Miscreants have set out to poison search results with links to malware infested sites via a new campaign. Users searching Google or other prominent search engines for sites referring to innocuous terms ranging from "alternative router firmware" to "cotton gin and slavery" are often confronted with a list of results where at …
"Search engines such as Google give priority to sites linked to from popular web destinations."
Would using scandoo help to protect against some of the malware?
Ah - alternative router firmware, cotton gins and slavery - three great tastes that go great together.
On to. Two words.
I don't mind mobe and lappy, but please stop using *onto. There is no such word.
Does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank explain what you want to know?
Onto is a preposition. check word web.
Google should be scanning sites
Seeing as Google spiders sites anyway, why aren't they also looking for well known exploits/viruses/Trojans at the same time. It's not too hard to imagine that being possible with their resources. They could flag or exclude questionable sites in their results or penalise the page rank. It's not like this isn't something you could automate, unlike - say - Google images, which must be more resource intensive to manage.
You might argue that they have some obligation to check that they aren't leading you into malware in much the same way a taxi driver should normally not drive you into a tree.
Standardized LART Form
Standardized LART Form for poor computer security articles. Released under the GPL v2 for everyone to use. See http://www.gnu.org/
Check all that apply to this article. You may have to delete unchecked items to fit in the space alloted by the author's comment form.
For a copy of this form, visit:
Troll-O-Meter: (1 out of 10) You're operating a toll bridge out of season without a permit
Flame Meter / Threat Level: (0 out of 10) Paper bag full of air
BS Meter: (4 out of 10) "We are not in the business of scaring people"
======Conditions of exploitation
Your article assumes the victim:
[X] Uses Microsoft Windows [X] ...with Administrator access [X] ...without regularly visiting Windows Update [X] ...and turns off User Account Control (Vista)
The problem described was addressed:
[X] More than a month ago by a simple workaround [X] ...more than five years ago [X] By the current version of whatever has this problem [X] ...by the previous version
Reproducing and/or exploiting the problem requires:
[X] Clicking a malicious web link [X] ...while logged on as an Administrator
Exploiting the problem also requires:
[X] Google [X] Blogspot / Blogger / other major blog site
======Umbrella salesmen predicting bad weather
Your article cites:
[X] A computer security firm
The quoted person / firm / organization:
[X] Has a fix for the problem for a price [X] Predicts the death of the Internet as a result [X] Has unearthed a diabolical conspiracy to destroy the Internet [X] ...or whatever
For crafting this article, you deserve:
[X] To be interviewed by... [X] ...Rob Rosenberger
Before writing another security article, you must:
[X] Ask one or more real security experts first [X] ...that don't work for computer security firms (Yes, they do exist.) [X] Ask a critic of whoever you're going to quote [X] Try reproducing the problem yourself [X] ...while logged on with a Limited (XP) or Standard (Vista) account [X] ...while leaving User Account Control (Vista) turned ON
On to is TWO prepositions.
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...