doh!
Of course there are also more non-sex sites than sex sites, and I'll bet that ratio is more than 99:1
So the odds of "the next site I visit being infected" still has a strong relationship to whether or not "the next site I visit is a sex site"
Regular domains beat smut sites at hosting malware
New research pours scorn on the comforting but erroneous belief that Windows surfers who avoid smut and wares on the web are likely to avoid exposure to malware. A study by free anti-virus firm Avast found 99 infected legitimate domains for every infected adult web site. In the UK, Avast found that more infected domains …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Statistical Bias?
If the data is drawn from users of Avast, then all this shows is that regular pornsite visitors opt out of sending their smut-surfing logs to Avast.
No surprise there then.
the stats are ok
Not really. Once you agree to be part of the community (we call it the avast! CommunityIQ) the reporting of infection and infeced website is automatic. Of course it is anonymous - there is no link between the user or his license or the report. You could draw the conclusion that avast has 100 mio users that simply are too nice to search porn. But that would mean the other security brands have all the smut seekers and I don't believe that ;o)
PS: yes I work at avast
Only 99 to 1?
I'm guessing that the ratio of non-porn to porn domains is a bloody sight larger than 99:1 so this would appear to confirm the received wisdom.
Not according to this
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/03/the_internet_is_for_pron/
It says here that 12% of the web is porn.
Proportion of the web that is big and bouncy?
@ Sam Liddicott and @Ken Hagan
3rd June 2010 El Reg Reported research showing a smut quotient of12% for the net. So not less than 1%. If it were , the smut industry would not be the driving force for net standards ( they are more likely to decide the fate of the <video> tag for html 5 than Steve Jobbies).
Like it or not, smut is part of human intercourse ( fnarr fnarr), the net reflects global society including it's dangly bits.
... and well-loved
I'd say that may be because probably most pornsites are actively maintained and constantly updated because it's their owners business.
By contrast, a lot of commerical sites owned by retailers or manufacturers are probably rarely visited by their owners, who are too busy selling shoes, or bathroom fittings, or package holidays, they've paid someone else to set up the site, and it only gets checked infrequently if ever.
And then there are hobby sites or blog sites or social where everyone + dog (usually amateurs in IT terms) can upload stuff.
Now lets see if I got this right
So, if I should want to visit a porn site I don't need protection because it is clean. However, if I should visit a mainstream site such as a social networking site I would need protection cause that's where nasty social diseases are.
What a conundrum! It's getting so a fella can't go anywhere without a condom. Not even a condominium.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here
Popular Whitepapers
- The BI Inflexion Point
Information is a right, not a privilege - VPN security - if you want it, come and get it
Attention WiFi hotspotters: You want it - The Register Guide to iSCSI
A primer on Internet SCSI, a protocol to transport SCSI commands over IP - Secure Mobile Working
Beyond the Technology - The Impact of IT Security Attitudes
Putting the pieces in place for effective security delivery - The Register guide to unified communications
A primer on the implications of unified communications for enterprise IT
