An investigative report reveals that new spyware can slip in unseen through online ads—and there is currently no defense against it. So not only that online ads are intrusive and can infect devices through malware, they can also be used for spying.

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are we back in 1995? This should be common knowledge.

    Blocking ads to avoid their malware was the #1 reason to have adblocker.

    • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually it’s not really a problem anymore. Browsers have become probably the most secure softwares on your computer.

      0days for browsers are crazy expensive. Unless you’re targeted by state actors you have nothing to worry about.

          • Thann
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a 0day in chrome rn that let’s a picture take over your comp

            • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Then you would now that it’s a state Trojan just like Pegasus and that exactly such a 0 day that is being sold for large amounts of money.

              Edit: actually it doesn’t, but Insanet is a company that sells state Trojans.

              • mihnt@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                And you’re trusting everything an article says about a virus that says there’s no solution?

                What’s to stop a black hat buying this to steal identities?
                What’s to stop one of the coders from leaking it? Or a black hat leaking it?
                What about someone targeting an incorrect target and by doing so it ends up in the hands of someone more nefarious?

                Hackers and black markets do what they want.
                Can’t afford it? Steal it.

                • newIdentity@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Actually I hope it gets leaked because that would mean it will gets fixed.

                  Also im pretty against state Trojans and such, but as long as it makes money.

                  And what’s stopping someone from leaking it? It’s not particularly illegal to sell exploits and leaking exploits owned by someone is illegal. Also they won’t sell it for free and browser exploits are really expensive. I talking about at least half a million dollars.

                  There is no solution, because nobody except the ones who made it know how it works and its not public.

      • filgas08@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        browsers have become probably the most secure softwares on your computer.

        No, no they did not.

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Defense against it

    • uBlock Origin
    • NextDNS (I highly recommend this to everyone because you can easily get it for mobile devices and block ads served over mobile networks)
    • PiHole
    • Plenty of other options

    But if corporate media reported on ways to block ads, it’d eat into their own bottom line, so I can understand their choice to skirt the whole “ads are blockable with some level of effort” conversation.

    I’ve been blocking online ads for nearly the entirety of my multi-decade usage of the internet, to the point where seeing them now is actually quite jarring. The fact that they’re now a prime vector for malware and spyware/capitalist surveillance just one-ups the decision to block them just for the annoyance factor.

  • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is using some vulnerability in iOS. I’m an Android and Linux guy, but let’s hope Apple quickly finds the bug and fixes it. And fuck that agency for not alerting Apple and instead profiting from it. And fuck the Israeli government for enabling them.

    Edit: I misread, supposedly this is miraculously able to target every device.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even better: Thanks to ad tracking you can show specific malware to a specific cohort of people. Want to get spyware on every computer in DC? Just sign up for our ad program!

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        This sort of creepitude isn’t even specific to online ads.

        You know postal junk mail? The “direct marketing” companies that enable it will cheerfully sell you a list of the home addresses of people meeting any demographic characteristics you want.

        Do you have reason to want a list of 18-25-year-old gay men in the Boston area, widowed Asians in San Francisco, or military veterans in Oklahoma City? With their names, ages, and their home addresses?

        They can sell you one, perfectly legally, and it’s not even that expensive.

    • madsen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From the article:

      What sets Insanet’s Sherlock apart from Pegasus is its exploitation of ad networks rather than vulnerabilities in phones. A Sherlock user creates an ad campaign that narrowly focuses on the target’s demographic and location, and places a spyware-laden ad with an ad exchange. Once the ad is served to a web page that the target views, the spyware is secretly installed on the target’s phone or computer.

      If they’re using ads on a web page to install spyware, then they’re most definitely exploiting vulnerabilities—unless they’re showing the user a ‘do you want to install XYZ?’, in which case this isn’t newsworthy at all. Ads aren’t some magical thing that can just go around installing shit silently, so I don’t know wtf the article is going on about, but it doesn’t make sense.

      Edit: The Register seems to have a more sensible take on it: https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/16/insanet_spyware/

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Apple released an update day before yesterday, and another today.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    And still websites are pissed that I block ads. Websites, the adblocker is not there to annoy you, it is there to protect me from your foolishness and lazyness when it comes to weed out bad actors.

  • sebinspace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unity also purchased a company last year that was notorious for turning a blind eye to malvertisers

  • teft@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    and there is currently no defense against it.

    Don’t load ads. There, problem solved.