Risk
7/31/2010
11:06 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
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
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-4077
Published: 2015-09-03
The (1) mdare64_48.sys, (2) mdare32_48.sys, (3) mdare32_52.sys, and (4) mdare64_52.sys drivers in Fortinet FortiClient before 5.2.4 allows local users to read arbitrary kernel memory via a 0x22608C ioctl call.

CVE-2015-5189
Published: 2015-09-03
Race condition in pcsd in PCS 0.9.139 and earlier uses a global variable to validate usernames, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges by sending a command that is checked for security after another user is authenticated.

CVE-2015-5190
Published: 2015-09-03
The pcsd web UI in PCS 0.9.139 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary commands via "escape characters" in a URL.

CVE-2015-5735
Published: 2015-09-03
The (1) mdare64_48.sys, (2) mdare32_48.sys, (3) mdare32_52.sys, and (4) mdare64_52.sys drivers in Fortinet FortiClient before 5.2.4 allows local users to write to arbitrary memory locations via a 0x226108 ioctl call.

CVE-2015-5736
Published: 2015-09-03
The Fortishield.sys driver in Fortinet FortiClient before 5.2.4 allows local users to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges by setting the callback function in a (1) 0x220024 or (2) 0x220028 ioctl call.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Another Black Hat is in the books and Dark Reading was there. Join the editors as they share their top stories, biggest lessons, and best conversations from the premier security conference.