Risk
7/31/2010
11:06 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Be Careful What You Search For

Viruses and malware used to spread and try to find computer users to infect. Today, research released at DefCON 18, shows that increasingly search engines are bringing users are going straight to the malware.

Viruses and malware used to spread and try to find computer users to infect. Today, research released at DefCON 18, shows that increasingly search engines are bringing users are going straight to the malware.Tainting search results with malware isn't new, but few realize just how widespread the problem is. Researchers from security firm Barracuda Networks studied trending topics over two months from results at Bing, Google, Twitter and Yahoo!

The company says they reviewed more than 25,000 trending topics and roughly 5.5 million search results. A number of interesting results from the study included:

Google took the top hit when it came to malware distribution: turning up more than twice the amount of malware as Bing, Twitter and Yahoo! combined when searches on popular trending topics were performed. According to the study, Google presented 69 percent of malware; Yahoo! at 18 percent; Bing at 12 percent; and Twitter at one percent.

The average amount of time for a trending topic to appear on one of the major search engines after appearing on Twitter varies tremendously: 1.2 days for Google, 4.3 days for Bing, and 4.8 days for Yahoo!

More than half of the malware found was between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. GMT.

The top 10 terms used by malware distributors include the name of a NFL player, three actresses, a Playboy Playmate and a college student who faked his way into Harvard.

The question is: if it's this easy for a security firm to find malware being spread by the various search engines, why can't the search engines do a better job of finding - and filtering - malicious results themselves?

A copy of Baracuda's report can be found at http://barracudalabs.com.

For my security and technology observations throughout the day, find me on Twitter.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-6651
Published: 2014-07-31
Multiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in the Vitamin plugin before 1.1.0 for WordPress allow remote attackers to access arbitrary files via a .. (dot dot) in the path parameter to (1) add_headers.php or (2) minify.php.

CVE-2014-2970
Published: 2014-07-31
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2014-5139. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2014-5139, and has also been used to refer to an unrelated topic that is currently outside the scope of CVE. This unrelated topic is a LibreSSL code change adding functionality ...

CVE-2014-3488
Published: 2014-07-31
The SslHandler in Netty before 3.9.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (infinite loop and CPU consumption) via a crafted SSLv2Hello message.

CVE-2014-3554
Published: 2014-07-31
Buffer overflow in the ndp_msg_opt_dnssl_domain function in libndp allows remote routers to cause a denial of service (crash) and possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted DNS Search List (DNSSL) in an IPv6 router advertisement.

CVE-2014-5171
Published: 2014-07-31
SAP HANA Extend Application Services (XS) does not encrypt transmissions for applications that enable form based authentication using SSL, which allows remote attackers to obtain credentials and other sensitive information by sniffing the network.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio