Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC

The worst-case scenario used to be that online ads are pesky, memory-draining distractions. But a new batch of banner ads is much more sinister: They hijack personal computers and bully users until they agree to buy antivirus software. And the ads do their dirty work even if you don't click on them.The malware-spiked ads have been spotted on various legitimate websites, ranging from the British magazine The Economist to baseball's MLB.com to the Canada.com news portal. Hackers are using deceptive practices and tricky Flash programming to get their ads onto legitimate sites by way of DoubleClick's DART program. Web publishers use the DoubleClick-hosted platform to manage advertising inventory." CT: Link updated to original source instead of plagerizer.

oh great

So now I need to buy penis-enlargment pills AND and anti-virus.

Re:oh great

Yes, those two things often go together.

What are these "ads" you're talking about ?

That's why Firefox+NoScript+AdBlock Plus+Flashblock were invented

Never Experienced This

I've never come across one of these ads. In fact, I rarely get ads as I use the Adblock Plus [mozilla.org] plugin for Firefox. This just gives even more reason to ban advertisements entirely. Thanks!

Re:Never Experienced This

Adblock doesn't block these, as they constantly change the domain names. NoScript, which is otherwise way too paranoid and obtrusive for my taste, will do it.

Unrelated thoughts:

1) YouTube video is a rather inefficient way to distribute this analysis.

2) The security guy is way too kind to the sites hosting these ads. I've written to several of them, telling them how sleazy the ads are and how bad they make the site look, and the ads are still there.

3) How did YouTube decide that "ridiculously hot LATINA girl dancing, not asian!" is a Related Video? Except in the sense that it's always relevant, I mean.

Re:Never Experienced This

3) How did YouTube decide that "ridiculously hot LATINA girl dancing, not asian!" is a Related Video? Except in the sense that it's always relevant, I mean.

Finally a reason to RTFA

Re:Never Experienced This

Actually, these are getting into some reputable sites through places like DoubleClick, which is one of the domains that AdBlock targets, so in this case it will protect you. Now, on less reputable sites that are getting these things directly instead of through DoubleClick, yeah, AdBlock won't do much there.

Your company/family/school

Right, we all use Adblock and the like. Yet, you can't force everyone in the vicinity to do so, there are lesser minds who opt for Opera, and there's even a tiny portion of giants on Links -- and let's not even mention how low SOME folks can fall.

I would say that adzapper (if you use squid) or a DNS-based blacklist is quite mandatory wherever you do have a say. Glancing at the logs of ISPs I have root at, roughly 1/4 of all freaking http requests go to lowlifes -- and even that based on my grossly incomplete list of ad/spyware/tracking scum.

Yeah, 25%. That's horrible.
And there are some customers dumb enough to complain if you do protect them from ads, so you can't do this in an ISP scenario. But in a company, school or family? Hell yeah, there's no reason for doubleclick.com to get through, ever.

Re:Your company/family/school

Opera is faster and more secure. Opera 9.5 is even faster, making Safari bite the dust. It also uses less memory.

It also can block ads (although not with a blacklist as FF, but you can block whole domains).

To me the lesser minds are the ones that can't respect other people choices.

Spotted in the Field

I ran into one of these buggers while surfing news sites. Since I had many tabs open I'm not sure which one featured the poisoned ads, but I was fairly surprised when my Firefox 2 running under Leopard started coughing up fake, Vista-style dialogue boxes and floating window ads, as if I were using a common gutter computer like a Dell.

And the funny thing is...

Some people complain about Firefox AdBlock? Sheesh.

Note to self: remember to program Adblock to reject everything from DoubleClick from now on, on all home computers.

AdBlock and NoScript

I use these exclusively, are there reports that this method gets by them? I know that if the ad is blocked, it isn't downloaded, but is that all it takes, download the ad and you have the virus?

Sounds like a reason to just block all double-click items...

I don't enable flash/scripts on any page unless it is needed -- like scripts for /.

who is to blame

Great, now we can await a round of finger pointing to begin over who is liable.

Ah, let the blame game begin

The malware-spiked ads have been spotted on various legitimate websites, ranging from the British magazine The Economist to baseball's MLB.com to the Canada.com news portal.

...and since those sites outsource to Doubleclick, they'll point a finger at them. Doubleclick will no doubt point the finger at some previously-unheard-of company that "solicits advertisements for the Doubleclick network", and they'll point the finger at their "client."

Meanwhile, The Economist, MLB, Canada.com, etc won't take responsibility for the content they present on their website (after all, they chose to use Doubleclick, they chose to put advertisements on the website, they chose not to require approval of ads before they were shown on their website, etc.) Funny how everyone is trigger-happy when it comes to copyright, but when it comes to content they present causing harm, it ain't theirs, eh? :-)

Doubleclick, of course, won't accept responsibility for vetting advertising distributed via their channel (which seems like a standard business procedure for, oh, an advertising network?) The only comfort is the mechanism of the free market: if website users get pissed enough, said websites might put pressure on Doubleclick or leave them altogether. That's bad for Doubleclick business, so maybe Doubleclick will consider vetting ads better, or run checks to see that flash code doesn't do certain things, etc. Then again, if the malicious banner ad suppliers are paying good enough money, Doubleclick may be perfectly happy to issue a press release "apologizing" and keep right on doing business as usual.

Re:Ah, let the blame game begin

Meanwhile, The Economist, MLB, Canada.com, etc won't take responsibility for the content they present on their website (after all, they chose to use Doubleclick, they chose to put advertisements on the website, they chose not to require approval of ads before they were shown on their website, etc.) Funny how everyone is trigger-happy when it comes to copyright, but when it comes to content they present causing harm, it ain't theirs, eh?

And speaking of "trigger-happy", you seem to point the finger right back at the Web sites for not inspecting the ads and the underlaying code. Well, that's what they hire DoubleClick for, thats one of the points for using outside ad servers. DoubleClick (and its Mother Ship Google) where not doing their jobs. It was THEIR responsibility to know that the ads THEY served where ligit or not. That's why THEY make the "big bucks". Google is good, Google is God...

chain of responsibility

And speaking of "trigger-happy", you seem to point the finger right back at the Web sites for not inspecting the ads and the underlaying code. Well, that's what they hire DoubleClick for,

And who decided to hire DoubleClick, instead of (as you mention) Google AdSense or a hundred other advertising networks, all of varying reputation, levels of annoying-ness, etc? Who negotiated the terms of the contract, which could have required vetting of ads by Doubleclick? Who had the power to chose between text, GIF, and Flash based ads? Who benefits financially from the presentation of those ads?

So, again tell me who is responsible for ME getting an infected PC visiting that website? If GM makes a car and the wheel falls off because Bob's Bolts sold them defective bolts, I can still sue GM for selling me a car on the reasonable assumption that GM would test bolts before putting them in a hundred thousand vehicles...and GM made the decision to buy from that particular supplier.

The way the world works is: I sue GM. GM then sues Bob's Bolts for damages (ie to reputation, the money they had to give me and spend on legal defense, cost of recall, etc.) Bob's Bolts then may sue Smith's Steel for selling them crappy steel.

Or, in this case: I sue The Economist for infecting my machine. The Economist turns around and sues Doubleclick for providing malicous ads. Doubleclick may then turn around and sue the company that made the malicious ads, for violating the terms of contract with Doubleclick specifying no malicious content...

TFA = Site scraping?

The flibby link is identical to this Wired blog post [wired.com] by Betsy Schiffman, dated four days earlier.

ISP's should block DoubleClick

This is a good enough reason for ISP's concerned about security to block DoubleClick. You spam the net with bad referrals you get binned. Also think of the traffic that would get binned, way better than blocking p2p.

Do it for a month and DoubleClick and their ilk will be extra sure about not hosting bad stuff.

Adblock, flashblock

Nothing to see here, please move along.

Technological Darwinism in action.

Not exactly new

This has been going on since flash 8 was released with a vulnerability. I got hit by this about a year ago, maybe a little more.

  Suddenly windows security center, that I routinely turn off because I can't stand the nagging, started up and told me that my computer was insecure and that I should go to a certain website and buy their virus defender software.

Not very subtle to a savvy person like myself, but I imagine some people would fall for it.

The box also started throwing up connection error message boxes, presumably because my external firewall were blocking outgoing connection attempts. Again not subtle, but it's an uncommon setup for a home user.

Third, it must have rooted the box somehow because certain files became invisible. "test.exe" among them. Renaming a textfile to text.exe would make it disappear, and the folder would be unremovable. Cygwin came to the rescue there. Also I noticed only because I happened to have lots of little crap programs laying around.

The virus scanners did not pick up on this.

This is the only time I have actually contracted a virus. Needless to say I hosed the box (PING is not disk image). What I learned from the experience is that knowing your system is way more effective than a virus scanner, and B) don't trust flash which is how I got the damn thing. I thought I was safe with firefox.

Terrible relationships with their advertisers

Content providers need to be responsible for the content of the ads posted on their sites - that's a given. TFA indicates that these content providers (the people behind NHL.com, for example) simply received payment for these ads via credit card or wire transfer and then posted the content. If these sites used a network television model, they would have intimate relationships with the advertisers and would work together to provide less offensive and more effective ads. I don't think they need to go that far (network television ads are far from perfect, although they are quite effective), but clearly MLB.com and NHL.com need to be held responsible for the content on their sites, and hopefully this will encourage better cooperation between site hosts and advertisers.

Say.. doesn't Slashdot use Doubleclick?

I'm pretty sure it does because I had to wait 30 seconds for any page of Slashdot's to render fully yesterday because Firefox was busy waiting for ad2.doubleclick.com or somesuch subdomain of theirs. The current page source certainly has doubleclicky ads.

Now, granted, the malware distributors typically tag ads for subjects not often seen on Slashdot (but I get them on, e.g., the Sinfest comic - huh, imagine that).

I'd say it's about time Doubleclick (that's you, Google, if you finally get to say you did indeed acquire it and everybody OK'd the deal.) gets held a little more responsible for this sort of thing being done through their network for which they collect money.

!news

This is going on prety much since the beginning of the (http-based) web as we know it, first by browser exploits then by flash and activex and whatever else

definetly not news

Doubleclick sent out a notice Friday

here's a list of the sites that contained the malware:
100it.info, 10smi.info, 2greatfind.com, 2quickfind.com, 3akoh.net, Ad2cash.net, Ad2profit.com, Adcomatoz.com, Adgurman.com, Adhokuspokus.com, Adnetserver.com, Adredired.com, Adsolutio.com, Adtraff.com, Adverdaemon.com, Adverlounge.com, Adzyclon.com, Alg-search.com, Alhoster.com, Aligarx.biz, All-search-it.com, Alphatown.us, Anmira.info, Anonymbrowser.com, Antivirussecuritypro.com, Aptprog.com, Art-earn.biz, Astalaprofit.com, Autodealer-search.com, B2adz.com, Bazaard.com, Belkran.com, Belshar.com, Bestadmedia.com, Best-biznes.info, Best-cools.info, Bestdatafinder.com, Besteversearch.com, Bestpharmacydeals.com, Best-screensavers.biz, Bestsearchnet.com, Bestshopz.com, Bestwm.info, Bestwnvmovies.com, Bezzz.info, Bi-bi-search.com, Bizadverts.com, Bizmarketads.com, Blessedads.com, Bm-redy.com, Bovavi.com, Brandmarketads.com, Bucksinsoft.com, Burnads.com, Cancerno.com, Candid-search.com, Carpropane.com, Cashloanprofit.com, Casinoaceking.com, Casinoby.com, Casinodealsgalore.com, Cha-cha-search.com, Cheap-auto-deals.com, Checkstocklist.com, Chushok.com, Clever-at-search.com, Clubheat.info, Come-from-stars.com, Co-search.com, Creamme.net, Cryptdrive.com, Cyndyk.info, Deuscleanerpay.com, Didosearch.com, Diphelp.biz, Dmitry-v.info, Doma2000.com, Durtsev.com, Easybestdeals.com, Energostroj.com, Enothost.com, Eroticabsolute.com, Errordigger.com, Errorinspector.com, Evrogame.info, Fandasearch.com, Fantazybill.com, Fastwm.info, Fastzetup.info, Fati-gati-search.com, Favourable-search.com, Favouriteshop.com, Feel-search.com, F-host.net, Fifaallchamp.com, Fight-arts.com, Fileprotector.com, Findbyall.com, Firstbestsearch.com, Firstlastsearch.com, First-ts.com, Foamplastic.net, Fokus-search.com, Force-search.com, Forceup.com, Forex-instruments.info, Forvatormail.com, Freepcsecure.com, Freerepair.org, Freetvnow.net, Friedads.com, Fulsearch.com, Getfreecar.com, Gibdd.us, Glass-search.com, Glorymarkets.com, Gosthost.net, Great4mac.com, Greyhathosting.com, Gt-search.com, Hackerpro.us, Hardlinecenter.com, Hebooks-service.com, Hintway-international.com, Homeofsite.com, Hromeos.com, Hyip2all.org, Icq-lot.org, Iddqdmarketing.com, Ideal-search.com, Idea-rem.com, I-forexbank.biz, I-games.biz, Imamis.net, Individ-search.com, Information-advertising.info, Infyte.com, Initial-search.com, Insochi2014.com, Installprovider.com, Internetadaultfriend.com, Internetanonymizer.com, Internetsupernanny.com, Intervarioclick.com, Investmentsgroup.org, Invulnerableads.com, It-translation.biz, Izol-tech.com, Kamerton-tests.com, Kazilkasearch.com, Keytooday.com, Keywordcpv.com, Kiridi.net, Kpoba.net, Kurgan45.info, Ladadc.com, Lanastyle.com, Ldizain.info, Libresystm.com, Liders.biz, Linii.net, Liveclix.net, Loffersearch.com, Londasearch.com, Lovecraft-forum.net, Loveopen.info, Lseom.biz, Luckyadcoin.com, Luckyadsols.com, Mad-search.com, Magicsearcher.com, Mailcap.info, Manage-search.com, Marketingdungeon.com, Mass-send.com, Max-expo.net, Maxyanoff.com, Mediatornado.com, Mega-project.biz, Megashopcity.com, Mightyfaq.com, Misc-search.com, Mobilesoftmarketing.com, Mobiletops.com, Mobilorg.org, Moneycometrue.com, Moneypalacecash.com, Mounthost.net, Myfavouritesearch.com, Myhealth-life.org, Myonlinefinance.com, Mysurvey4u.com, Mythmarketing.com, Mytravelgeek.com, Myusefulsearch.com, Napol.net, Navygante.com, Netmediagroup.net, Netturbopro.com, Newbieadguide.com, Nryb.com, Of-by.info, Olgalml.com, Ol-search.com, Onedaysoft.com, Onestopshopz.com, Onwey.com, Opensols.com, Original-search.com, Osetua.com, Osminog.org, Parischat.org, Passwordinspector.com, Pcsoftw.com, Pcsupercharger.com, Performanceoptimizer.com, Piramidki.com, Podelkin.info, Popadprovider.com, Popsmedia.com, Popupnukerpro.com, Postcity.info, Prenetsearch.com, Prevedmarketing.com, Prizesforyou.com, Pro-dom.info, Propotolok.info, Pro-svet.info, R2d2adverising.com, Radiosfera.net, Rocktheads.com, Roller-search.com, Rombic-search.com, Rus-invest.net, Rusnets.info, Russia-post.com, Sajruen.info, Samson-pro.com, Sauni.net, Se7ensearch.com, Search-and-win.com,

Old news.. and a very old problem.

Seriously, I wrote about exactly the same thing here [dynamoo.com] a month ago, although I could identify Doubleclick as the network running the ads. It's quite amusing to see that the fake anti-spyware app claims that you have Windows malware on your Linux box.

Still, griping aside it's good to see this hijack getting a higher profile. However, I had a note from someone who had come across a hijacked banner on Yahoo! just today, so it's clear that the banners are still out there.

Banner hijacks for this type of rich media ad are not a new problem [dynamoo.com]. It's not a problem you generally see with good old fashioned GIF and JPG banners, or plain text ads.

hosts file

all the more reason to set up a host file

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]

F the Flash garbage

Flash has always been an insecure resource hog.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of folks get talked into using flash on their sites by web designers who just want to maximize billable hours. Often their sites fail at the basic function of conveying information because they don't include HTML versions of the information people are looking for. A great example are bands with tour information in Flash only. Most of the artists don't even know about the problem. Unfortunately the people who answer webmaster@site are often those reaping the cash rewards of flash-only implementations.

I don't allow flash in my primary browser and also disable javascript. I won't visit websites that require Flash. Just say no.

Tales of the Obvious

I've seen shit as brazen as this for decades. Most notably the sort of poorly-constructed pop-ups that leave me thinking, "That would fool my mom. I need to warn her." When confronted by this sort of criminal code, I open the task manager and dump the browser entirely. Sure, I lose every tab I have open, and everything I was doing up until that point, but oh well. NEVER click OK if it's NOT OK.

yet another reason...

to block doubleclick

Adblock, hosts file, iptables, surfing the net with lynx, etc. Pick a method you like and enjoy life without doubleclick.

Why aren't we blaming the browser?

Everyone is cheering for AdBlock when they read this, but why is it ok that a browser can install spyware, viruses, etc when you are browsing a web page? Shouldn't this be something that can only happen on sites that you explicitly permit or upon agreeing to a dialog asking if it's ok to run a given program? If you can experience this problem with double-click, then you can experience the same problem with any web site out there, so I'd much rather see us fixing the security holes in various browsers.

Re:Why aren't we blaming the browser?

Flash is a plugin, it's what needs to enforce a security model. Also, sites need to step up and stop allowing exploitative ads. If an ad is clearly posing as a windows dialog box, then that ad shouldn't be allowed onto your site.

Allright, I give up... Adblock time

So after so many years I just now installed ad block plus. I never went through with it before because I would occasionally click on an ad... maybe every other month? I never felt bad about it because those ads were usually on the developer sites that I use constantly... if clicking their ad can give them a few cents and give me some information I need, I've more than paid for my individual usage of their site.
But if the biggest names in advertising cant keep their act together, then I just don't see how anyone can justify allowing ads any longer.
~Phil

Are you surprised? Risks of client-side scripting

The risks of client-side scripting that use unsafe languages (including Flash and its ActionScript) make the extra functionality not worth it to me. If you want to be safe, disable scripting and live without it, or use NoScript. I hope some day scripting will become safe, but it clearly isn't now.

Doubleclick could fix this in 2 seconds

From TFA: The malware looks like a ordinary Flash file, with its redirect function encrypted, so that when publishers upload it, the malware is not detectable.

All Doubleclick has to do is require the actionscript source code for all ads. There is *no good reason* for an advertiser to hide anything from doubleclick. Send doubleclick your sourcecode. They will compile it into a .swf file. If you don't like that policy, then you can find another distributer for your ads. If your actionscript is so convoluted or obfuscated that doubleclicks programmer can't figure it out, then you can wait in line until the programmer can figure it out, or you can simplify it.

Problem solved.

the common denominator

the common denominator in all this is MS-Windows, get rid of windows (if possible) and you will be much better off with an immunity from this sort of infection, use some variation of *nix (BSD of Linux) and as others in this article commented using AddBlock & NoScript extensions on Firefox is your best bet at stopping this sort of thing...

Kent Brockman

I think Kent Brockman already reported on this:

Even as I speak the scourge of advertising could be heading to your town. Lock your doors, bar your windows, because the next advertisement you see could destroy your house and eat your family!

Popup? Click the red X square.

Since I can't trust any of the buttons in a pop up, I usually close them using the red X square, We call it the "Go Away Box" around here, so I've forgotten its given name. Will this work for this kind of ad? I am thinking it's safe because my OS is putting that button on a frame around the ad's window.

problem is actually javascript not flash

FYI - Flash can call javascript within actionscript code. The only reason to use flash for this hack is to hide the javascript code from reviewers, since it's illegal to decompile an swf.

What in the world...

(First, Slashdot: why does the Reply button for a new comment have to be a button? I want to reply in a new tab, and I can't open a new tab from a button.)

Now the main issue: What's up with the article link? hhttp:wwwwiredcomtechbizmedianews200711doubleclick doesn't look like any URL I've ever seen.

CORRECT Wired address

The one in the article is broken

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

Google hole that allows a similar attack

There's a related hole in Google Maps, an "open redirector", that allows this exploit. Here's an example:

Caution - hostile URL Close the page displayed; don't click on anything on it. [google.com].

Note that it fools Slashdot, and most link scanners in spam filters, into accepting the URL as leading to "google.com". But, in fact, it redirects to the "malware-scan.com" hostile site, which will try to install an Active-X control.

We've been finding attacks like this up with SiteTruth [sitetruth.com], by using PhishTank [phishtank.com] information to down-rate sites that have open redirectors. We've found open redirectors on Google and AOL. They're actively being exploited.

So we're currently down-rating Google [sitetruth.com], and AOL. [sitetruth.com]. It may seem drastic to downrate an entire major site because they have a few "minor" exploits. PhishTank itself only blacklists specific hostile URLs. But that's no longer enough. Most modern phishing attacks use a unique URL, and often a unique subdomain, for each user attacked. SiteTruth thus takes a harder line. If a domain hosts something one of the data sources says is an attack, it downrates the whole domain automatically.

It's within the power of the site operator to close such security holes. We encourage them to do so.

Banner attacks started as early as 2004

In reality, these kind of attacks have been happening for years. Netcraft first reported on banner network hijacking more than three years ago, in August 2004 [netcraft.com], and cited similar attacks that may go back as far as 2001. High-profile sites that have been affected almost from the start. In November 2004 [netcraft.com], the web sites of The Register, NBC/Universal, The Golf Channel, The A&E Network and Sony Pictures Digital were used to distribute malware.

Who broke the link?

"hhttp:wwwwiredcomtechbizmedianews200711doubleclick"
Is so not a valid url.

In Soviet Russia

...the monkey punches you.

Adding insult to disgust to injury...

PayPal has a "Virtual Debit Card" that you can use to access your PayPal account. Prior to downloading the software, you're asked to verify your system requirements. If everything checks out, you can then download and install the software.

Here's the rub - when you click on the "Download Now" button, it actually sends you to DoubleClick.net site. Then the DoubleClick.net site redirects you back to the PayPal site and starts downloading the application. If you have DoubleClick.net blocked in your hosts file, like I do, then you can't download the software.

Why?

It is so that DoubleClick.net can plant a first-party cookie, spy on your activities, direct advertisements to you... PayPal has just submitted ALL your information AND the fact that you use PayPal, AND the fact that you purchase stuff online, AND, AND, AND... Then DoubleClick.net can target you for highly targeted advertisements.

This is just unconscionable. PayPal deserves all the flame they're gonna get over this one.

I block some before they reach my router!

Thanks to OpenDNS I can filter the worst of the worst advertising systems BEFORE the even reach my home! So it does not matter WHAT OS or browser you use. That way I can protect EVERYONE in my home from that DoubleClick crap!

Personally I feel that Flash adverts are too invasive. There is no need to use Flash! Animated GIF and other eye-catching techniques are far more effective.
And the WORST are the Flash adverts that make NOISE!!!! I find that just plain offensive!

MLB.com is a legitimate website?

That's not what I heard. [slashdot.org]

just another reason to go to Linux

Just another reason I am on the Microsoft colonic program!

Linux Mint
Firefox
Adblock Plus
No Script
Customize Google
Safe Cache
Safe History

Couldn't be happier with Mint, Open Office, Compiz, Thunderbird, etc.!

This whole thing is phoney to begin with.

The whole issue of banner ads, spam in your inbox, etc., is DON'T CLICK THE LINKS! DON'T PATRONIZE THEM! You donkoft!

I think the video said it rather succinctly by demonstrating the idiot went and clicked on a banner ad. Sorry I didn't see anything unusual that I don't normally see and I click the RED X to get rid of it.... or better yet; stop using Internet Exploder!!!

Firefox rulz!!

Yahoo, too...

Tonight I visited Yahoo mail.

My browser window shrank and moved, and a pop-up window wanted me to visit http://scanner2.malware-scan.com/3_swp/?aid=threw6ar_ma3&lid=&ax=1&ed=2&mt_info=4961_3078_11003 [malware-scan.com] in order to rid my computer of viruses and malwares...

Beef.

Re:I only found these ads on....

Actually, this is not news. Those of you who are/wee usual visitors of WaReZ sites or WareZ engines like astalavista.com will know that this kind of "ads" have out there working for years now. The difference is that now it seems like respetable sites are hosting them directly or indirectly via some ad provider.

BTW these ads are not directly dangerous unless you are running on some old browser/old Windows system, but yes, they are annoying as hell.

Re:I only found these ads on....

BTW these ads are not directly dangerous unless you are running on some old browser/old Windows system, but yes, they are annoying as hell.

Um, wrong. Watch the video [youtube.com]. The guy is running Windows XP SP 2.

Re:I only found these ads on....

One should click the "X" to close out such windows - or likely better yet, especially when in doubt, do so via keyboard CTRL-F4 (think that's the combo).

Anyone who has done some VB programming, etc is well aware that the labels on dialogue boxes can say most anything and be assigned to most anything - problem here is that most Window's users don't know that "Cancel" can be assigned to the same function as "Yes", etc ... don't trust any option shown, use the "X" instead; that's not full-proof either, but much safer than clicking "No", "Cancel", etc.

Ron

Re:The evils of Javascript

Javascript's alignment notwithstanding, it is not implicated by TFA in this particular situation. This is about the evils of Flash.

Re:So THAT's what it was...

Anyone know if using Opendns DNS servers helps at all to prevent infection? Longshot I know.

Re:I've seen this

Nothing much if you catch it in NO CARRIER....

Re:I wonder...

Be careful! Make sure that when you hover over the "X" button, a hand doesn't come up (meaning it's a link)! I've seen those before. I'll just use task manager at that point. Evil Evil!

Re:So THAT's what it was...

I've had the same problem with my home XP machine - I think I managed to block any installation, but I cannot be sure. I haven't noticed anything strange in the behaviour of that machine, but can you tell me how I make sure it isn't infected? What do I look for? Thanks...