of 0,16% - about one in 600 - I have to wonder if not a fairly large portion is simple click errors. You intend to click on some other link nearby on the page but by mistake click that one instead. There's several kind of interaction slips just like that that we do in other circumstances after all.

    • Underserved group (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nymz (905908) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:08AM (#19142805) Journal

      At a click rate of 0,16% - about one in 600 - I have to wonder if not a fairly large portion is simple click errors.

      At first I thought the same thing, just random misclicks. But then it hit me, there are a large number of users on the internet that don't have the know-how to install a virus on a computer of someone they hate, like an uppity coworker.

      Imagine a bussiness model that would allow anyone to simply 1-click and install a virus (not a feature, those are patentable). Revenue would be generated with advertisments downloaded by the trojan, that would popup at random times on the victims computer. In essence, the victim would have to pay for the service. Brilliant!

    • Re:0,16% Mac/Linux users (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nyctopterus (717502) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:10AM (#19142811) Homepage
      And of that tiny percentage how many were Windows users taking the fairly safe bet that the ad didn't do what it said?

      • Re:0,16% Mac/Linux users (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Zonk (troll) (1026140) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @06:27AM (#19143167)
        Virus scanners create a false sense of security.

        <user> I have Norton. My computer is now immune to all viruses.
        (one week later)
        <user> I have a virus, can you fix it?

        I've seen people many times think that because they had Norton or McAfee, that they could do whatever they want without having to worry about getting a virus and act reckless. Open every attachment they get in email, downloading and running random .exes from "FREE!!!!!!!!!" sites, use Internet Explorer, etc.

    • or cache pre-fetch (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jamesh (87723) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:44AM (#19142999)
      Would any aggressive cache pre-fetch engines follow links like this?

    • Re:0,16% (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dour power (764750) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @06:42AM (#19143243)
      Even those who deliberately clicked on the link could have easily read the text as, "Get it inspected here!" Not an excuse, but certainly understandable. How many /. article postings contain at least one sincere reply of the form, "Am I the only one who read that as...?"

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gordgekko (574109) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @04:54AM (#19142751) Homepage
    It's news that at least 0.16% of people are idiots? Actually I'm shocked the number was this low. This is actually good news.

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by julesh (229690) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:22AM (#19142893)
      Consider that click through rates to a relevant ad are typically less than 3%. This represents 5% of people who would normally click on an advert.

  • statistics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jonastullus (530101) * on Wednesday May 16 2007, @04:55AM (#19142755)
    sorry, couldn't RTFA because the link text was kinda prohibiting.

    the poster makes it sound as if the conclusion from the statistic is something like "oh my god, windows users are sooo dumb". but also quoting the percentage of all users using windows would reveal a prior probability of something in the 90s already. so, assuming that the "experiment" has an error greater 0, the deviation between the prior probability and 98% has almost no significance...

  • Not exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SolitaryMan (538416) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @04:59AM (#19142773) Homepage Journal

    The Google Adwords campaign cost $23 in total, which works out to $0.06 per infection had the site actually been malicious."

    Not exactly.

    $0.06 per infection attempt, which is obviously not the same thing.

  • Oh dear. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by massivefoot (922746) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:03AM (#19142791)
    This just goes to show, not matter how much you warn people they're about to do something really dumb, the still will. How many people do you think read that advert, though "No, it can't possibly mean that..." and then clicked on it to see?

  • Browser stats (Score:4, Interesting)

    by locofungus (179280) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:11AM (#19142825)
    The comments give the browser stats:

    335 - some version of IE
    52 - Some version of Firefox
    5 - other

    That gives Firefox a 15% share.

    Tim.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Torodung (31985)
      Pretty much reflects total market share almost 1:1. When 90% of the consumer market uses MS as their OS, is it terribly surprising that 85% of consumer *morons* use it?

      --
      Toro

          • Re:Browser stats (Score:4, Insightful)

            by NatasRevol (731260) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @07:26AM (#19143559) Journal
            Why should I have to work to protect my browser? Or my computer while just *going* to a web site.

            There's such a huge jump in logic there that it just befuddles me that 'configuring properly' is required to use the internet.

            No computer/browser is perfect, but it just makes basic sense to use a computer/browser that starts at a very secure state and allows you to open it up if you want/need. Rather than the other way around.

            <bad car analogy> It's like having to put rear view mirrors on your car after you buy it. </bad car analogy>

        • Re:Browser stats (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ArsenneLupin (766289) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @06:16AM (#19143125)

          Ha! I was going to suggest that firefox users are more "educated" and less likely to click on a link.
          It's not so simple. Their education allows them to know that they should not click on such a link in IE. But it also tells them to run Firefox. While running Firefox, especially on Linux, they would have no risk, and curiosity will win.

          It might be more interesting (but harder to obtain) a statistic broken down not only by the browser which user is currently using, but also by browser which they usually use. Here an "usual Firefox user currently stuck on IE" might be less likely to click on such a link. But such data can unfortunately not be obtained, short of asking user directly.

          Hmmm, and even in that case, the behavior might not be what would be expected. A "usual Firefox user currently stuck on IE" might still click on that link, in order to teach the party who stuck him on IE a lesson... Tricky, tricky...

          On the whole though I'd assume that there were the roughly same proportion of idiots in each camp
          Not necessarily. As shown above, both idiots and smart people might click on the link. But they would do so for different reasons.

  • Doesn't really mean much (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gazbo (517111) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:13AM (#19142839)
    Hell, if I saw that link I'd click on it for sure. Well, I might drop to Cygwin and use lynx "just in case", but there's no way I'd not investigate such a link.

  • ONLY? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:14AM (#19142845)
    0.16%? I'd have guessed far more would click.

    Next time call it "hot chicks with huge tits want to give you some love virus". I predict a /. effect.

  • Why does it matter what OS they were using? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Torodung (31985) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:14AM (#19142847) Journal
    I once explained that browser security is almost entirely determined by the user. This proves it. I wouldn't trust that 0.16% with a pocket calculator, let alone a computer!

    You can't write code or design software that will secure "stupid." Firefox and Linux are certainly easier to secure, and they have a better security model, but they aren't idiot proof.

    If those folks were using an abacus, they'd probably get their head stuck in it! <G>

    --
    Toro
  • sometimes you just like to know that it is working.

    I wonder if average users of AV software look at their "quarantined files" and do a rough calculation of how much each of them cost..

    "Hmm, I paid $60 for AV software this year and I've had a grand total of 4 files quarantined.. that's $12.50 per file."

    I guess not, as 99% of people probably have zero files quarantined, not counting the false positives (I know I do).

  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by julesh (229690) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:24AM (#19142901)
    Last time I ran a Google Adwords campaign, they'd drop your advert if you get less than a threshold clickthrough rate. I think it was 0.5%. It was certainly higher than 0.16%. So how did they do this? Have Google dropped that restriction?

  • For once I have an excuse... (Score:4, Funny)

    by JetScootr (319545) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:25AM (#19142903) Journal
    for not RTFA'ing. Being a true /.er, here's my opinion anyway:
    Microsoft sucks. Users are idiots.

  • click_me.exe (Score:4, Funny)

    by voudras (105736) <(voudras) (at) (swiftslayer.org)> on Wednesday May 16 2007, @05:49AM (#19143017)
    My good friend once joked that 95% of users would double click an icon named "ClickMe.EXE", without much thought at all.

    the other 5 percent would right click and select open.

  • Wait.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ZeroSerenity (923363) <gormac05@NOSPAm.yahoo.com> on Wednesday May 16 2007, @06:14AM (#19143105) Homepage Journal
    Was this story really submitted by Gates himself?

  • I worked with a guy... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by httpamphibio.us (579491) on Wednesday May 16 2007, @06:59AM (#19143349)
    He comes into work one day and you can tell by looking at him that he's pissed. He goes into the break room to get ready for the shift so I go back there and ask him what's wrong.

    He says, "I'm need a new ****ing computer."
    I ask why...
    "because the one I have now is too slow. I can't use the web because I get hundreds of popups."
    I tell him that's a pretty easy thing to fix and off to burn a CD and write up some directions for him.
    He tells me that won't work... again, I ask why.
    "Because I'm ****ing sick of Microsoft."
    I tell him I totally understand that, but that his problem with the pop-ups is pretty easy to fix.
    He says, "No, it's not. I click on all the Windows that ask me if I want to remove the viruses from my computer and they are always charging me $20-$40 per virus. I spent almost $400 last week!"

    Another computer savvy employee had joined the conversation by this point and we both looked at each other in complete disbelief. The guy wasn't joking...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ben there... (946946)
      If I had seen it I'd click it. Just for the hell of it. Not because I think Firefox is completely invulnerable, but because it has a low probability of infecting me. Best case I cost some moron some money. Worst case I find a hole in Fx. Why not? That is, if I paid any attention whatsoever to Google Ads.
    • 'I think it might very well be possible that many of those clicks are made from computers that are not owned by the user'

      Without any evidence to the contrary your argument is entirely specious. How do we know they weren't space aliens.

      was Re:Malicious intent (Score:5, excuses~1)

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.