'Search engines should do more to fight malware'

Posted by   Virus Bulletin on   Mar 4, 2008

85% of users think that search engines should be doing more.

According to a recent poll, 85% of visitors to the VB website think that search engines should be doing more to fight malware, but experts say the matter is more complicated than that.

A recent paper by researchers at Google revealed that more than 1.3% of Google search results now contain at least one malware-serving website - a number that has quadrupled in the past nine months. Translated into actual searches this means that millions of people are being presented with links to malware-serving websites every day.

Randy Abrams, director of technical education at Eset, says that anything that search engine companies can do to prevent links to malicious websites from being displayed is beneficial, but warns that it is far from an easy task. He reminds us of last year's malware attack on the Miami Dolphins website just prior to the Super Bowl: "to block search results to that site," he says, "might have been perceived as a bad thing by many people."

Besides raising issues over freedom of speech, Abrams foresees another side effect of blocking sites: a new kind of DoS attack, where a website is infected with malware by a competitor or someone with a grudge, thus causing it to disappear from search engine results.

Martin Overton, an independent researcher and regular contributor to Virus Bulletin, agrees with VB poll respondents that search engines aren't doing enough. However, he points out that it is not easy to determine exactly what should be blocked from search results: "[Should you block] just malware, hacking tools and exploit code, or do you include porn, gambling, racial and religious abuse, and many other 'bad' things too?"

Tools such as SiteAdvisor and the others that warn about malicious or infected sites are probably a better idea, according to Overton, but he warns that they can be used as a crutch and are often used as a form of authorisation tool: "The user thinks 'If my toolbar/anti-malware says it is safe, then I'll trust it, and if I get infected, hacked or phished, then it isn't my fault.'"

So what's the answer? Abrams believes user education is important - and that blocking websites from search engine results might not be helpful: "[Blocking infected sites] does not educate people who desperately need to know more, and doesn't improve the security of software." Meanwhile, Overton suggests turning off all scripting and plugins in your browser, but says that this could cause problems with the functioning of many websites. "As with most things, he says, "minimising the risks will require a mix of technologies and education as well as good security policies and procedures - and a common-sense application of them all."

Google was not available for comment.

Posted on 03 March 2008 by Virus Bulletin

twitter.png
fb.png
linkedin.png
googleplus.png
reddit.png

 

Latest posts:

VB2016 preview: Wild Android Collusions

Full technical details of the first in-the-wild Android app 'collusion' attack, where multiple apps perform an attack in collaboration, will be shared with the public in at VB2016 in Denver on 5 October.

Small Talks return to the Virus Bulletin Conference

Following their success last year, this year a series of "Small Talks" return to the VB2016 conference programme. We are pleased to announce the details of six of these talks, covering subjects that range from the Chinese cybercriminal underground to…

Research shows web security products perform well against exploit kits

Research by Virus Bulletin, in which five web security products were served 54 live exploit kits, shows that the products blocked between 87 and 100 per cent of the kits.

Throwback Thursday: Olympic Games

In 1994, along with the Olympic Games came an Olympic virus, from a group of Swedish virus authors calling themselves ‘Immortal Riot’. We look back at Mikko Hyppönen's analysis in the VB archive.

VB2016 call for last-minute papers opened, discounts announced

Announcing the VB2016 call for last-minute papers and a number of discounts on the conference registration rate.