MIT Startup Tests Top Million Sites for Spyware

torrentami writes "An MIT startup called SiteAdvisor has downloaded over 100,000 programs from the top million Web sites and tested them for adware and spyware using an automated system they've built. They've got a blog entry where they dissect 5 of the worst adware bundles they found. There is some amazingly invasive stuff in there."

What about the rest?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I hope they have a "submit site" function for people to test random sites....

Re:What about the rest?

[TheSpoom (715771)]

That is a really good idea. Better yet, have a browser component that tells users, on the fly, what previous attempts at scanning the site have revealed (as they would have to be cached in order to have any sort of performance server-side). If a user notices that a site now offers spyware downloads, they could request that it get reexamined, and popular sites would get automatically reexamined often. This could be done using a cheap subscription model.

Has someone done this? It seems so obvious now that I've thought about it.

The major lesson of all this.

[CyricZ (887944)]

The one major lesson we can take from their research is that we should probably not be using Windows.

When you consider how many alternatives (often far cheaper, too) are available, it's a wonder that so many still choose to use software that leaves their systems wide open to exploitation, be it from worms, viruses, or malicious websites.

But perhaps a secondary lesson is that we need to keep an ever-strong vigil. It's perhaps even our duty as computer-competent individuals to inform others of these issues. Not to preach to them, by any means, but do let those less-astute computer users know what is going on. Advise them that such problems exist, and tell them how to avoid such malicious software.

We can easily defeat the problem of spyware. But it will involve people helping each other out. Soon enough the ignorance will fall by the wayside, and we will all be better off.

Re:The major lesson of all this.

[dada21 (163177)]

I disagree.

Windows is, by far, the most insecure operating system out there. It is also the operating system that users find the easiest to use, and it is also the operating system that (in my opinion) has the most flexibility for programmers and software corporations of all sizes.

While the *nix varieties are definitely more secure (as they are now), a switch to *nix will not lead us to less spyware-ridden applications online. In fact, if Windows were to fail commercially tomorrow and everyone runs *nix, you'll see spyware applications be written for these OSes immediately.

*nix does not mean secure. It just isn't popular enough for spyware programmers to target, yet. Give it time, I think as it gains popularity, it will begin to be a target for the software companies that try to enter and dissect your life digitally.

Re:The major lesson of all this.

[BushCheney08 (917605)]

In fact, if Windows were to fail commercially tomorrow and everyone runs *nix, you'll see spyware applications be written for these OSes immediately.

Agreed. Especially when you consider that all of the programs in TFA were installed after the user clicked the "I Agree" button five, six, seven times. The OS could be totally secure and only allow the installed apps to affect the logged-in user. They'll still be there annoying that one user, though, since the user is the one who said it was okay to put them there. This is where informing the user comes in. And the user has already shown many times over that they don't care to be informed. This sort of crap is gonna be around for a long long time...

Can't agree

[guet (525509)]

Agreed. Especially when you consider that all of the programs in TFA were installed after the user clicked the "I Agree" button five, six, seven times. The OS could be totally secure and only allow the installed apps to affect the logged-in user. They'll still be there annoying that one user, though, since the user is the one who said it was okay to put them there. This is where informing the user comes in. And the user has already shown many times over that they don't care to be informed. This sort of crap is gonna be around for a long long time...

Yes and No. The user has to agree, but on XP the user has been trained to agree -

A big difference I notice between Windows XP and OS X (one of those nix) is the number of times I have to click 'Next' or 'Previous' in dialogs in Windows, just to get anything done at all. In my opinion the main reason for the growth of spyware on Windows (before ubiquity) is the way the OS trains you to click,click, click to do anything at all. You end up not reading any of the dialogs because you read the first few words and guess the rest. The user is inured to warning dialogs of any sort, and starts to click through the forest of 'Next' buttons to get to where they want to go (or thought they wanted to go :). There's also the problem with users running as admin all the time, meaning the only line of defence is the security policy of the web browser, not the users' permissions.

In contrast on OS X you very rarely have to say 'ok, do this, then that, next, next, finish', you are asked one simple question (usually) with an 'OK' the first time you open a document type with an application. And you very, very rarely have to enter your admin password, practically only when you are installing big applications like Photoshop which need to install libraries. So if a website pops up an authentication dialog (which they can't anyway BTW), you know something is wrong; you stop and think about it.

That said user ignorance of what constitutes safe computing is a problem too.

Similar

[Mistlefoot (636417)]

Education is certainly the key.

I've been using the HOST file supplied by <URL :http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm > the Microsoft MVPS site for the past few years and have not had ANY spyware or Malware or viruses on any of my machines.

I still run ad-aware and spybot monthly and never see anything but a few cookies.  Once every few weeks I update my HOSTS file and then set it to read-only again and  the 10,000 or so sites it blocks are just that - blocked.

Web sites load faster too without some of the tracked ad sites loading.  From time to time I get pages that aren't found.....but I can review these as the HOST file is of course text.

I really do not know why HOST files are not a more common theme on here when setting one up on your Dad's computer saves you from removing crap from it as a hobby.

No reason to be vulnerable to spyware.

[CyricZ (887944)]

Have you tried the recent Kubuntu releases? If not, give it a try. It is by far one of the most easiest systems to install these days. Even easier to keep up to date, as well.

I was recently asked to set up some computer systems at a seniors home. Now, many of these people have never used a PC. So we were able to acquire several used PCs for almost no cost, and I installed Kubuntu on their systems. We got them set up so that they could check their email, browse the WWW, use various instant messengers to chat with relatives, and even play games (bridge and backgammon were big favourites).

Now, why did I go with Kubuntu? Mainly because it is free, and it is quality software that is quite easy to use. But more importantly, I wanted these systems to always be available to these people. I know that they might visit malicious sites. I wouldn't want that resulting in their systems being compromised just because of that.

You may deny it, but the fact of the matter is that Linux systems won't get infected with spyware at this time. Sure, that may change in the future, but I'm doubtful about that. The basic (yet significant) differences in code quality and architecture are enough to leave Linux (and other non-Microsoft) systems far more secure and usable, even in the fact of malicious software.

Re:No reason to be vulnerable to spyware.

[CyricZ (887944)]

I advised them not to buy software from WalMart, or even to download it for themselves. I asked them to contact me, and I'd come over and find something that worked for them. I know I could find software that I know I could trust, or at least have access to the source code to inspect and build myself if I felt there could be security problems. Then again, Kubuntu includes all the software they seem to need.

I haven't heard anything from them regarding cameras and other devices which did not work. I did, however, hear of one grandson bringing over his camera and taking pictures of the seniors so they could email them to their relatives. One of the grandparents who had some PC experience as a secretary told me that she was really surprised how easy it was to get the camera to work. All they did was plug it in, and the storage device on the camera was automatically mounted. They could copy over the files without problem. The kid was reportedly stunned that the seniors could use the system so effectively.

Insult inexperienced users all you want. Frankly, I think that a well-designed system can easily avoid the problems caused by unwitting users. Indeed, any quality software system would be designed in such a way as to completely minimize the harm that an inexperienced user could do. Linux and much open source software appears to do this quite well, and as such spyware just isn't a problem when dealing with Linux systems.

Re:The major lesson of all this.

[Kickboy12 (913888)]

I disagree.

People have been saying the same thing for IE vs. Firefox for a couple years now.

Guess what? I still don't see very many sites getting around Firefox's pop-up blocker, significantly exploiting it's weaknesses, or finding new security holes by the dozen. And yet... I continue to see it with IE. And don't be saying; "Firefox isn't popular, it'll happen eventually". My ass. It's been advertised into the ground.

Thus, the same concept with *nix vs. Windows. Windows is inherintly insecure, and by the nature of how it works and how it was designed, it makes it easier for advertisers to create software that'll mask itself from everything else. You simply CANT do this on Linux/Unix to the same degree, just as you simply CANT exploit Firefox the same way you can IE. Trust me, I've tried.

Re:The major lesson of all this.

[WindBourne (631190)]

I always laugh at that argument. Basically, so many windows encourage all the hackers. So not true. Even back in the 80's when Mac was bigger than Dos, attacks were being designed for DOS. Why? ease of doing so. Apache has shown this,as well as numerous other examples. The best example out there, is that banks during the 60's and 70's were heavily robbed until the 7-11 stores became the easy marks (and loaded with small money). Finally 7-11 decided to change their attitude and make it near impossible to make any amount of money over 50. So what are robbers hitting these days? banks. Why? do to ease of hit combined with the amount of money.
 
The lesson to learn on that, is that crooks go for the easy mark that makes money. *nix will be the target when either:

1. insecure systems do not have money.
   
2. all other systems are more secure than *nix.
   

Neither is likely to happen anytime soon (and many would argue any time far). *nix will be very secure for a long time.

Re:The major lesson of all this.

[CTalkobt (81900)]

This is not a windows issue (as much as I dislike windows).

It's a user issue. Like any information on the web you need to consider the source of where you're getting your programs from. I wouldn't get cancer information from the tobacco companies websites - just as similairly I wouldn't get software utilities from my company from a page that has a bunch of advertisement links along with some porn.

Rational users would cure 95% of the virus / trojan issues. The other 5% are usually inadvertant mistakes from legit websites. For those a checker is needed if you want to immediatly download files. That or let others be your guinea pigs and only download ones older than 3 months old.

( I know - there is no such thing as a rational user but I can dream... )

Re:The major lesson of all this.

[TimTheFoolMan (656432)]

It's no surprise that we who write software are seen as arrogant when we see the *average* user, the person who makes technically uninformed decisions, and our response is, "the problem isn't with our system, the problem is that you Mr. User are an idiot."

The world has idiots. Why can't technology people (us) accept this without derision? The world also has many people who don't know technology, and don't care too. They are not necessarily the same people.

Emerson said "Every man is in some way my superior, and in that i can learn from him." We seem to be so busy casting aspersions that we don't have time to listen. We're so quick to insult, perhaps because we (developers and technology people) don't *care* about users. Are we so superior to Emerson that there's nobody we can learn from?

Why can't *someone* care enough about the technologically illiterate to protect them against themselves? Why isn't there a company out there that will make it difficult for a regular user to install something that has potentially deep affects to the OS, but makes the OS accessible to that same user?

Oh wait... there already is one.

Tim

No, CyricZ is right, we need to educate users.

[tokengeekgrrl (105602)]

I have a brother who is marred and has 2 kids between the ages of 12-15. Those kids killed his last computer, unwittingly installing all sorts of nonsense when they downloaded games and graphics. That was on a Win98 SP2 machine which, as hard as I tried, I simply could not secure or revive from all of the trojans and malware that had infected it.

My brother supports a family of 4 on his one salary. They live very well considering the cost of living in their small, midwestern town, but computers still cost the same and he hasn't been able to afford to buy a new one. He's quite proficient with computers when it comes to using and configuring them for what he and his family needs it to do. He just doesn't have time to keep up on all the security issues and patches since he's too busy working to support his family and trying to be a good father to his kids.

After he got laid off from his job not too long ago, I bought him and his family a new PC with WinXP Home, (I know XP Professional is much better when it comes to security but it would have overwhelmed my brother and the best PC package I could find at the price I could afford only offered XP Home). I walked him through how to secure the new PC by setting up an account for the kids with guest access so they can't install anything, configuring automatic updates, installing spybot and automatic scans, tuning the XP firewall, and having him switch to Firefox. I sent him urls for websites that explained how to secure a PC and maintain it.

I've just emailed him about installing the SiteAdvisor plug-in for Firefox which is absolutely brilliant for users like my brother. Hell, I've installed it just for the novelty of it.

The point is, my brother is taking care of his machine now and he loves Firefox. He has told everyone he knows in his little town about how great it is and to dump IE. All it took was someone taking the time to inform him.

So chill and if you have the time and inclination, take 10-15 minutes to explain to a user how to protect their PC. If that's not the kind of thing you feel like doing, fine, then as far as I'm concerned, you don't have a right to complain about it.

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem, in my opinion.

Respectfully yours,
tokengeekgrrl

End Users Beware

[queenb**ch (446380)]

I can tell you from the experience of working on a network where the end users have very unwisely been made local admins on their workstation that the *only* thing required for a full spyware infection is a nice little surf around the 'net. This is compounded by the problem that they all seem to have some touch of OCD that compels them to click "OK" on anything thing that wants to install itself despite all of our efforts to educate them.

I will say that it is nice to see someone put quantifable numbers to the things I have long known from practical experience, but this isn't exactly news.

2 cents,

Queen B

Do what we say, not what we do?

[Jamesday (794888)]

"We've also made our data available under Creative Commons License 2.5". Data is ineligible for copyright cover in the United States, so no license is needed or can apply.

They wouldn't bundle an unnecessary license with useful data just after writing about bundling unnecessary software with desired applications, would they? :)

It is useful outside the US, though, so this is actually a but tongue in cheek. :)

Re:C'mon, hands up...

[Council (514577)]

Odds are good that some Slashdot readers are involved in producing and propagating spyware. (Lots of us, lots of it. You do the math.)

How about you fake your IP, make a new account, post as Anonymous Coward -- whatever you need to do -- and give us an insight into your world, and the attitudes of the people you work for?

It just so happens I work for a large spyware/malware company, and I'd like to blow the whistle. My report on our industry is available here [entertainm...lpaper.com]. (To access my tell-all, you should all click "yes" on whatever dialogues come up.)

I don't agree.

[Zombie Ryushu (803103)]

THe security paradigm of Windows and the Unix World are Apples and Green peppers. There will still be spyware threats out there if Windows didn't exist. But they would be different threats, and they could eeven be worse in some cases, but they would be fewer in number and the Internet wouldn't be such a darkened Hell hole it is steadily becoming. The Data miners would get more resistance from the Unix world than they have a Windows world that can't fight back.

Very interesting...

[skogs (628589)]

This is a very neat process that I would enjoy having the ability to root around in. Very nice tool, and looks like it has created some excellent data.

I would enjoy seeing some of the nastier data put forth in a simple list so that I can add them to my banned domain listing on my firewall.

Currently, I knock down ads(from the ~1800 most active servers), with the wonderful help of the following gentleman.

# last updated: 2005-12-18 15:17:02

# The latest version of this list and other ways of viewing it are at:

# //pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/

# - Peter Lowe // [e-mail]

#

For the Lazy... [yoyo.org]

Now, about that warez/malware/stupid screensaver and other utilities list....

Exokernel Guys

[putko (753330)]

The technical guys in the company are from MIT's exokernel project.

They worked on delivering high throughput for video with their superior OS technology. It interoperated with Windows, allowing them to make money.

This project looks surprisingly un-technical and uncomplicated in comparison, given how competent and accomplished they are.

Here's an exokernel link:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/exo.html [mit.edu]

You get what you pay for...

[ian_mackereth (889101)]

If the word "Free!" is enough to get users to download the screensaver, game, utility, etc., then this sort of thing will continue.

Somebody has to pay for the server bandwidth and the time to write the programs, and one viable model is adware. I deplore the installation of software that's a)not in the EULA or installer screens and b)damn hard to get rid of, but the 'legit' adware is what's paying the bills of the guys giving you free stuff.

There's always a subset of users who can circumvent the installation of the unasked-for bundles, but the average user without updated anti-spyware, firewall or anti-virus software will make enough money for the vendors to keep us in freebies for quite some time to come...

Where is the accountability?

[Presence2 (240785)]

If I designed a product that allowed me to invade your home without your knowledge, spy on your behavior, and report it back to me - I would be arrested (or hired by NSA/homeland security).

Yet, all these thousands of products do this with absolutely zero accountability. As far as I am concerned, the programmers and companies who promote this behavior should be just as culpable as any petty crook who selfishly holds no regard for their victims.

Chattin in IRC (ps love this program)

[t0qer (230538)]

<toqer|7boo> http://www.siteadvisor.com/preview
<pickanick> testing
<toqer|7boo> ya that thing is pretty friggen cool
<toqer|7boo> its like knowin which ho has ghonorhea before you bang her
<toqer|7boo> very sexy
<pickanick> cool analogy
<Drumstix> hah

Re:stop advertising for MIT

[nacturation (646836)]

Flipping through the pages, I found a few references to only Ivy Leavue Universities and overseas institutions (specifically Cambridge and Harvard).

Harvard moved overseas?
 

SiteAdvisor does not install Yahoo Toolbar

[bedelman (42523)]

Bombadier,

I'm on SiteAdvisor's advisory board, and I've tested their products at length. I've never seen anything like SiteAdvisor installing the Yahoo Toolbar, and I'm confident that there's some other explanation for what happened to your computer. Can you send me an email [benedelman.org] so we can troubleshoot what happened? I want to get to the bottom of this and clear SiteAdvisor's good name.

Ben Edelman