Rogue ad hits New York Times site
Updated at 5:50 p.m. PDT September 14 with explanation from The New York Times.
The New York Times' Web site is grappling with problems created by an "unauthorized advertisement," but it is unknown how the ads managed to appear on the site and whether the site had been compromised.
The rogue ad warns readers that their computer may be infected with a virus and redirects them to a site that purports to offer antivirus software, according to a note posted to the newspaper's Media & Advertising section:
Some NYTimes.com readers have seen a pop-up box warning them about a virus and directing them to a site that claims to offer antivirus software. We believe this was generated by an unauthorized advertisement and are working to prevent the problem from recurring. If you see such a warning, we suggest that you not click on it. Instead, quit and restart your Web browser.
The site, best-antivirus03.com, is a so-called hijacker that uses fraudulent strategies to promote fake security software, according to security site GeekPolice.net.
One CNET reader described how the pop-up ad essentially hijacked his browser, preventing him from navigating away from the site.
"They took me to an 'antivirus site,' which kept attempting to scan my computer and install software. Using the back button kept reloading the virus page," the reader said. "It was not possible to close the page, necessitating a force quit."
Update with explanation from The New York Times:
The New York Times said the offending ad was provided by someone posing as a national advertiser with a legitimate-looking advertising product. Over the weekend that ad being served up was swapped out so that the offending ad would appear, the Times said.
"As soon as we were made aware of the situation, we took aggressive steps, suspending all third-party advertisements on the site," Diane McNulty, executive director of Community Affairs and Media Relations, said in a statement. "We now know how it occurred and have taken steps to prevent a similar situation from happening."
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven. 





NEVER Do third party advertisements.
CNET/NEW.com learned their lesson years ago from shady infected downloads.
I think cnet can advise the newspaper giant on how to do things the right way.
They don't accept any Flash-based ads, just JPG, GIF, and PNG. They let you set your own prices for placements, and you get final approval before an ad goes live.
There are other interesting networks, like Fusion Ads and The Deck that are similarly for a better experience for the users and publishers.
Simply staying away from third-party ads isn't necessarily the solution. Staying away from large networks like TribalFusion and FastClick that let advertisers pay peanuts to run highly obnoxious, and occasionally malicious ads. While I'm sure networks like TribalFusion ad FastClick have an approval process, things do slip through. The only solution is to not allow any Flash-based ads.
*GASP* My Mac is infected with.....Windows XP?
I've had several people come to me this past summer with just this type of infection. It has rootkit-like behavior and is very difficult to clean. I told them I could spend several hours trying to clean it, with little hope of success. Or, I could preserve their files, then wipe out the drive and do a fresh install. Believe me, the latter is easier and less frustrating.
It was very cute, watching it 'scan' my Mac......
"Sorry folks, don't need your 'antivirus'.
My OS has an actual immune system, thank you, now go away."
Backed out it ok & on with the news, Safari just ignored it & went on w/life.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12537279/
2006 Article. So this crap isn't new.
I Said :
Name One Virus for OSX. Now.
For that matter, up to now.
I mean an OSX Virus. Now.
If we have to, we'll cross that bridge & buy sandbags, later.
What about Now ?
I read the article. Not very detailed, was it ?
I have been offered the chance to install Updates, Quicktime Codecs and the like.
If it's not from someone I trust, I don't.
Anyone who clicks 'OK' to install malware on their machine gets what they ask for,
that is not 'viral' vectoring.
That is a willing act of stupidity.
Its old though.
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2006-021614-4006-99
Close more worm/trojan, not 'virus', not successful, either.
Never propagated in the wild.
I don't believe that trick will work anymore in OSX.
If not someone can jump in....
From a 2/2006 article :
?You cannot be infected by this unless you do all of the following:
1) Are somehow sent (via email, iChat, etc.) or download the ?latestpics.tgz? file
2) Double-click on the file to decompress it
3) Double-click on the resulting file to ?open? it
...and then for non-Admin users, it fails to infect most applications.?
the Bucs lost & I'm cranky. Beer is more fun, I'm logging out.....
I just read all the OSX Variant Definitions @ Symantec Site.
The interesting similarity they all shared was this :
Threat Assessment : Wild
Wild Level: Low
Number of Infections: 0 - 49
Number of Sites: 0 - 2
Geographical Distribution: Low
Threat Containment: Easy
Removal: Easy
Damage
Damage Level: Low
Distribution
Distribution Level: Low
Until one of you 'Macs just gotta have a virus guys/gals' writes a good one,
I will not be lied to & extorted into paying for Anti-Virus Software I Simply Don't Need.
G'nite. It's Beer Thirty.......
The stats are deceptive. the come from users that have that company's anti-virus installed.
So a MAC (or Windows) user that has no AV can be infected...but they won't show on the stats.
Add the opinion that 'MACs don't get virus' and 'we dont need no stinking AV'. How many people do you think will show in these stats?
And people wonder why bad things happen to them? They generally ask for it half the time. P.s. why on Earth would anyone be interested in a "Disney remake" of a Beatles movie? People these days...
[CNET editor's note: Offensive comment deleted.]
There is no way out except to shut down the PC. If you click anywhere on it, even the "X" in the top right corner, or click cancel, it will instantly load you with a virus.
You can always kill the browser process and eliminate the issue. Meanwhile, doing a hard shutdown can be quite dangerous.
Of course, the freaking browser should stop this crap in the first place.
As for the browser stopping this crap in the first place - you really need to address the 'alert' and 'confirm' behaviours in javascript more than in the browser itself. Since both of these steal focus and require interaction there are any number of ways to manipulate this to create these sort of badly behaved pages.
Firefox + Adblock + NoScript == No Problem
Chrome and IE == See ya later, dummy
Small wonder why I quickly reported this to Symantec Tech Support, and since I have an NIS yearly subscription, quickly upgraded to Norton Internet Security 2010 and (cross my fingers!) hopefully won't see it again anytime soon!
opps I meant tongue not tong, any ways I downloaded Opera about a week ago after hearing about it from a friend I personally did not like it and deleted it. so yea people still use it if they didn't I would not have heard about it.
127.0.0.1 protection-check07.com
The readers using the Windows PCs would be well advised to copy the 20,000-long rogue sites hosts file into their c:/windows/system32/dirvers/etc or other appropriate folder; I've been using this simple and effective method for years now as it cuts down dramatically on junk, ads and other web vermin.
Read http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm for more details.
--z.entropic
State level example (civil lawsuit under Washington State's "Computer Spyware Act"):
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/cybercrime/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=186100351
Federal level example (FTC restraining order):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7779223.stm
"you're" (not "your") wrong.
- by September 13, 2009 8:13 PM PDT
- Got hit browsing either Yahoo or Orlando Sentinel this weekend as well. It's not just the NYT as I was nowhere near that site at the time.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (74 Comments)