Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Adware Spreads Through Myspace 209

Sandbagger writes "Here's an interesting problem for MySpace — groups of websites that entice MySpace users into placing videos onto their profile pages (under the guise of 'free content'), without disclosing a key piece of information that might make them think twice. When someone visits one of these profiles carrying the video, a DRM acquisition box pops up and attempts to install Zango adware. In all likelihood, the profile owners don't even know these videos are doing this to their visitors. The end result is an Adware affiliate effectively removing himself from the distribution chain and letting kids promote these videos instead, in a strange example of viral marketing gone wrong."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adware Spreads Through Myspace

Comments Filter:
  • On that note... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HaloZero ( 610207 ) <protodeka@@@gmail...com> on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:03PM (#15695387) Homepage
    Upon refreshing the main page, I found a slide-out Microsoft flash ad. That thing was annoying as hell, and it keeps coming up.

    On Adware and Myspace: it was a pandemic waiting to happen. One of those nasty traits of a large populus, is that when something becomes sufficiently commonplace and comfortable, it becomes an easy target. It's my understanding that myspace is riddled with holes, bugs, etc. That being said, it's only a matter of time until those are found, and exploited.

    Though I understand it doesn't end with Myspace, as the attack used is not explicitly limited to that social networking service; it simply is the vehicle for the delivery, and a prime candidate with a vulnerable userbase.

    Unrelatedly, I heard a random statistic that said that some asinine percentage of the net's streaming video traffic was due to Myspace. I brushed it off, as, well, that's a sortof silly thing to take to heart, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.
  • in a strange example of viral marketing gone wrong

    I'd hate this practice too, if it affected me, but why is it any more wrong, than any other children-targeted marketing (like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10, 2006 @10:34PM (#15695513)
    who moderates this crap up. Given the average around here of finding consensual sex, I would think that many would be worried about ending up with someone, perhaps under statuatory conditions or otherwise, that would charge rape.

    I guess people are confortable living a life of misery for something that they didn't even do. It is one thing to be falsely charged of a crime, it is another to be given an effective death sentence.

  • I don't get it? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by electronerdz ( 838825 ) <jgreb@electronerdz.com> on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:20PM (#15695683) Homepage
    I visited these profiles, and didn't get the pop-up??? Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4
  • Gone Wrong, Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:26PM (#15695696) Homepage Journal
    "Viral marketing gone wrong?" Sounds like it's doing exactly what it was designed and intended to do.

    Schwab

  • by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Monday July 10, 2006 @11:39PM (#15695737) Homepage Journal
    "People look at me like I'm a Nazi because I seriously don't think most Americans should be enfranchised. Let's face an ugly truth. Our founding fathers were right: most people are unfit to vote."

    The reason people look at you like you're a Nazi is because once you start with "these people aren't fit to vote, I know what's best for them", then you start feeling entitled to make other decisions for them, such as what kinds of jobs they can hold, where they can live, and whether they are allowed to reproduce. The 'slippery slope' card is one that's too often use where it's not warranted, but this is a place where it's obviously warranted, by historical precedent.

    Let me say this as clearly as I can: if you think you know better than me as to what's right in my life, fuck you. You have no place making decisions for me, or anyone else. Society really goes to hell, as in labor camps and mass exterminations, when we let right-wing ideologies like yours come into power. We've fought long and hard to get where we are today, and it makes me sick to hear you say that just because you don't like myspace. It's a friggin' website, for crying out loud!

    Futhermore, the founding fathers didn't say that most people are unfit to vote. They specfically left out particular groups based on race, ethnicity and gender -- women, blacks, Indians, etc. They did not say that most people are unfit to vote. I would bet that you know, or at least know of, women and blacks that are certainly fit to vote by your standards, just as there are women and blacks that are unfit to vote by your standards. The problem comes when someone starts thinking their standards are the ones we should use to disenfranchise voters.
  • Re:On that note... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Buran ( 150348 ) on Tuesday July 11, 2006 @12:08AM (#15695815)
    90% of the people using one of the computers was on a myspace page

    And you could have walked up to any of them and said "Excuse me, I have a paper to write and I need this computer." And if they refused to give it to you, had them removed by lab staff. University computers are for academics first, and anyone who needs them for that purpose can boot off anyone who is just goofing off.
  • by Karma Farmer ( 595141 ) on Tuesday July 11, 2006 @12:17AM (#15695864)
    Society really goes to hell, as in labor camps and mass exterminations, when we let right-wing ideologies like yours come into power.


    First, the concept you're looking for is "authoritarian", not "right-wing". You'll find that authoritarians come in both left-wing and right-wing varieties. The two camps never agree on the problems that need to be solved, but they always agree on the solution -- more power for them, less power for you.

    Second, YHBT YHL HAND.
  • by Firehed ( 942385 ) on Tuesday July 11, 2006 @12:40AM (#15695945) Homepage
    Fair enough, though I largely agree with the grandparent poster. I'm very much against people thinking that they know how I should run my life, as you seem to be. But as the GP said, for every voter that's aware of the issues, there's five more who just vote like sheep, be it their political party (having no awareness of the issues or their candidate's stance on them), their friends, or - notably worse - how the candidate *looks*.

    The good news is that, to some degree, the problem is self-correcting. Those "unfit" to vote are the type that keep well away from the ballot boxes, since they're all too busy picking the next American Idol. In fact up to quite recently (quite possibly the GP post), I was trying to figure out why we didn't implement some sort of internet- or phone-based voting system. Then it hit me - the people who are too fucking lazy to either go down to the voting booths or get an absentee ballot if they can't make it are the exact type of people who will, without any question, vote like sheep. You can bet your ass that shows like American Idol, Big Brother and other call-in-/text-in-/log-in-to-vote shows wouldn't have made it to the second episode if their voters had to head to the town hall or other voting emporium to vote.

    The counterpoint to that being that while you tend to keep the dumb sheep away from the ballots, those who have some hardcore feelings about a hot-topic issue DO flock to the polls to get something passed/rejected or someone voted in. Naturally, if you can't be bothered to vote then you've got no excuse when you're not happy with the outcome, but you'll still end up with some vastly unpopular things passed when people don't feel strongly enough to get out there.

    The biggest problem is really that voting is just a popularity contest. In the last ten years or so, I've seen one candidate - ONE - who's campaign was "here's my stance on these issues, vote accordingly". Everything else has been "I'm great for pointless reasons x, y, and z" or "the other guy sucks for irrelavent reasons u, v, and w." How completely worthless. It would be one thing if you didn't agree with any of the candidates up for election, but it's something else when you're forced to go in blind because their multimillion dollar campaigning told you absolutely nothing.

  • by Gnavpot ( 708731 ) on Tuesday July 11, 2006 @04:48AM (#15696460)
    Windows Media Player helpfully downloads license files for you, and if a malicious media file asks for something that's nastier than a license file, well...
    Well... what?

    I read your Panda link. It describes how the malicious files get downloaded. It does not describe how they then get executed.

    I assume that the real license files are pure data files which do not need to be executed after download (the opposite would be an incredibly stupid design decision). In that case, WMP should not have the functionality to execute a downloaded license file. So what happens?
  • by marvinglenn ( 195135 ) on Tuesday July 11, 2006 @05:29AM (#15696536)
    That's fine and dandy if you're specifically targeting a particular Linux user, but it doesn't scale well to the type of infections discussed in TFA. A reason that the infections work so well in the Windows world is because there are so few variations in the systems people are running.

    I'm not saying that you couldn't infect a Linux user with an exploit of code in a video file, I'm just saying that because of the wide variety of different (video player) software options and system configurations across the Gnu/Linux/OSS userbase, such a 'viral' approach to installing malware would be MUCH LESS effective.
  • Are we really going to let a little adware get between me and my 15,000 underage girlfriends?

    FYI, most of them are actually guys. Older guys. With all kinds of cooties.
  • Re:On that note... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Tuesday July 11, 2006 @07:49AM (#15696895)
    It's my understanding that myspace is riddled with holes, bugs, etc.

    I guess the fact that this has nothing to do with MySpace and is a problem with the design of Windows Media DRM escaped you? MySpace is being targetted because it's the culture there to put free videos of stuff you like on your profile page. There's actually nothing MySpace can do to stop this as far as I can see as the "problem" is simply that they make it easy for people to publish videos they like using Windows Media Player. Short of banning it this one sits in Microsofts problem pile.

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...