• drspod@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The ads are legitimate and paid for but disguise themselves as the website or software the user is searching for.

    That is not what “legitimate” means.

    • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Eh, “legit” as in “paid for, payment accepted by Google, displayed in search results without proper QC.”

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

      A “legitimate” google ad tricked my friend into installing a version of vlc with spyware packed with it. This was a few years ago. Are tech journos just figuring this out?

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Definitely serves people right for using gøøgl€ and not scrolling down halfway down the page to avoid all the ad links.

  • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I like how Apple has all these virus issues and their users will go to any length to make it not appear to be Apple’s fault.

    Edit: Downvotes don’t change the fact that I am right whether it upsets you or not

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is this Apple’s fault, exactly? This same attack would work just as easily on Windows or Linux.

      • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Definitely sounds like it wouldn’t and hasn’t gotten anywhere on Linux or Windows. And if we look at the authors page we can see they may have some deep bias going on. You may want to block articles by them preemptively.

        • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Probably because windows and Linux users aren’t searching for free Mac apps. While I agree that it would probably be difficult to implement an attack like this for Linux (partly because it’s Linux and partly because it’s userbase is generally more technically apt), Windows has been susceptible to viruses since the dawn of time because users just install random shit on autopilot and click through installers without checking what extra bloat is included (which is often malware disguised as an extra third party program). I don’t think I agree that this specifically is Apples fault. No one blames Windows or Linux distros for user error and poor security practices.

          Google’s fault for not vetting the ads they let through? For sure. The users fault for not paying attention while installing the app and just clicking through the request to bypass Gatekeeper and then entering their system password when a pop up randomly asks for it for no discernible reason? Absolutely.

          What should Apple do to fix this? Lock the machine down to the point where users aren’t allowed to have admin privileges on their own machine?

          • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actually it seems you may have made some mistakes in researching causes of viruses. Viruses have infected Windows machines more in the past as it is a larger target, there are far far more Windows users than Apple and Linux users by a large large margin which means you have a higher target for your attack. MacOS makes up about 7% of the operating system market at its peak and Linux hovers are 2-3% so planning a virus to affect one is not a great idea unless… Microsoft’s security started to become so strong that malware developers now have to seek the open vulnerabilities (see op). Since that’s not understood we can move on

            As far as the article indicates the ad itself was not actually a Google fault whatsoever, it actually appears as a Google ad though. The malware itself is installed by other means entirely but the user themselves, the relation to Google here is that the malware already installed on the machine disguises itself as a Google ad. Really, honestly, read the article next time. This is 100% standard malware attack on an unprotected system.

            • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure where I said anything about the reason any of those platforms get viruses because you’re right, Windows was often more targeted because its footprint was massive by comparison (whole lotta end users out there, but also tons of domain controllers and enterprise systems running it) - I’m not arguing that.

              AMOS itself is distributed in all kinds of ways including phishing, being bundled into crap no-name software, shady ads, tainted torrents, whatever. You still have to be tricked into downloading whatever it is that infects your machine with it.

              As to this partially being Google’s fault, from the article itself:

              The ads are legitimate and paid for but disguise themselves as the website or software the user is searching for.

              In the given example, it sounds like the ad was for Trading View, a pretty popular stock market charting platform, but the ad itself took users to trabingviews.com and it looked like a clone or Trading View’s site or some kind of landing page that purported to be a download for a desktop client. In the Malwarebytes article I share below, the fake URL purporting to be Trading View’s website is actually tradingsview.com

              I’m not exactly sure where you’re getting the idea that this was a fake ad caused by malware pre-existing. These are “legit” Google ads that are bought and paid for and not quality checked by Google before they display them.

              Here’s the article directly from Malwarebytes, the folks who kindly did the write up the author of the above article is talking about:

              https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/threat-intelligence/2023/09/atomic-macos-stealer-delivered-via-malvertising

              • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think your should read again. You seemed to understand the parts separately but when they came together you got a bit confused

                • _bug0ut@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  My guy, I don’t know what you want from me. A Google ad is purchased in a legitimate manner, but the ad itself actually links to a page where you download malware.

                  You answered really fast, so you clearly didn’t read the actual source material I linked at the bottom - specifically the Distribution section.

            • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your numbers are off. Apple was 7% of new computer sales but the install base was close to 20% because Macs last longer than PCs.

              • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                7% is percent market sale. Not sales. Mac’s have very rapid EOL as you can’t update to newer versions for reasons of revenue so you will so you will actually see more older PCs running than anything and with Mac’s declining sales you will see fewer and fewer as time goes on especially since Intel mac’s are losing support already

                • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, current Macs May have rapid EOL but prior to 2015 Macs were much more upgradable and lasted longer than comparable PCs. The 20% market share was during that period.

            • NotSpez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I haven’t been subscribed to this community for long. I feel every apple-critical comment gets downvoted a lot, suggesting this is more of an apple_blind_fandom than an apple enthusiast community.

              Why can’t we critically object to elements of things we like? Thanks for your comments, I think adding nuance and counterarguments (in a respectful way) adds to this community.

              • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                This is a really poor example of a comment to highlight an apple bias. The parent commenter is objectively wrong on the topic; OSX security is similar to Linux security.

                • NotSpez@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks for pointing it out, I am a noob in technology so have no diea.

                  My point about a very strong bias still stands due to all kinds of experiences in the past though. As I said - I really think in general it is good to even be critical of products we are really fond of.

                • NotSpez@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It is, isn’t it? Glad that we need to worry about imaginary points even less on this site than on Reddit.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Windows? Are you seriously defending windows users ability to spot viruses? I guess someone’s never been the family tech support.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Got it. You don’t know how to read, are too stubborn to admit you’re wrong, and are actively lying in responses. You shouldn’t be saying anything about bias…