News Blog

Updated at 11:22 a.m. PDT Saturday to include a comment from Wal-Mart.

A million search queries have been "poisoned" at dozens of well-known Web sites over the past several weeks, according to security analyst Dancho Danchev.

Attackers are using programming errors to hijack keyword searches by automatically attaching malicious HTML code to specific search queries. Unwitting visitors who type in the selected key words while performing a search at the affected sites are then redirected to booby-trapped Web sites.

This is where the attackers attempt to install malware onto the victims' computers.

Among some of the Web sites that have been attacked are USAToday.com, Target.com, ABCNews.com, Walmart.com, and several sites owned by CNET Networks, the publisher of News.com. A CNET employee confirmed that the attack had occurred but did not know to what extent it had affected site visitors.

Representatives of CNET and USAToday could not be reached on Friday night. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Amy Colella on Saturday said the matter "has not impacted our site in any way," adding, "We take these matters very seriously at Walmart.com, and continuously use measures to protect our customers from any fraudulent online activity."

The attack differs from other IFrame injection attacks in that the traps are being set in the search results and not on a Web site's main pages, said Joris Evers, a spokesman for security firm McAfee.

"This means that a Web user would need to do a search query using one of the terms picked by the attacker to hit a poisoned page," Evers said. "This is in contrast to previously seen attacks where just visiting a site would launch an attack. This reduces the severity (of the most recent attack) somewhat."

Evers added that the Web is quickly becoming one of the most popular means to attack users. This is due in part to improvements made to e-mail security and filtering and also because Web vulnerabilities are a new frontier, he said.

Google's new teleportation, its search-within-search function, is getting mixed responses, at least from some site owners, who may be remembering occasions when teleportation in the Star Trek transporter went wrong. Earlier in the month, Google introduced the teleportation functionality as a way to better help searchers find information within a site by providing a search box below the snippet of the top listing, which performs a "site:" search on the domain of that listing using the additional search terms the searcher added in.

The "site:" advanced query is quite familiar to those within the search industry, but much less so to the average searcher. So bringing this functionality front and center for the searcher should be a well-received addition.

When I first saw this, I thought it was interesting--once I was able to get it to show up. It doesn't come up for every site, mainly big-name sites, nor does it come up for every search. One that it did come up for was searching for Amazon.com. After playing around with the teleportation search, I also began wondering how these big-name retailers would react and thought that some might not care for this new functionality. Why would they object?

Let me show you--except I can't use Amazon to do it anymore. According to the New York Times, Amazon is one such retailer that has already objected and asked Google to turn off this functionality for its site. It seems that most of the talk so far, like that happening at Search Engine Land (here and here), has been more about acknowledgment than anything else, but Rishi Lakhani's post at SEO Smarty shows that others have had similar thoughts as I.

Now, before we go much further, understand that I'm not suggesting ulterior motives here on Google's part or that this is even a good or a bad thing. For regular users, I think this will be well received, and Google pays a lot of attention to delivering the best user experience it can--but that isn't to say that there isn't going to be a potential upside for the PPC program as well.

So let's take a look at some examples of how this may impact results and get a feel for why some site owners may be less than thrilled with this functionality. Let's use national retailer Target as an example while we still can since its site is powered by Amazon. We'll try this on searches for plasma TVs.

Below we see the results that someone might see doing a search in Google just for "plasma tv" which includes eight paid search ads.

Google search for "plasma tv."

Below we see the results that someone might see doing a search in Google for "target plasma tv." Notice how there are no paid search results showing up, and not surprising, Target shows up in the top organic listing.

Google search results for "target plasma tv."

Then let's see what happens if someone searches just on "target." No surprise that Target.com shows up No. 1 again in organic results and still no paid search ads. What is different is the appearance of the teleportation, search-within-search, box showing up below the sitelinks in the Target result, labeled as "Search target.com."

Google search results for "target."

Then when we do a teleportation search for "plasma tv," we get the following search results. Notice that this creates the advanced search query "plasma tv site:target.com." Now the searcher gets Target.com specific search results in the organic area, hopefully relevant to the search, but also eight paid listings that Target is now competing with.

Google teleportation search results for "plasma tv" within Target.com.

This isn't all as cut-and-dried as this example may seem. The appearance of ads can vary widely from none to many. But for now it does serve as an example of at least one scenario that site owners need to be aware of.

So what does teleportation mean for the various players? Well hopefully, for the searchers, it does get them to what they are looking for faster and easier, but this can really vary as well and may or may not be more helpful than getting directly to the site.

For Google, it means that searchers will have performed at least one more search on Google, instead of clicking through to Target.com immediately. And it may mean that it has gained an opportunity to serve up more targeted (no pun intended) search ads that otherwise may not have been served up (as we can see from the other Target focused searches which yielded no ads). Even more subtle here is the fact that many advertisers may not have bid against a big brand name to begin with. Currently, advertisers can use a trademarked brand as a trigger word as long as they don't use it in the ad itself. As much of the legislation in this area continues to be formed and reformed, who knows whether this will always be the case--but it would seem that teleportation search may provide an additional means to serve up ads around another brand without even needing the advertiser to use that brand as a trigger word.

But how might Target feel about this? Well, if it does help get searchers to their destination, then it might be happy with this. But it also might mean that its natural results are competing against paid-listings that it may not have been competing against under the other Target related searches. It also means that it may not be able to cull additional search information from its own site-search. While the quality of on-site search may vary from excellent to completely worthless, some sites invest heavily in their on-site search to not only deliver good results, but also to serve as insight into what their visitors are looking for. Being able to follow the search path, which they may be losing because of teleportation, may help improve the site experience.

Needless to say, Target might prefer to get people directly to its site and have people search on-site, which at least in this example allows it to serve up a richer experience.

Target.com on-site search for "plasma tv."

Good, bad or otherwise, what this means to site owners is that SEO may be more important than ever. Now, getting to the top listing may not be enough. Defending your brand may not be enough. Securing multiple listings through blended search may not be enough. What happens to the site that has excellent search, but terrible indexation in Google? Now more than ever, site owners need to focus on creating the most search-friendly site as they can to make sure that Google and other search engines can spider and index the site as completely as possible. For some sites, this is a huge challenge, trying to overcome legacy CMS and e-commerce systems. Fortunately, there are solutions like Netconcepts' own GravityStream proxy optimization that can help many sites overcome these obstacles, but GravityStream isn't for everyone.

One thing this clearly means is that site optimization is more important than ever. Optimization will help to make sure that the teleportation results for your site are highly relevant and speak to the searcher, hopefully gaining the click-through from the searcher. If you are like Target and experience millions of searches a year just on your brand name, then you don't want to leave your optimization to chance when it comes to teleportation.

A New York lawmaker wants you to have the choice over whether Internet companies can serve up ads based on your actions online and who you are.

Companies like Microsoft and Yahoo are already serving ads that reflect your interests, such as Web sites you visit, and even your geography. Behaviorally targeted advertising is the vanguard of online marketing because it can lead to more sales than random ads can.

Privacy advocates say that Web surfers don't understand how much they are being tracked online, and that if they did they wouldn't like it.

With this in mind, Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has sponsored a bill that would require consumers' consent before Internet companies could use personal information about them for advertising, according to The New York Times.

Further north, a bill was introduced in Connecticut that deals with data collection by ad networks, which serve the ads on other companies' sites, the article says.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau has proposed voluntary guidelines that would have consumers opt-out of information gathering for advertising purposes. The Federal Trade Commission guidelines go further and say behavioral advertising should be opt-in for consumers.

Given all the concerns U.S. lawmakers and others had about privacy issues with Google's acquisition of DoubleClick, it's likely the matter won't be going away anytime soon.

Behind the scenes, Wal-Mart and Target use radio-frequency identification tracking systems to help them keep their shelves stocked, but that method could face new complications if an ongoing patent lawsuit doesn't go their way.

The suit, filed back in August 2006, accuses the megaretailers and Gillette of infringing on a U.S. patent covering an "inventory control system" that employs radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology to track the presence or absence of items and keep them from colliding. The patent belongs to a Houston man named Ronald Bormaster, who assigned it to Houston-based RFID World, which does not appear to be using the system commercially, just before the suit was filed in 2006, according to court papers.

Many months later, the case is still wending its way through a U.S. court in a Texas district with a reputation for sympathy to patent holders. A preliminary court order issued last week appears to bode well for RFID World, but the final outcome of the case isn't so clear. The targets of the lawsuit have asked for the case to be thrown out, arguing they didn't violate the patent and that the patent isn't valid in the first place.

A legal setback for the retailers could be significant. Embedding RFID tags in palettes of merchandise or on individual products has become an increasingly popular way for large retailers to keep track of their wares more efficiently. If that method is interrupted by patent warring, customers may experience visible inconveniences in their big-box shopping runs. A 2005 University of Arkansas study found, for instance, that Wal-Mart stores replenished out-of-stock items bearing RFID labels three times more quickly than those with standard bar codes.

It wouldn't be the first time that a flap over RFID patents has potentially snarled widespread use of the technology. Back in 2004, some adopters of the technology feared a newly approved RFID standard would incorporate patented techniques from RFID equipment maker Intermac, which would have required companies that used such wireless tracking systems to pay new royalty fees. Much to the relief of big RFID users like Texas Instruments and Philips Semiconductor, the new standard ultimately didn't produce that result.

The latest court order in the RFID World suit relates to a key part of any patent lawsuit: the "claim construction" stage, in which the judge mediating the dispute hears each side's interpretations of certain terms used in the language of the patent and then reconciles those often-competing definitions. The judge's conclusions are then used to guide a jury in deciding the all-important question of whether the patent was infringed.

In a February 11 order, U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis sided with RFID World's definitions of many of the key terms in the patent claims and declined to refine other term definitions as the retailers had requested. That could be a bad sign for Wal-Mart, Target, and Gillette going forward.

On the other hand, the minutiae of the patent claim wording could ultimately matter little. After all, some portions of RFID World's complaint have already been resolved outside of court. The complaint originally targeted Michelin North America, Home Depot, and Pfizer as well, but those companies and RFID World resolved their disputes and requested that the claims be dropped, although few details are available on why.

Wal-Mart, Target, and Gillette continue to deny the infringement accusations and argue that RFID World's patent should be declared invalid because it is obvious, not novel, and obtained through improper procedures. They're currently awaiting a ruling on a request earlier this year to dismiss the entire case. Barring all else, a final pretrial conference has tentatively been set for August.

Way down at the bottom of the electronics section on Target.com is something you'd miss if you weren't looking for it: a tab called "Pre-owned Electronics."

Target is selling this pre-owned 80GB iPod Video for $200, down from the $319 it would charge for a new one.

(Credit: Target.com)

The retailer has been testing out selling some gadgets on its Web site only that have been returned to stores for the past month, but the company finally called attention to the experiment during its quarterly earnings call Tuesday, as Reuters reported.

So far Target is reselling used Nintendo GameCube systems, a variety of Toshiba high-definition TVs, a JVC video camera, and original iPods, as well as iPod Nanos, Videos, Minis, and Shuffles. The site says each item has been inspected and refurbished by a third-party that's either been approved by the manufacturer or is managed by Target itself.

And Target says the same 90-day return policy it gives on new gadgets still applies here.

As expected, Sony is selling exclusive models of its LCD televisions through discount retailer Target right now.

(Credit: Target)

Though not available in stores until mid-September, Target.com shows a 26-inch and 32-inch Bravia 720p LCD on its site right now for $799 and $899, respectively. Both are significantly cheaper (and smaller) than the other Sony TVs Target carries.

Walmart.com is next, followed by availability in Wal-Mart Stores next month, according to a Sony representative.

The electronics maker revealed its discount retailer plan in June. Randy Waynick, senior vice president of marketing, said Sony would supply a unique series of models to Target, Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers in order to better target (forgive the pun) different niches of consumers. At the time, Waynick said the special models would be available at Target and Wal-Mart in the "next 60 days." Sixty days from June 11 was the end of last week, so apparently Wal-Mart is taking a bit longer than Sony expected.

The expected next-generation DVD format war isn't quite the deadlock many expected.

Target's announcement Thursday that it would sell a Sony Blu-ray player in its stores alongside Blu-ray discs in a special feature promotion is important because the second-largest retailer in the U.S. doesn't sell HD DVD players in its stores, outside of the external HD DVD drive made for Microsoft's Xbox 360. It does sell a Toshiba HD DVD player on its Web site, however.

When the battle between the competing optical disc formats--HD DVD and Blu-ray--began brewing last year, analysts predicted protracted trench warfare, many refusing to choose sides. But just six months after the first Blu-ray players went on sale, the numbers show that the fight may be nearing its conclusion.

Blu-ray got way out ahead of HD DVD by virtue of Sony's PlayStation 3 console, which came preloaded with a Blu-ray player. Of the 1.5 million Blu-ray players sold in the U.S., 1.4 million are PS3s, according to the Blu-ray Disc Association. HD DVD had an advantage in that its players were less expensive than Blu-ray--at first. Though HD DVD prices have come down, Blu-ray's have as well.

Toshiba, one of the staunchest supporters of HD DVD, said last month that initial forecasts of sales of discs and external HD DVD drives was probably a bit ambitious. The Japanese electronics maker said it anticipates selling 1 million players and recorders in North America this year, down 44 percent from the earlier estimate of 1.8 million. The Digital Entertainment Group reports that HD DVD has sold 300,000 HD DVD players, and half of that figure is the external drive that pairs with Microsoft's Xbox 360.

Things looked bad for HD DVD last month when Blockbuster said the only high-definition DVDs it would rent in its stores would be Blu-ray. HD DVD will be available, however, on its Web site, Blockbuster.com.

In yet another sign that two competing formats may be a thing of the past, earlier this month Warner Bros., a studio supporting both formats, announced that its Total HD disc--HD DVD on one side, Blu-ray on the other--would likely be delayed until early 2008. Though Warner Bros. says the timing isn't right and the dual-format disc will still be a viable business idea six months from now, it's looking more like it won't even be necessary.

Click on the chart above for a breakdown of the numbers.

Correction: The initial version of this blog incorrectly cited the Digital Entertainment Group on the number of Blu-ray players sold. The number is from the Blu-ray Disc Association.

Sony's BDP-S300 Blu-ray player currently costs $500.

(Credit: Sony)

First Blockbuster, now Target's going Blu-only. Or at least that's what it appears from an AP report that was filed late yesterday. According to the story, "Target Corp., the nation's second-largest retailer, will start selling a Sony Blu-ray high-definition DVD player during the critical holiday shopping period and feature the player along with Blu-ray discs in store displays, dealing a potential blow to the rival HD DVD format."

The story goes on to say that the move will formally be announced Thursday and is designed to help cut through the confusion that's kept consumers from "rushing to buy new DVD players until they can determine which format will dominate the market."

I guess this is sort a big deal, but at the same time, I'm not sure why anyone would bother buying the player--the Sony BDP-S300--that Target will allegedly be selling for $499 in October when the PS3 costs the same price. (The BDP-S300 only earned a 6.5 rating from CNET). Now, if that price were to come down by a couple hundred bucks, that might be a real blow to HD DVD. While I don't see that happening, I would expect this model to be $100 cheaper by October.

Note: A few hours after I posted this story, Ken Graffeo, Executive Vice President of HD Strategic Marketing for Universal Studios Home Entertainment, issued a statement. He says:

"Target will continue to carry the Xbox 360 HD DVD drive as well as HD DVD titles so we don't see much of a change in their plans to carry both formats. In fact, they continue to sell Toshiba HD DVD players on their web site. Sony appears to have bought an end cap, just as HD DVD has in retail stores such as BestBuy and Circuit City."

(Credit: Heavy.com)

Heavy, the online video site with a distinct focus on the Jackass demographic, announced Tuesday that it will be using the IP Intelligence technology from Digital Element in order to "geotarget" its advertisements, language, and video content based on where a visitor's IP address is located.

This means a couple of different things. One, by knowing where its visitors come from, Heavy can run locally targeted advertisements, which can make it a more appealing buy for advertisers. This, as we've seen with many of Google's locally-oriented applications, can be very lucrative.

And two, imagine the possibilities of geographically relevant Heavy videos: instead of just seeing videos of skateboarders falling off roofs into kiddie pools full of Jell-O, you might be able to see videos of skateboarders falling off roofs into kiddie pools full of Jell-O that were filmed in your home state. That skateboarder falling off the roof might even be your neighbor.

Heavy, as you may recall, made headlines earlier this year when it hired porn star Ron Jeremy as the host of a tech comedy show.