Snopes Pushing Zango Adware

DaMan writes "Here's something that isn't an urban legend — Snopes, the popular urban legends reference site, has been pushing adware, for at least 6 months, to users via ads displayed on its Web site. No one seems to have called them on it until recently."

Re:all about the money

[Anonymous Coward]

I just tried to fill out their Contact Us page to ask them about their use of the Zango malware. My form submission threw an error on their server side ASP code. The really scary thing, look at the error message:

Error Type:
Microsoft VBScript runtime (0x800A01A
Object required: 'zango' /cgi-bin/comments/webmail.asp, line 132

We'll see if any spam starts coming in to the (unique) address that I submitted to that form.

What this says to me though is that not only are they including JavaScript for an ad banner network, but their server side code is making references to 'zango' by name, implying a deeper relationship.

I think it's safe to assume for the time being that Snopes probably doesn't have your best interests at heart, and to not use an e-mail address that you care about if you choose to communicate with them.

Re:Oneword

[Kelson]

Who needs adblock? I just run a stock Firefox, and visit Snopes regularly. Every once in a while a pop-up appears and is instantly squashed. I can't remember the last time I saw one stay up long enough to read what it was advertising.

Re:I don't see any claim for driveby install

[loss angeles]

But he does say that since people trust Snopes that the software appears to be enorsed by Snopes. Which would lead people to go ahead and install it.

So.. Snopes readers... Who are generally somewhat cautious, skeptical or suspicious sorts, if only because they're most likely there to debunk some urban legend that's been going around... Are going to blindly install a shady virus scanner from a pop-up window ad.

I'm sure there's an exception to prove the rule, but I just don't see it happening. The fact that it hasn't been noticed for so long is a pretty good indication that most Snopes readers don't even allow pop-ups, or if they do they tune them out without a thought like they do on a hundred other sites a week.

All this says to me is that Snopes isn't careful who they allow as sponsors. After being a very casual visitor of Snopes for over a decade I think it's safe to say that while the quality of writing and research is pretty good, it's not exactly a "professional" site. It's quite possible that the editors themselves had no idea these ads were there, particularly if they use a middleman or service to broker their advertising.

Blocking Zango at the network level?

[macdaddy]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like to block Zango at the network level. Does anyone have the repository of information needed to create an effective block? I'm talking about RIR assignments, ASNs, SWIPed allocations, domain names, etc. Does anyone know of such a source? With this information I can ensure that none of my users ever have to put up with this Zango horse shit again.

Re:"there practically every time" - not for me

[greg1104]

I get some sort of pop-up (which Firefox initally blocked) within a few refreshes of every time I clear the cookies on the browser. All the ones I've been getting are for Netflix and similarly decent companies, haven't seen the adware one yet.

Re:Obnoxious Advertising

[STrinity]

A few days ago I posted a joking comment along the lines of, "What, Slashdot has ads? One of these days I need to browse without Adblock," and some jerk flamed me for being a freeloader. Well this is exactly why I go overkill with anti-adware programs.

Re:No urban legend, that's confirmed.

[Web Goddess]

Please let's not jump to conclusions.
Snopes has been a *good* site since way back.

Sure they don't have telephone access to their personal phone via whois. Do you? I sure the heck don't; I conceal my personal data. And poor snopes.com ... running on Microsoft ... my heart goes out to them. They don't know Linux, they're not power users like us. I am sure there is an explanation!!!

Benefit of a Doubt to Barbara -- voice of Reason

Wendy

Re:Obnoxious Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

You realise that Filterset_G is now old and busted?

From the Wikipedia entry (you can find out more info on the adblock plus site):

"Although Filterset.G is compatible with Adblock Plus, it is no longer recommended by the Adblock Plus maintainer. It is intentionally made not compatible with the built-in subscription model of Adblock Plus, requiring the use of the separate updater extension, it increases load times for pages compared to other subscription lists, and depends extensively on whitelist exception rules, which can't be overridden and can actually prevent ads from being blocked"

Just use EasyList. It's much, much better these days.

Rot From The Top

[hyades1]

Given the earlier statement that a Wikipedia entry had been altered to hide the Snopes/Malware connection, it seems to me that it's unlikely the people running the site are unaware of the predatory advertising practice occurring under their aegis.

Writing M$ to save space in a comment's subject

[tepples]

I'll field that one. My experience of people who seriously use terms like M$ or Windoze (or open sores for that matter) are generally either trolling, morons or fanatics (or some combination).

I agree about "Windoze", but I disagree about "M$". But what's your experience of somebody who spells it "Microsoft" in the body but spells it "M$" in the subject to save space? Have you considered that it could just be an allusion to Microsoft's BASIC interpreters, as in the following statement?

10 LET M$ = "Microsoft"

I see the BASIC style "M$" as no more harmful than the Perl/PHP style "$distro".