ie8 fix
madison

Google busts itself for distributing malware

By | September 22, 2011, 5:25am PDT

Summary: Who says Google favors its own properties? When the company’s Safe Browsing service checked Google.com, it found that 50 pages resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent.

Google is under fire in Washington for favoring its own properties. This week, I ran across proof that on at least one front it doesn’t discriminate.

The company’s Safe Browsing service uses Google’s wide-ranging spiders to look for evidence of malware distribution on the network at large; the findings are used to block potentially dangerous sites.

So what happened when Google inspected Google.com? Here’s the Safe Browsing Diagnostic page:

Oh my. Here are some results:

  • “Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 3 time(s) over the past 90 days.”
  • “Of the 2321615 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 50 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. … Malicious software includes 296 trojan(s), 35 scripting exploit(s), 15 worm(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 5 new process(es) on the target machine.”
  • “Over the past 90 days, google.com appeared to function as an intermediary for the infection of 11 site(s)…”
  • “[T]his site has hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. It infected 172 domain(s)…”

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who follows distributors of malware. As I’ve demonstrated here and here, the bad guys love to target Google search results. And Google search results were the primary vector for the Mac Defender attack that plagued Mac users in May and June of this year.

The notion that malicious software can be downloaded and installed without user consent is chilling, but to put things into perspective, that count represents about 1 dangerous page for every 50,000 in Google’s index.

I asked a Google spokesperson for an explanation and received this response:

Google’s automated malware scanning systems don’t play favorites when searching for malware - they scan and flag Google sites just like any other site. Many Google properties are designed for user-generated content - like Google Sites, Google Docs, YouTube, etc. So Google has developed sophisticated systems to help ensure user-generated content is safe, including our dynamic malware detection system which feeds data to the the Safe Browsing Diagnostic pages.

Whenever we find malware on a Google property we’re committed to protecting users. Yes, that may mean adding a Google property to the malware list. But the best way to protect users is to remove the malicious content. Google’s Anti-Malware team works closely with other Google teams to quickly clean up user-generated content on Google properties.

Battling malware is a difficult and on-going task. Google’s priority is protecting users, and we hold ourselves to a very high standard. Google’s Safe Browsing API protects millions of users every day as proof of our commitment.

And how did Microsoft’s properties fare? Here are the Safe Browsing Diagnostic pages for Microsoft.com and Bing.com. When I checked earlier today, both sites were found to have hosted malicious software, just as Google did. Microsoft.com showed no evidence of having allowed malicious software to be downloaded and installed without consent. For Bing, however, the result was less than perfect:

Of the 17068 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent.

In Bing’s case, the last detection of malicious software was on August 29. By contrast, Google found malicious software on its own properties as recently as this morning.

The moral of the story: Keep your guard up when you search.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
40
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google busts itself for distributing malware
erik.soderquist 26th Sep
@Claverhouse

don't be overconfident about that. *ANYTHING* can be hacked.

at present, web browsing from Linux is still a small enough group and diverse enough that it is not an attractive target, and this is coming from an avid Linux user. (Ubuntu, CentOS, RHEL are currently in use)
@DreyerSmit No, actually, it's expected. If you think something as large as Google won't get stats like these, then you're delusional.
@Aerowind +1 !
@Aerowind - But did Google ever do a public posting telling users of their site that they may have been exposed. This is the first we have heard as if it is proof that Google doesn't play favorites with its own sites. Google still gets a fail on this one.
@Aerowind Agreed.
@Rndmacts: Well, I've seen search results marked with "warning, this site might be dangerous" (or something like that).
@DreyerSmit Get six pack Abs

I???m busy and can???t spend 60 minutes a day with exercises.
Truth About Six Pack Abs does not require this.
30-45 minutes workouts 2-3 times a week should do the trick

go here : goo . gl /YR85Z
0 Votes
+ -
@DreyerSmit I agree with Alexdan2, I think you need to get six pack abs ASAP.
@mediumsizedrob Ditto. Heck, I'm sure we can all use six pack abs.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google busts itself for distributing malware
michaellashinsky@... 26th Sep
@mediumsizedrob

Six pack abs: How many six packs fit in a keg? Because that is what I have!
0 Votes
+ -
@DreyerSmit and Rndmacts: I don't see how. If you're asking Google to do a public posting about malware on their site, then so should all the sites out there.
0 Votes
+ -
I gotta hand it to Google - they test their own stuff and didn't try to hide the facts they uncovered, even when they weren't in Google's favor. If only our elected officials could be counted on to do the same. I can forgive quite a bit when someone tells me the truth and shows clear effort in trying to fix a problem.
@nrogers81@... assuming the numbers were accurate; appreciations to GOOGLE!
@nrogers81@... Google never told the public about this, they were trying to introduce doubt to a Senate accusation. If it wasn't for the hearing no one would be the wiser.
I dunno if it was a coincidence... but Gmail moved to the SPAM folder the ZDnet newsletter containing this article, something which didn't happened with the several of other newsletters received this month. LOL..
@diegocr Not in my case... never.
Check your rules.
So are they taking down the offending pages? "we???re committed to protecting users. Yes, that may mean adding a Google property to the malware list." Yeah yeah yeah so take them down already. I say the death penalty for writing all this computer malware and trojans and anything else like it.
0 Votes
+ -
@JimGordon

yes they do take down malware infested pages.

"Google???s Anti-Malware team works closely with other Google teams to quickly clean up user-generated content on Google properties."
@JimGordon I agree but the death penalty seems a little extreme. Maybe, just give the offenders a lobotomy. That would certainly assure that whenever they get the urge to write malicous code they will just drool a lot and forget where they left their computers. Then they can go back to watching cartoons and fondling themselves.
Does this indicate that Microsoft is hosting over 5 times as much malware as Google? Is this math correct?

2 / 17068 = 0.01172%
50 / 2321615 = 0.00215%

0.01172 / 0.00215 = 5.44
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google busts itself for distributing malware
erik.soderquist Updated - 22nd Sep
@pwatson

your math looks correct to me, just the statement needs adjusting to include the relative size of the properties
0 Votes
+ -
@erik.soderquist - How about...

If Microsoft had as many pages as Google, they would be hosting over 5 times more malware than Google.

On a percentage basis, Microsoft is hosting over 5 times more malware than Google.

A browser is 5 times more likely to encounter malware on Microsoft sites than on Google.

Do any of these work?
0 Votes
+ -
Fact
nanomartin 22nd Sep
@erik.soderquist
Even masquerade with supposed objectiveness, don't forget that this article is written by "Ed -Microsoft's- Bot(t)".

Yeah, come and call me Google's fan-boy. I don't mind at all. happy
0 Votes
+ -
@nanomartin
No, I'll simply call you a jerk happy
0 Votes
+ -
@pwatson

The PR answer is... YES, of course.

But without knowing things like standard deviation, distribution,... that is a useless statistic. There is nothing to provide a reliability measure...
@pwatson
sOUNDS about right; wonder why that wasn't brought out in the article; I suppose it\s apples oranges without the control ans same # of cases each.
The stat I love is, over a 90 day period:
Google: 2,321,615 pages
Microsoft: 17,068 pages.

This could mean:
1. Bing is small, or
2. Bing is slow, or
3. Bing is not used, or
4. Google is biased to Google servers, or
5. It's just some random stat that means nothing.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google busts itself for distributing malware
jnpena2001@... Updated - 22nd Sep
In google.com they tested 2,321,615 pages and found 50 with malicious software. In Bing they tested only 17,068 pages and found just 2. In terms of proportion they will found more than 270 if they test the same 2,321,615 pages in bing. Good record for Bing or just not looking for enough pages??
0 Votes
+ -
@jnpena2001@... You really can't assume that such a proportion is true in the case of either service on the result of one scan result. The very next scan or an even large scan could produce completely different results (better or worse) for both companies. Your conclusion is either blatantly biased or just proof of a lack of understanding of probabilities.
0 Votes
+ -
All is fair in Love and War.
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 22nd Sep
nt
0 Votes
+ -
That's funny, Microsoft kicked their @ss.
0 Votes
+ -
@trust2112@...
please do the math, they didn't
0 Votes
+ -
usefull
somereader Updated - 22nd Sep
Must be me but with what I understand I really learned nothing. What is the mechanism, where is the malware installed, what do other site scanners say.

Are you asking for filtering search results or are we talking about stuff that user upload? Or was this just playing with numbers and statistics for a laugh?
0 Votes
+ -
I also congratulate Google for what should be considered extremely obvious for ALL sites. There's no doubt in my mind Google has had a hand in probably an uncountable # of infections, but so likely have other so-called trusted sites.
0 Votes
+ -
No need to 'keep your guard up'
Lerianis10 22nd Sep
If Microsoft would go the PROPER route and have some NoScript type thing in their browser.

Personally, I haven't gotten hit with malware using Firefox since I installed that nearly 7 years ago.
Chrome? No problems with it even without NoScript, but I'd still like a functionality like it included.
0 Votes
+ -
Hhhmmm...
VhinzSanchez 22nd Sep
not anti-google, I'm using Gmail, GApps std, but this made me think that this is just a publicity stunt to no favoritism. Do you think we can hear about it if the inquiry did not start?
@vincesanchez@... I was just thinking the same thing! Probably never would have heard a peep out of Google on this, if there wasn't an investigation going on. Sounds like they're trying to show how concerned they are....
The only thing I get from this article is that Google is actively trying to protect us from malware wherever it is. Underline wherever. Without equivocation.

They are aware that as the world's premier search engine, they themselves will be under attack. They probably have a priority on their own and hosted pages, before they check the rest of the web, but they are defending us.

That they only now spoke of it doesn't really matter. What matters is that they are doing a self-appointed but very necessary job, like any responsible corporate citizen should and would do.

Kudos Google!
I've never once got malware from a Google search --- but running linux there's no way I could.
0 Votes
+ -
@Claverhouse

don't be overconfident about that. *ANYTHING* can be hacked.

at present, web browsing from Linux is still a small enough group and diverse enough that it is not an attractive target, and this is coming from an avid Linux user. (Ubuntu, CentOS, RHEL are currently in use)

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix