Rogue Flash ads pushing malware

Sunbelt Blog posted an article entitled Rogue ads pushing malware – how it works. Here’s the video that shows what’s happening:

At Sunbelt Blog’s website, Alex Eckelberry continues to talk about the Flash .swf ads that are being used to push all this malicious content after throwing the user back and forth all over the web utilizing techniques that are big with Web2.0 interactive and mashed up content:

This is not a trivial problem, and the most important thing for publishers to do is to be extremely careful when accepting new advertisers (and be wary of tricks these people use, like giving fake references), and then keep a close eye on the advertising as it’s running (and hopefully some good tools can be developed for publishers to use to check the content of ads for malicious redirects before posting).

Must read for all Web Surfers.

Legitimate sites like the Major League Baseball site that had at one time recently been unknowingly spewing this type of bad content which was infecting visitors’ computers (see the article) were just trying to keep their visitors/users interested using innovative Web 2.0 features — bringing in and displaying, aka Mashup (web application hybrid) content such as articles, news, videos, ads and more from various sources on the Internet. In the process, something occasionally happens on these legitimate sites. Bad things are being injected.

Thanks for the heads up Alex!

Beware: Facebook Widget installs Zango

Beware: Facebook Widget installs Zango:

Fortinet Global Security Research Team discovered a malicious Facebook Widget (officially, a “Platform Application”) actively spreading on the social networking site which ultimately prompts users to install the infamous “Zango” adware/spyware.

Antivirus/Anti-Malware programs block the installation and state it’s Zango as shown later in the article at Fortinet’s FortiGuard Center report.

Thanks to TeMerc @ Scot’s Newsletter Forums and Sunbelt Blog.

FTC Chairman refuses to recuse herself?

FTC Chair Refuses to Recuse Herself on Google-DoubleClick Deal…Well, shouldn’t the FTC itself force her hand? As a group that is supposed to be looking out for the interests of the Citizens of this great country — shouldn’t they force her hand?

Wired and many others are reporting:

Federal Trade Commission chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras is not going to be stopped by a couple of privacy-loving non-profits. Majoras says she will not recuse herself from the Google-DoubleClick review, despite a petition from the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy.

The “privacy-loving” groups had filed a petition calling for her disqualification on the matter earlier this week. They cited a conflict of interest. (since Majoras’ husband works for the law firm Jones Day — where Jones Day represents DoubleClick in the antitrust case in Europe. Not only that, Majoras also used to work at Jones Day.)

BOLD emphasis mine.

We don’t claim to be attorneys, but Majoras’ defense seems lame. Her argument is this: a) Jones Day has never represented DoubleClick in front of the FTC, and b) her husband is a fixed participation partner, and not an equity partner at Jones Day, so he doesn’t have a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

They are claiming there is no conflict of interest? Huh? The most obvious is that Jones Day signs her husband’s checks. And used to sign hers. But it goes so much deeper than that! If we can connect the dots, why can’t the FTC?

The FTC should not be allowing even a hint of any conflict of interest. There should be NO ROOM for doubt as to the impartiality of the Chair or the Members of the Panel which is to review a given situation, IMHO. I thought that was the FTC’s stand as well…maybe I was wrong on that??

So my questions are the following:

What’s up with the FTC allowing her to make such a claim and buying into it? …and… Is the rest of the FTC going to allow this??

Why would the FTC want to waste our tax dollars on a less than their best investigation? (Whether she is generally good at her job or not has nothing to do with perception and intent.)

Just because she believes at this moment that there were no conflict of interest doesn’t mean there isn’t a conflict of interest. And if she doesn’t see the conflict of interest, is she really the right person for the this job?

Just a few questions…

Oh, and while we are looking closely at some government type things:

A make-or-break moment for telecom immunity has arrived — after months of back-room committee-meetings, the FISA bill will finally reach the Senate floor on Monday! The clock is ticking and the upcoming votes will be critical. Email your Senator now:

http://www.eff.org/showdown