Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

"Google reveals it now has over 1,000 staff just fighting bad ads", ZDNet


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,630 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 22 January 2016 - 09:49 AM

Google says last year it eliminated 780 million "plain bad" ads carrying malware, promoting fake goods or leading to phishing sites.

Ad networks have become a popular mechanism for distributing malware, such as the malvertising campaign spread via Google's AdSense at the beginning of last year.

To prevent bad ads from harming internet users and threatening Google's multi-billion dollar ad empire, Google ads and commerce SVP Sridhar Ramaswamy says the company has now hired more than 1,000 people across the globe whose sole purpose is "fighting bad ads".


Source: http://www.zdnet.com/article/ad-busters-google-employs-over-1000-people-just-to-fight-bad-ads/

It seems that a lot of effort is put towards fighting malvertising, but it seems that this is still not enough. Maybe in the future, a fully automatic prevention and solution system will be implemented to take care of these, but right now, it's good to see that some people try to take things in their hands and fight off malvertising using the resources they have.

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 TheJokerz

TheJokerz

  • Members
  • 286 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 22 January 2016 - 09:55 AM

I am surprised with all of the algorithms that they use, they have not created one that fights those pesky malvertisments!  Either way a 1,000 workers fighting those is better than none!


utl8q0-5.png


#3 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops

  • Topic Starter

  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,630 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 22 January 2016 - 09:58 AM

I think that Google can only take care of ads under their own system, which is AdSense. It cannot directly interfere with other Ad-system like AdChoices in my opinion.

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#4 TheJokerz

TheJokerz

  • Members
  • 286 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 22 January 2016 - 10:02 AM

That makes sense!


utl8q0-5.png


#5 rp88

rp88

  • Members
  • 2,999 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:10:34 AM

Posted 23 January 2016 - 07:40 AM

I'm glad to see them fighting the malvertising ads but it's clearly not enough, the systems which deliver adverts including malvertising are automated and act effectively instantaneously, the methods used to stop them will need to catch up to this rate. Making ad networks directly responsible for any malware spread via their networks, would hopefully motivate them to fit in coding to their automated ad distributing systems which would intercept any exploit ad before it could be displayed to anyone.
Back on this site, for a while anyway, been so busy the last year.

My systems:2 laptops, intel i3 processors, windows 8.1 installed on the hard-drive and linux mint 17.3 MATE installed to USB

#6 dannyboy950

dannyboy950

  • Members
  • 1,338 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:port arthur tx
  • Local time:04:34 AM

Posted 23 January 2016 - 08:38 PM

I don't know 780 million to 1000 is pretty steep odds. I think they could use 10,000 more and barely make a dent.

But as stated 1000 is better than none.  Good PR tho.


HP 15-f009wm notebook AMD-E1-2100 APV 1Ghz Processor 8 GB memory 500 GB Hdd

Linux Mint 17.3 Rosa Cinamon


#7 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops

  • Topic Starter

  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,630 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 23 January 2016 - 10:46 PM

Making ad networks directly responsible for any malware spread via their networks, would hopefully motivate them to fit in coding to their automated ad distributing systems which would intercept any exploit ad before it could be displayed to anyone.

It's not the Ad network fault if one of their client get their server hacked into and modified to do malvertising. At the very least, you could say it's the client's fault for having his server hacked into, but can you really blame them for that? It's like putting the fault on someone whose house gets robbed, because he got robbed.

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#8 DBAPaul

DBAPaul

  • Members
  • 21 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 25 January 2016 - 11:58 AM

 

 

At the very least, you could say it's the client's fault for having his server hacked into, but can you really blame them for that?

 

 

It IS the Ad networks fault if one of their client get their servers hacked into and modified to do malvertising. The Ad network should use better security practices to not let their servers get hacked.


#9 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops

  • Topic Starter

  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,630 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:34 AM

Posted 25 January 2016 - 12:02 PM

But the servers doesn't belong to the Ad Network, it belongs to a client who is a subscriber to that network and therefore is allowed to display ads through their services.

It's like putting the fault on someone whose house gets robbed, because he got robbed.


unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#10 rp88

rp88

  • Members
  • 2,999 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:10:34 AM

Posted 28 January 2016 - 12:37 PM

Post#7"...having his server hacked into..."


But often it isn't a hacked server at all, it's an ad network accepting an advert and displaying it without properly examining and vetting it. Yes you do get cases where a server has been hacked and used to distribute malverts which are then shown on larger and larger ad networks until they reach major sites, but more often the malverts are accepted, like any other ad would be, by the small ad network because that small ad network doesn't check them properly. Sometimes, and this has been detilaed on malwarebytes's blog, the creators of malverts first create a legit advert, give it to a small ad network to distrbute, then at the last minute say "oh we need to change something, the price listed was wrong by a penny", but the ad they then give to the network (after making their small change) has a whole load of malvertising code thrown in as well as the price of the product the advert pretends to be for altered by a penny.

Edited by rp88, 28 January 2016 - 12:40 PM.

Back on this site, for a while anyway, been so busy the last year.

My systems:2 laptops, intel i3 processors, windows 8.1 installed on the hard-drive and linux mint 17.3 MATE installed to USB




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users