Religious Sites Carry More Malware Than Porn Sites, Security Firm Reports

[rug]

The annual Internet Security Threat Report from Symantec also says malware threats to Android phones are up dramatically.

By Daniel Ionescu | PC World | 30 April 12

Religious and ideological websites can carry three times more malware threats than pornography sites, according to research from security firm Symantec. The firm’s annual Internet Security Threat Report also found that threats to mobile devices continue to grow, almost exclusively for Google’s Android mobile OS

Internet security reports from companies that also sell anti-virus solutions should be taken with a pinch of salt, given the potential of conflict of interest, but Symantec’s authoritative findings are nevertheless interesting.

Symantec found that the average number of security threats on religious sites was around 115, while adult sites only carried around 25 threats per site--a particularly notable discrepancy considering that there are vastly more pornographic sites than religious ones. Also, only 2.4 percent of adult sites were found to be infected with malware, compared to 20 percent of blogs.

Why religious sites you might ask? “We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free--it’s not good for repeat business,” said the report.

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/mobile-phone/3354811/religious-sites-carry-more-malware-than-porn-sites-security-firm-reports/

It figures porn sites use better protection.

[dimbear]

1. May be related to the tendency for religious folk to fall for scams.

That's pretty well documented. Scam capital of the US of A: Salt Lake City.

[rug]

2. In fairness, it's not just religious sites.

"Religious and ideological websites can carry three times more malware threats".

[ret5hd]

4. how much malware you got from DU?

just askin'.

[rug]

6. Only from a link on DU.

You assume DU is ideological rather than partisan.

[ret5hd]

8. and from your response the answer was -none-... correct?

[rug]

9. That is correct, only indirectly.

And your point is?

[ret5hd]

10. are you saying DU is indirectly responsible...

for some unknown poster linking you to some unnamed site?

[rug]

12. I am saying exactly what I wrote.

You want the link to the site?

[ret5hd]

16. sure.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Seekers and followers are always prime fodder for predators.

Those lamb chops are so tasty.

[cbayer]

3. Love your last line, lol

[liberal N proud]

7. Faith will protect you on religious sites.

Faith takes care of everything.

[Fresh_Start]

11. makes perfect sense to me

porn sites are trying to make you feel good because when you're feeling good it makes them more successful
religious sites are trying to make you feel bad/feel guilty, because when you're feeling bad/guilty, they are more successful...so how can you begrudge them a computer destroying virus when its your immortal soul at stake

[longship]

13. Solution: Use only Linux, the devil's own operating system.

I wouldn't use anything else.

[rug]

14. Then I would have to seek answers from you.

I couldn't figure it out.

You wouldn't like to be my guru.

[longship]

18. Well, rug, Linux is like Beeblebrox, it's just this OS.

It also happens to be secure.

[msongs]

15. maybe if one considers site content as malware.... nt

[Silent3]

17. "the average number of security threats... was around 115"? Counted how?

I don't think they can possibly mean that 115 different attack vectors are being thrown at you all at once on average, per web site every time you visit a religious web site. I don't think that many different invasive intrusions could be made on a web server to infect it with so much malware without the site being entirely crippled.

So what exactly are they counting?

[rug]

19. Here's the pdf.

http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/other_resources/b-istr_main_report_2011_21239364.en-us.pdf

I don't know what the hell it means. I must seek counsel from my guru longship.

[Silent3]

22. I searched through that whole document and couldn't find the number "115" anywhere

Not in the text (which is searchable) and not in any of the diagrams (since not automatically searchable, it's possible I might have missed something). I didn't even see any chart or graph where "religious" or "religion" was at item listed, and only one place in the text where the higher risk of religious and ideological sites was mentioned, but without any such number associated with it.

This makes me more suspicious that that number of "115" is someone's misinterpretation of the content of that document, a misreading of one of the charts and graphs, or maybe just a number pulled out of someone's ass. Then again, there could be another document or report involved as well, but even then, I'd suspect misinterpretation or misrepresentation. The number simply doesn't make sense.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. There's a lot of money in the porn

The porn kings (and some queens) probably spend a lot more money protecting their sites than religious orgs do. Not that most religious organizations don't have the money to do the same, but I think many religious groups have a certain naivety that makes them think their religious status somehow protects their endeavors.

[dimbear]

21. So it's safe to visit Barbie Bridges current web site, then. She's got everything covered.

Now.

[struggle4progress]

23. Daniel Ionescu can't read

Ionescu says: Symantec found that the average number of security threats on religious sites was around 115, while adult sites only carried around 25 threats per site

Here's a link to the pdf Symantec report: http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/other_resources/b-istr_main_report_2011_21239364.en-us.pdf

My search finds the word "religious" only once in the document: Moreover, religious and ideological sites were found to have triple the average number of threats per infected site than adult/pornographic sites.

Note that Ionescu writes about "average number of security threats" per site whereas the document actually discusses "average number of security threats" per infected site

[laconicsax]

24. I think he probably can. n/t