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 …
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
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"
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
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.
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series