back to article Daily Mail caught on hooks of Angler exploit kit

Net nasty numero uno, the Angler Exploit Kit, has infected advertising on the Daily Mail's website, causing the site to serve up malware to its readers' machines. A security blog posted by internet security company Malwarebytes reported that a sophisticated malvertising attack had been found afflicting advertisements on …

  1. Velv Silver badge
    Joke

    Daily Mail website serving up Malware. How is that different from any other day?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      How is that different from any other day?

      There is a difference between malware that affects your computer and malware that affects your brain directly.

      Rumour has it that the Daily Mail even has a nano-material attack vector consisting of a thin layer of carbon on a flexible organic substrate. If you think you may have sighted one, decontamination is possible by rapid application of a blowtorch. Remember to wear breathing apparatus to protect against Vine's Disease.

    2. smudge Silver badge
      Unhappy

      this malware...

      ... it causes cancer, doesn't it?

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Register has contacted the Daily Mail for comment

    But all we got in response was, "It wuz teh immigrunts wot dun it."

    1. Andrew Taylor 1

      Re: The Register has contacted the Daily Mail for comment

      I call bull, it was the cyclists obviously

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The Register has contacted the Daily Mail for comment

      the only reason they got infected was because of the bi-weekly bin collections and the 5p carrier bag charge.

  3. Gene Cash Silver badge
    Coat

    "the malicious creative had been disabled"

    Why do I have a visual of an oompa-loompa getting kneecapped?

  4. Camilla Smythe

    Feh

    Even if I block all the advertising cruft then before a Daily Mail page has finished loading up its Celebrity Cellulite pictures... whilst pegging the browser and connection at 100% before delivering a 'Vertical ScrollBar Out of Range Error' I've already either forgotten what might have tempted me to click on a link to it or become comatose... Damn I just turned off all blocking and my teeth pulled themselves whilst I was waiting for the page to load. I should really take off and nuke it from 127.0.0.1

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Feh

      It's definitely one of the slower sites out there, but I find it more or less usable if I allow scripts from dailymail.co.uk. itself and nothing else. Even without any scripts it's basically functional, except for comments. So they're ahead of some sites in that regard. I know what you mean about the scroll bar though, that's a rather strange design decision.

      AC because, admitting to reading DM.

  5. Captain Badmouth
    Joke

    Mailicious shoe ad...

    gets mail a shoeing? What a headline, eh?

    1. William Towle
      Joke

      Re: Mailicious shoe ad...

      > gets mail a shoeing?

      Act of sabotage?

      // ...finding "the malicious creative had been disabled" a bit sinister

  6. pklong

    You forgot

    The Reg won't get a reply as they won't believe it is a serious journalistic question unless you also ask how much their house is worth.

  7. Your alien overlord - fear me

    Did you leave your question on your ansaphone? How else will they get the question?

  8. Steven Raith

    Typo in article..

    "Net nasty numero uno, the Angler Exploit Kit..."

    Should read

    "Net nasty numero uno, the DailyMail.co.uk..."

    It really is a vile, stinking pot of racist, xenophobic fecal matter and is in my list of 'if this is the evidence you resort to, you've already lost' sites when arguing the toss with people.

    1. Viv Fletcher

      Re: Typo in article..

      You're obviously either a grauniad or Mirror reader and a Corbyn supporter.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Typo in article..

        I don't know about Mr. Raith, but I'm not nearly rich enough or right wing enough to read The Guardian, a little bit too well educated to want the oversimplifications of the Mirror, and I have reservations about Corbyn (though I'm glad the Blairites got stuffed because they are a ghastly shower).

        But I agree on the Daily Mail, because I read one the other day while waiting for a meeting (there being nothing else available) and everything he writes is correct, just from one sample.

      2. Steven Raith

        Re: Typo in article..

        Viv, nope, I just think that the Daily Mail is staffed by absolute c*nts, and that anyone who reads it and takes it seriously can probably be dismissed from any debate that involves having a worldview more mature than that of a nine year old.

        Read the DM? You're a tosspiece. You're enabling them. You're part of the problem.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Mushroom

      Re: Typo in article..

      Why the downvotes?

      Unless you can blame immigrants, pedos (sic), fortnightly bin collections, terrorists (best combined with pedo immigrants), how shit <insert opposition> are, then they are not interested.

      It's ranked along with the Sun, Mirror and Star as papers to avoid reading at all costs,

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Typo in article..

        It would appear that many of the regualr knuckle-draggers that infest the Mail comments are back over on the Indy.

        Still the usual misogyny and references to 'Islington' (any one who knows Islington is well aware of how much of the borugh is not exactly Hampstead.).

        It's almost tempting to register just to drag shiny lures through the water . . .

    3. Dr Stephen Jones

      Re: Typo in article..

      @Steven Raith

      You can't win many arguments in real life. Or here.

  9. Palpy

    Didn't Tim Worstall --

    -- just write something or other about interwebs advertising? I can't remember if he mentioned it could give your computer digital herpes, though. Important point. Seems to me that if advertising is a disease vector, blocking it is commonsense.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Didn't Tim Worstall --

      "I can't remember if he mentioned it could give your computer digital herpes, though"

      It's Gresham's Law in action. Serving ads is the digital currency that fuels free websites. Bad digital currency drives out good until the whole thing is devalued so much that a new approach has to be found.

      If history repeats itself, some sort of certification system would be needed for ads that could be checked by client software. This would have interesting effects; it would increase the power of large ad agencies that could afford to cost reduce the certification process. But looking at how well that has worked for ssl, with even the certificate issuers allowing out bad certificates, I'm not holding mhy breath.,

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020