Google to be Our Web-Based Anti-Virus Protector ?

cyberianpan writes "For some time now, searches have displayed 'this site may harm your computer' when Google has tagged a site as containing malware. Now the search engine giant is is further publicizing the level of infection in a paper titled: The Ghost In The Browser. For good reason, too: the company found that nearly 1 in ten sites (or about 450,000) are loaded with malicious software. Google is now promising to identify all web pages on the internet that could be malicious - with its powerful crawling abilities & data centers, the company is in an excellent position to do this. 'As well as characterizing the scale of the problem on the net, the Google study analyzed the main methods by which criminals inject malicious code on to innocent web pages. It found that the code was often contained in those parts of the website not designed or controlled by the website owner, such as banner adverts and widgets. Widgets are small programs that may, for example, display a calendar on a webpage or a web traffic counter. These are often downloaded form third party sites. The rise of web 2.0 and user-generated content gave criminals other channels, or vectors, of attack, it found.'"

1 in 10?

[Xoltri]

When I was living at home my sister must've found every last one of them. She was terrible for breaking the computer.

Huh

[Realistic_Dragon]

I browse the internet on my Linux box, running OS X with MacOnLinux. On OS X I run VMWare player hosting FreeBSD, where I have all the options turned to OFF. That runs Firefox, which connects to a web-2.0 version of Lynx. I use this to connect to another site which manually lets me enter netcat commands and read the result.

My only complaint is that the pirates at Macrodobe STILL won't support my platform of choice! When will there be a flash player for people like me!

Excuse me ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

Of course Google can protect us against everything and everyone (except the IRS, acne and that kid on the bike in Better Off Dead). They can do anything they say they can do ... and even stuff that they haven't thought of yet.

Google is good, Google is great, and Google can do no wrong. Where on Earth did I ever get that pearl of wisdom? I read it on the internets, of course ... on some site that rhymes with froogle.

right..

[mastershake_phd]

It found that the code was often contained in those parts of the website not designed or controlled by the website owner, such as banner adverts and widgets.
 
So google is going to protect us from webpages that use less than reputable advertising and widget services. Hmm, maybe google should go into the advertising and widget service, oh wait...

Re:Wouldn't good sites with bad ads or posts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be far better to have safer browsers than to shut out (as many people or their organizations will do) 10% of the web?

No. Because that will impact Google's ability to monetize their intellectual property through certification / exception schemes.

A Malware Site in China

[PHAEDRU5]

http://www.usconstitution.net/ [usconstitution.net]

Re:1 in 10?

[hal2814]

Well most downloaded malware comes through online games and porn. Which one did your sister have a hankering for?

Re:Only works through Goolge now...

[Random832]

However could we soon expect a Firefox add in that will filter all http requests through Google ? http://www.google.com/history [google.com]

Ghost in the Browser?

[PlayItBogart]

Is that anything like Ghost in the Shell?

Axis is evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, SCO, Microsoft... the axis of evil...

Re:A Malware Site in China

[PHAEDRU5]

You're not very smart, are you?

Great.

[dogbrt]

I've always wanted protection from those dreaded Anti-virus software.

Re:Huh

[rthille]

They have! just download it from here! [site.com]

Re:aid and comfort to the enemy?

[cp.tar]

Actually, I seem to recall that someone tried to run some Windows viruses in Wine.

Alas, Wine is not yet fully compatible with Windows, and it showed.

Re:1 in 10?

[Kurrurrin]

I'm trying to figure out how the first post can be tagged as redundant. It doesn't work, unless one is taking into account the entire history of posting on /. And if that is the case, then everyone should just start off with (Score:-1, Redundant) to save mods the trouble.

Re:1 in 10?

[Shinmizu]

Statistically, it's probably a safe bet to automatically tag the first post as such:

1) In Soviet Russia, first post, for one, welcomes our new Cowboy Neal overlords that can run linux on beowulf goatse clusters of this article was submitted three years ago, you stupid editors.
2)?????
3) Profit