Symantec identifies 'Dirtiest Web Sites of Summer'
Symantec is out with its "Dirtiest Web Sites of Summer 2009," which it's calling "the worst of the worst" when it comes to malware threats.
The security vendor says that "48 percent of the Dirtiest Web Sites are, well, dirty--sites that feature adult content." That means that more than half the sites cover a wide range of other categories including legal services, catering, figure skating, and electronics shopping, according to the report.
On average, sites on the dirtiest list have 18,000 threats per site, but 40 of the sites have in excess of 20,000 threats. One site that appears to offer restaurant catering services has 23,414 computer threats
"The number of web attacks is off the charts because it's the easiest path into a consumer's machine" said Gerry Egan, Symantec's director of security response.
The Web, said Egan "has become the primary delivery vehicle for malware." One method for infection is "drive by downloads," which can exploit a vulnerability in your browser or operating system by "leveraging little security holes" and injecting code into your machine simply by virtue of your visiting the site. Another route to infections is social engineering where someone tricks a user into installing a malicious application that can masquerade as a plug-in to play media or even a fake security program that claims to help you find and remove malware. Instead it installs malware on your machine.
There are a number of dastardly payloads associated with the type of malware delivered through these sites including turning your machine into a "spambot" that sends junk e-mail to other people. Such programs can also hijack your computer to be part of a "botnet" to carry out attacks on other systems such as the recent denial-of-service attack that brought down Twitter earlier this month.
Symantec has identified these dirty sites as part of the ongoing analysis it does for its Norton Safe Web product. Safe Web includes a free Web site that anyone can use to see if a site is known to have malware. In addition, Symantec's security products now come with a plug-ins that works with a browser to look over your shoulder while you're surfing or searching to warn you before visiting a site known to contain malware.
TrendMicro Internet Security has a feature that warns you if you are about to visit a site that "may put your security at risk" and McAfee offers a service called McAfee Site Advisor that includes a free plug-in for Firefox and Internet Explorer that warns you about potentially dangerous sites that show up in search results.
Podcast: Larry speaks with Symantec's director of security response, Gerry Egan (8:43)
Listen now: Download today's podcast
Larry Magid is a technology journalist and an Internet safety advocate. He's been writing and speaking about Internet safety since he wrote Internet safety guide "Child Safety on the Information Highway" in 1994. He is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, founder of SafeKids.com and SafeTeens.com, and a board member of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Larry's technology analysis and commentary can be heard on CBS News and CBS affiliates, and read on CBSNews.com. He also writes a personal-tech column for the San Jose Mercury News. You can e-mail Larry or follow him on Twitter @larrymagid. 
Have a great night.
That said, the Mac's authentication mechanism is no tougher than a limited account in XP; both can be (and have been) circumvented. Too many Mac users fall hook, line, and sinker for every word Apple utters (while wary of anyone else), and assume it's true that the Mac's perceived "security" has to do with the Unix kernel and defaulting to non-root accounts, rather than obscurity.
Security researchers, who make Swiss cheese out of the Mac on day 2 every year at CanSecWest, say otherwise. I am also of the understanding that there are more privilege escalation vulnerabilities for Unix-based platforms than there are for Windows Vista, which has yet to be attacked remotely in the wild itself. And this comes in spite of being Windows and having been on the market for just as long as Apple has run on Intel, dropping its extra obscurity advantage for prolonged compliance with Moore's law.
@baconstang:
Just FYI, any company will want you to believe that their products are the best, including Apple. But the cold reality is that; while Vista has security mitigations like DEP and ASLR; and Windows 7 adds Safe Unlinking, along with features intended for compatibility that double as extra barriers against rootkits (XP mode); OS X yet has no security beyond authentication, which amounts to nothing more than a chastity belt made of paper; anyone can remove it.
OS X Snow Leopard will add ASLR, but this may not be all that effective without DEP, let alone the numerous other technologies fortifying Windows 7. There are two predictions among security researchers as to what will happen when Windows 7 starts to eat away at XP's market share, and XP machines themselves are armored in greater numbers as security software continues to saturate the market (and more vendors add browser protection to their products):
1) Bot herders will focus their attention on Mac OS, the most vulnerable operating system remaining.
2) Drive-by downloads will die down, and the threat landscape will once again comprise social engineering attacks (Trojan horses). And as Trojans already exist for all three main platforms, you can bet that bot herders will be adding these to their arsenals in order to make up for huge losses in remotely exploitable machines.
http://securitywatch.eweek.com/apple/mac_hacked_via_safari_browser_in_pwn2own_contest.html
http://www.darknet.org.uk/2008/03/mac-owned-on-2nd-day-of-pwn2own-hack-contest/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2917
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/securitymonkey/mac-os-x-local-user-exploit-appears-12026
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-04-17-030-35-SC-SW
http://blogs.computerworld.com/why_windows_is_safer_than_the_mac
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=533&tag=rbxccnbzd1
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/charlie-miller-on-the-lack-of-security-o
http://blog.purewire.com/bid/18281/The-Security-Impact-of-Windows-7-Adoption
OS 9 had a much smaller market share than OS X, and OS X remains relatively untouched. New exploits appear everyday for windows that work without user intervention.
'Of course you are forgetting that those hack contests are not exactly relevant in the real world.'
>>>>How so? These were browser exploits. If you're going to disagree with the experts, you'd better have someone to quote. As if I haven't told you before, sources, please.
'OS 9 had a much smaller market share than OS X, and OS X remains relatively untouched. New exploits appear everyday for windows that work without user intervention.'
>>>>You obviously did not read the links, let alone do any research yourself. All these hacks have been since 2007, on OS X. You're walking in blind faith.
In addition, where are the exploits for Vista? Oh, I forgot, you're still comparing OS X to XP.
Numbers aside, be aware that the Mac is being attacked now. Ever heard of iBotnet? It's just a Trojan, but it's first attack to reach thousands of machines. Then we have "codecs" peppered about the Web, as well as a 2008 Trojan whose code would lend itself quite well to drive-by attacks, if the Russians knew how to do it. Yes, they're working on your platform; give them time. It took some three years following the release of XP for drive-by downloads to emerge. Since no one would be reinventing the wheel this time, it's possible that it might not take as long to get the hang of Mac OS. Of course there will be fewer people working on it, with the majority concentrating on exploiting unpatched and unprotected XP machines, but they'll get there.
When this happens, the bad thing is that there will be more sensitive information being stolen, more e-mail accounts and contacts lists compromised, more identities stolen, more bank accounts cleaned out, etc. And it could be a year following the dawn of the Mac-targeted, ItW exploits before Symantec products offer browser protection for the Mac like they do for Windows. That said, the good thing is that the old "Invincibility" doctrine will forever be silenced.
Don't get me started on all the great windows kernel functionality that helps out root kit writers.
Microsoft: Helping malware and rootkit writers is job 1.
That is ridiculous. For one thing, Symantec Norton is more difficult to terminate than other AV products, because of the way it hooks the system. Norton is also one of the most likely to fully remove the infections it finds. And furthermore, Norton has browser protection, blocking drive-by downloads independently of signature/heuristic detection.
That said, drive-by downloads didn't exist until two or three years following the release of XP, and rootkits not until 2005. And if helping rootkit writers is job 1, then why did Microsoft implement "Windows XP Mode?" In order to install a rootkit, and have it go undetected, you have to terminate the drivers, install your own, and then emulate XP Mode.
http://blog.purewire.com/bid/18281/The-Security-Impact-of-Windows-7-Adoption
Sorry to bust your bubble, but science trumps religion here.
Larry Magid
I?ve just discovered RSS-Newsfeeds, and I?ve been doing newsletters for a number of years; I travel, daily, to Usn?s, the EU, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim. Now, this non-techie news gatherer [ME ? ?It?s I; it?s me; it?s Carla Görterberg!?] has to upgrade his Kaspersky Anti-Everything, so that I am protected hourly against the thousands of threats that rise daily on even once-trusted-sites?
W.W.W., World-Wide-Web, is now a collection of seedy neighborhoods that your Mother told you not to venture into. Congratulations! To All of Us for allowing this to come about.
There needs to be a change in the law forcing ISPs and host companies to notify their customers if they detect virus or malware signatures coming from their systems.
If you use Firefox, you can use the NoScript plugin, but that can get very annoying since many legitimate sites use scripts for just about everything --- expect to answer a lot of confirmation prompts.
In terms of OS's I'd say Linux is most secure (mainly because it's not very widely used at all, and Unix has had its underpinnings hacked and patched for over 20 years), but absolutely no OS is totally secure.
Of course, if we add in non-security-aware users who blithely install a video plugin to watch naked videos of (insert celebrity here), all bets are off. Hand someone a gun and he can shoot himself in the foot with it.
[CNET editor's note: Prohibited link deleted.]
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
i use mcafee and that doesn't make me feel safe
- by Edward_Sagala August 30, 2009 8:35 AM PDT
- Why allow such sites to continue operating and yet they are harming internet users. My machine has been affected by a virus by the name recycler and I have been unable to manage it, what can I use to manage the virus?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)