I just gave you a first-hand account of exactly that happening, and you keep dismissing that, claiming that it does not happen.
If you don't believe me, google for it. There have been plenty of articles about ad networks as malware services.
I find your behaviour here very dishonest, and for me it's EOD.
You means the popup that force you to force-close your iPhone browser app? I already answered that:
> That's seems more like a browser issue [...] I don't consider that malware to have to close an application, just like I don't consider a malware a link that rick roll me (which still force me to close a tab ;) unless I want to stay on Youtube).
I did get theses kinds of ads on some sketchy website on my Android phone, I can't do back but closing the tab is alright.
To me closing an annoying tab isn't much of a malware. If none of my information were at risk, that's not a malware.
> If you don't believe me, google for it. There have been plenty of articles about ad networks as malware services.
You do this after I even mentioned this happening all the time.
> Each time I ask someone that does it for "security purpose", when they don't answer by "do your own research" (which I always try when they say that even if it's absurd to have nothing to defends yourself), the best example they always have is either link to some report with stats that doesn't define malware, or the Forbes case of when one of their ad was a fake Java update. If that's malware, then here we go, HN now serve malware too: Click on that URL to update Java: https://forbes.com
I'll google with you then: ad network malware
Result 1:
> Hackers Abuse Google Ad Network To Spread Malware That Mines Cryptocurrency > https://www.forbes.com/sites/leemathews/2018/01/26/hackers-a...
You may not want cryptominers in your ads, but that's not really a malware again, your information are safe. There's nothing dangerous there.
Result 2: > Malvertising - Wikipedia > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
It does contains an interesting history, which push toward my theory.
> advertisements telling them their systems were infected and trying to trick them into installing rogue security software > drive-by download
So theses malware get installed if you download it and run it voluntarily...
> The attack infected users' machines with the ransomware, ‘Cryptowall’, a type of malware that extorts money from users by encrypting their data and placing a ransom of up to $1000 in bitcoins, to be paid in 7 days, to decrypt the data.
That's an interesting case, but doesn't mentions how the payload was delivered, could be drive-by download like always.
> In 2014 there were major malvertising campaigns on the DoubleClick and Zedo ad networks. [...] As in previous attacks the cybercrime involved Cryptowall as the malware infection. This spate of malvertising was believed to have brought over $1 million of ransom money in by infecting over 600,000 computers.
That one is not directly interesting because the source say that:
>through aggressive distribution using a variety of tactics that included spam emails with malicious links or attachments, drive-by-download attacks from sites infected with exploit kits and through installations by other malware programs already running on compromised computers
Again, either by running it directly voluntarily, or by other malware already running....
However after more research from this case, I found another article [0], which said that:
> now millions of computers have likely been exposed to Zemot, although only those with outdated antivirus protection were actually infected.
So an actual case of infection! Caused by outdated antivirus though and worse than that:
> Zemot is focused on computers running Windows XP,
For something in 2014... Windows XP stopped being supported at all in April 2014. Don't use an outdated system...
I would go into each result, but they are mostly definitions and I already lost enough time. The last result of the page is interesting and probably the first case that I see.
> Malicious code hidden in advert images cost ad networks $1.13bn this year > https://www.zdnet.com/article/malicious-code-hidden-in-adver...
> "In this instance, the malicious code was an auto-redirect to a phishing site targeting US users."
So that's interesting, usually I wouldn't call phishing a malware mostly because you should always check the URL, but in this case considering it was doing it on the website itself, I would consider it as essentially one. First case I found! Adblock would then make sense on website where you put personal information. I hope browsers/ad-network will fix this auto-redirect issue quick though.
> I find your behaviour here very dishonest, and for me it's EOD.
What's dishonest about my behaviour?
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/19/6537511/google-ad-network...
