Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Security Windows

Porn Sites More Infected Than Thought 170

Posted by timothy
from the we-need-some-um-research-funds dept.
nk497 writes "Porn sites are five times as likely to host malware as previously thought, with 3.6% offering up a digital infection of some sort, according to a researchers who set up their very own adult sites for a new study. One reason for the high rate of malware is that the online porn industry makes use of affiliate programs, where one site will drive traffic to another in exchange for links, cash, or simply free pornographic material to use. Because such programs don't check who they're doing business with, and sites use disguised links and other clandestine methods to drive people to different pages, it's easy for criminals to abuse the system to spread malware. Researcher Gilbert Wondracek said, 'They inadvertently have created an ecosystem that can easily be abused on a large scale by cyber criminals, and that's worrying.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Porn Sites More Infected Than Thought

Comments Filter:
  • Weird (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12 2010, @02:46PM (#32551460)

    Weird.

    That is WAY lower than I'd have expected.

  • by blai (1380673) on Saturday June 12 2010, @02:46PM (#32551462)
    Not yet [failblog.org]?
  • Alternatively (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SamSim (630795) on Saturday June 12 2010, @02:47PM (#32551468) Homepage Journal

    I don't know the stats, but maybe it's more correct to say that malware sites are more likely to host pornography than they are to fall into other categories? It's probably the best way to attract large streams of users.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12 2010, @02:48PM (#32551478)
    No shit. File this under "beyond obviousness."

    Slashdot needs to focus on real nerd stuff. For example, my computer is really slow lately and should have more links on how to deal with that!

  • by GilliamOS (1313019) on Saturday June 12 2010, @02:49PM (#32551482)
    You might catch something playing the field if you don't use protection!
  • by Bieeanda (961632) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:06PM (#32551592)
    Porn sites aren't the only ones promiscuously mixing affiliates: there's a great deal of it going on with otherwise decent web advertisers as well, with results that range from the merely annoying to just as dangerous. It's very difficult to track the sources down beyond the first few layers because the whole thing is a bunged-up mess.
  • by Tanktalus (794810) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:06PM (#32551594) Journal

    They just did. This article is on exactly that topic. :-P

  • Gambling sites (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Grand Facade (35180) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:07PM (#32551598)

    probably take a close second to pron.

  • by Perp Atuitie (919967) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:19PM (#32551684)
    not only because of the sloppy tech, but because of the clientele. Lots of money flowing from folks trying to lose their real identities and who are less likely than most to try and seek investigations if they get scammed. Doesn't get better than this.
  • by Aladrin (926209) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:29PM (#32551756)

    On the other hand, the kind of person that surfs for porn in a public place is the kind you want to clean up after, computer viruses or not. She's making a smart move, if for the wrong reason.

  • Re:Alternatively (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Hatchet (1766306) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:38PM (#32551816)

    Well, there are tons of ways to attract large streams of users, but I think you are write hear. From what I have seen, most porn sites infected with maleware are literally stealing the porn from other sites, none of it is original, and you can never actually reach good porn, just links to porn that link to virii.

    To be honest, it sounds to me like the porn industry hates those bastards as much as we do.

    Also, having a stream of users that is not in a clear state of mind, frantically looking for something good to get off on, so they are really not as likely check the credentials of the site or think at all before clicking on something. It probably makes them easier to manipulate, and therefore easier to hack.

  • Re:That's ok... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:44PM (#32551850) Journal
    I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic/rhetorical
  • by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Saturday June 12 2010, @03:45PM (#32551866) Journal

    ...nothing on your HD is touched.

    What hard drive? ;-)

  • by N0Man74 (1620447) on Saturday June 12 2010, @04:46PM (#32552240)

    I think most of us realize that scammers, cheaters, criminals, and fraudsters prefer 2 types of targets:

    1) Those who are safe/easy prey.
    2) Those who they can justify doing it to, or even deserve it.

    Because of too many people find porn to be embarrassing or shameful, some people may not want to report or fight back. They make themselves into easy marks. Also, it's easy to find people who want porn, especially free porn (because of embarrassment, lots of people don't want their identities and payments traced back to them for these sites).

    Also, because porn is perceived as such a shady thing, it's easy for some to justify screwing over these types of people.

    In the end it's about getting away with it without being plagued by a guilty conscious.

  • by ArundelCastle (1581543) on Saturday June 12 2010, @05:04PM (#32552354)

    Because when I want to take a ten minute break for random browsing, I *really* want to shut down everything I'm in the middle of doing and reboot twice.

    OTOH, if more porn sites said they were best viewed on Linux, I'm sure it would help market.. er... penetration.

  • Re:That's ok... (Score:3, Insightful)

    But that's ok... only ethically bad people use pornography, right? Right?

    According to quite a few people, yes. Pornography exploits women by treating them as objects or "pieces of meat" for sinful men. There are many who hold such opinions and who argument and lobby strongly for pornography to be heavily censored or more preferable banned in order to protect women and especially children.

    Funnily enough, most of these same people beleive a woman's place is in the home, subservient to her husband, and largely removed from the democratic process. So something tells me they're not in it for the women they're supposedly fighting for.

  • Re:That's ok... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Maarx (1794262) on Saturday June 12 2010, @06:43PM (#32552968)

    I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic/rhetorical

    Where I come from, we shorten that sentence to "wooosh".

  • Re:Tits or GTFO (Score:2, Insightful)

    by clustro (1811836) on Saturday June 12 2010, @09:51PM (#32553864)

    Totally agree.

    I personally have never had any problems whatsoever getting my hands (err... eyes rather) on pr0n, without any sort of virus nonsense. It still amazes me how gullible are, installing those bullshit porno-dialers on their computers and getting a $500 phone bill the next month for calling long distance to Christmas Island or some damned place.

    For all intents and purposes, the pornography-access problem is solved - there is no incentive for anyone would pay for pornography anymore. Even if you locked-down every leaked porno video from a paysite, there are still tons of insanely hot (and stupid) girlfriends, hood rats, and drunk chicks willing to get nekkid for the testosterone-charged 4chan hordes - completely free of charge. Some even fuck on camera and let their boyfriends upload it to youporn. And there is always beloved Bittorrent and Usenet.

    Just be sure to have NoScript (and maybe RequestPolicy too) on to be safe. TrueCrypt is also handy for securely storing the hit parade.

  • Re:That's ok... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12 2010, @10:53PM (#32554118)

    Pornography exploits women

    Hell, if that's being "exploited" then somebody exploit me.

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.

Working...