Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
The Truth About Malvertising
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
PZav
PZav,
 User Rank: Author
1/21/2015 | 7:48:35 PM
Re: who is responsible? onus on advertisers and publishers
The reason ISPs won't get involved is because its a slippery slope for them. If they created controls for something like bad adverstisements, then media outlets would start putting pressure on them to curb pirating. Its the same issue for search engines. Plus there is the whole privacy can of worms as well. How closely do they have to look at our traffic to setup meaningful controls? As soon as they're viewed as anything more than a transit system, they begin to take on a lot more responsibility. Its too much of a liability.  
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
 User Rank: Strategist
1/21/2015 | 8:48:34 AM
Re: who is responsible? onus on advertisers and publishers
It's hard to know who should take the lead for malvertising prevention -- or the blame for the problem in the first place. Yes, it's a consumer problem via personal computers. But so is a  lot of garden variety malware. Maybe ISPs should provide consumers with better controls ?
Chris Weltzien
Chris Weltzien,
 User Rank: Author
1/20/2015 | 5:31:59 PM
Re: who is responsible? onus on advertisers and publishers
This problem has been brewing for a while. We saw it back in 2007 at Exploit Prevention Labs when it was just starting to surface and when we uncovered some some malicious Google Ads campaigns USA Today ran an article on it. (can't link to it in comments)  More recently the Senate had hearings on it in the spring of 2014, where ad networks were called out for ignoring the problem. If you are looking to protect yourself AVG's LinkScanner is a real-time client side solution, if you are looking for someone to take responsibility I wouldn't hold your breath. 
PZav
PZav,
 User Rank: Author
1/20/2015 | 4:02:55 PM
Re: who is responsible? onus on advertisers and publishers
History is on your side Marilyn! I do wonder if this is recognized as a consumer facing problem, if brands will take it more seriously though. It seemed like with the POS breaches that the banks were really the ones left holding the bag. But malvertising reaches personal computers. Time will tell! Thanks for the comment.
Marilyn Cohodas
Marilyn Cohodas,
 User Rank: Strategist
1/20/2015 | 9:04:17 AM
Re: who is responsible? onus on advertisers and publishers
I wouldn't hold my breath for advertisers and publishers to be proactive about malvertising -- at least not any time soon. Retailers have certainly been a major target of attacks and look at their track record at getting ahead of the hackers...
PZav
PZav,
 User Rank: Author
1/19/2015 | 12:15:47 PM
Re: who is responsible?
Maybe one of the biggest concerns is the harm malvertising will cause to the Internet economy, which is fueled by digital advertising. 
macker490
macker490,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/17/2015 | 9:51:31 AM
who is responsible?
until the laws regarding product liability are changed the system owner is responsible.

I am considering running my browser in a "NamedSpace" such as "firejail"  -- as my response to this question.

 


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
The 10 Most Impactful Types of Vulnerabilities for Enterprises Today
Managing system vulnerabilities is one of the old est - and most frustrating - security challenges that enterprise defenders face. Every software application and hardware device ships with intrinsic flaws - flaws that, if critical enough, attackers can exploit from anywhere in the world. It's crucial that defenders take stock of what areas of the tech stack have the most emerging, and critical, vulnerabilities they must manage. It's not just zero day vulnerabilities. Consider that CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog lists vulnerabilitlies in widely used applications that are "actively exploited," and most of them are flaws that were discovered several years ago and have been fixed. There are also emerging vulnerabilities in 5G networks, cloud infrastructure, Edge applications, and firmwares to consider.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2023-1142
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
In Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5, an attacker could use URL decoding to retrieve system files, credentials, and bypass authentication resulting in privilege escalation.
CVE-2023-1143
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
In Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5, an attacker could use Lua scripts, which could allow an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2023-1144
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5 contains an improper access control vulnerability in which an attacker can use the Device-Gateway service and bypass authorization, which could result in privilege escalation.
CVE-2023-1145
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5 are affected by a deserialization vulnerability targeting the Device-DataCollect service, which could allow deserialization of requests prior to authentication, resulting in remote code execution.
CVE-2023-1655
PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
Heap-based Buffer Overflow in GitHub repository gpac/gpac prior to 2.4.0.