Scareware goes Green

Scareware goes Green

Summary: Malicious pseudo-environmentalists have come up with a new social engineering tactic aiming to improve the profit margins of their fake antivirus software releases - by promising to donate $2 from every purchase for saving the Amazonian green forests.The new scareware template branded as "Green-AV Premier Edition 3.


Malicious pseudo-environmentalists have come up with a new social engineering tactic aiming to improve the profit margins of their fake antivirus software releases - by promising to donate $2 from every purchase for saving the Amazonian green forests.

The new scareware template branded as "Green-AV Premier Edition 3.0" is pitched as the "World's First Antivirus Which Cares About the Environment" and goes for a hefty price of $99.99, in comparison to other scareware brands whose price tags vary from $49 to $79.

Green-AV's mission statement reads:

"Fighting viruses, spyware, malware is not only a question of security. Spyware actualy abuses your computer, overuses CPU speed, network bandwidth, makes your PC run slow. As a result you start consuming more power, working longer, think of replacing your PC with a new one which brings more unrecyclable wastes (many computer's parts contain toxic wastes).

This way Green AV actualy cares about the environment. We thought that our application can guard not only your PC, but whole Earth - our home planet. So to show how much we care we desided to send $2 from each product sale on saving green forests in Amazonia."

Despite the social engineering efforts on behalf of Green-AV's authors, the Secure SLL Connection padlock image indicates the bogus nature of their antivirus protection claims. They actually meant SSL connection.

Topics: Security, Social Enterprise

Dancho Danchev

About Dancho Danchev

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, malware and cybercrime incident response.

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Was Al Gore

    the first to fall for this?
  • Looks like the malware people are getting smarter... their targeting of people who as a group are more
    likely to fall for this kind of nonsense.
    • As smart as they may be...

      They still can't spell "realy", "desided". Not to mention the broken grammar is reminiscent of Niko Bellic in GTA 4... You'd think they'd at least know how to use an English language spellcheck. Even if English isn't their first language, they did have the tech knowhow to put together a scareware scheme, which is more than most second graders using word.
  • RE: Scareware goes Green

    I am sure that these scam artists are laughing at the stupidity of those fools who click on the link, and get pwned. [b]It serves them right.[/b]

    IMHO, the entire [b]Global Warming (nka as "Climate Change")[/b] is a huge scam perpetuated on the people of the world by a bunch of elitists. And we know that they are laughing all the way to the bank, too.
  • RE: Scareware goes Green

    "IMHO, the entire Global Warming (nka as "Climate Change") is a huge scam perpetuated on the people of the world by a bunch of elitists. And we know that they are laughing all the way to the bank, too."

    Don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. I guess you think that the entire scientific community is involved in this conspiracy so that Al Gore can charge fees to make presentations? Or maybe you are one of those who think we will get a new planet when Jesus comes?

    Let's look at who benefits from either side of the argument. The pro environment side makes lots of money, ok they don't make lots of money! Heavy polluting can make lots of money dumping hazardous waste on the land and into the water, and belching out megatons of gases into the sky with abandon. Where is this scam you speak of?
    • Where is the scam? Just follow the money.

      The oil industry has spent around $20-million on
      climate research. The results of this research
      are discounted as "tainted" simply because it
      was funded by the oil industry.

      On the other hand, In this decade alone,
      governments have spend more than $50-billion on
      research to reinforce the political agenda
      behind "warming", and we're supposed to accept
      that as gospel truth.

      So to say <i>"okay they don't make lots of
      money"</i> simply isn't true. There are now
      tens-of-thousands of "scientists" and government
      bureaucrats with careers tied to the existence
      of anthropogenic global warming. Without it,
      they'd have to get real jobs.
      • You got that right!...

        I've worked in government research, and that is exactly how the cookie crumbles!
      • I heard the same thing right out of the mouth of an ex-EPA scientist (nt)

    • The entire scientific

      community is not behind the conspiracy as you put it. Many are speaking out and many more are joining saying the whole thing is bogus. Notice how they changed the name from global warming to climate change? The climate changes. It is natural. A couple hundred years ago we had a mini ice age. We are in a cooling period again for the last decade.
    • Green politicians

      Its amazing how many of these Green politicians have money invested in
      the very companies whom they advocate for - naaaw, there can't be a
      conflict of interest! according to dill brains like yourself, these people do
      it out of the goodness of their own heart! only oil people are evil; if
      you're doing renewables, you're beyond reproach!
      • I'm not necessarily convinced...

        of the need to worry about global warming, although the reality that it is getting warmer is probably true. I've jumped on the bandwagon with the tree huggers, because I want to get the H**L off oil!

        It's getting too expensive, and their are more environmentally acceptable alternatives that cost less, put out WAY less CO2 in the atmosphere, and best of all we don't have to rely on no stinking OPEC!!

        Or anyone else for that matter.

        Argument number 1, is that the total cost of ownership on the new technology will be cheaper than driving gas guzzlers, and we won't be forced to drive teenie tiny roller skates to work!
        • sooo... you jump on the bandwagon to make it more expensive...(nt)

          • Not hardly...

            Burning methanol with a fuel cell is way more efficient and can result in a very good ROI.

            The manufacturing sector has discovered this as well; it has accounted to be cheaper than recharging batteries! The [b]R[/b]eturn [b]O[/b]n [b]I[/b]nvestment has turned out to be 45 to 55%!!
    • You wanna try that again?

      The entire scientific community? Really?

      The entire scientific community can't even agree that water's wet. And it's an absolute that they don't agree on this one.

      Step back from the kool-aid.
      Dr. John
    • Redneck "logic" scares me...

      Group A may benefit in some way from Climate Change (i.e employment, scientific grant money...)


      Climate change is false & Group A are involved in an organised global conspiracy to spread fear and false information for their own benefit.

      Is seems to be the main argument of the doubters here. I really pity anyone who believe this type of BS. Do some reading into these subjects guys. There is no "scientific consensus". There is however, a huge scientific majority who support this phenominon as fact. I suspect the real reasons for discounting the overwhelming evidence in favour of this phenominon is only as deep as "Climate change believer = greeny = liberal, and I don't agree with those guys. No-sir-ee."
      • Then why is it that...

        ...the only way to get grant money is to propose
        studies that support anthropogenic global warming?
        Just try getting grant money for any study that is
        meant to challenge that predisposed hypothesis.
        • Oh no, you're right...

          John: I'm not even going to subscribe to your rhetoric. ?The only way to get grant money is if you support their liberal agenda and help to propogate the conspiracy...?? That's what you said right? Something like that? Being a conspiracy theorist is ?back in? this season?

          I guess there's 2 options:
          A. Scientific evidence presented in studies funded by certain companies (who stand to incur the greatest losses from increased environmental awareness) have not stood up to scrutiny and failed to sufficiently challenge or disprove the well supported, well documented position of the scientific majority.
          B. A group of shady liberals conspired to sink the perfect and mind-blowing scientific evidence presented by groups funded by climate change deniers, because liberals hate legitimate science, and it was totally throwing off their liberal feng shui.

          Just so I'm clear we're going with 'B' right?

          And oldbaritone, as much as I'd love to relate (being a ?youngbaritone?), I don't remember the 1960's. I will however state that your ?we shouldn't trust science because it has been wrong before? argument has pretty much got me stumped. There is no known counter-argument to that gem of insight. I guess you're right after all... I'll be sure to forward this on to my liberal superiors and we should have this whole climate change conspiracy deconstructed within 6-10 business days. Thank you for showing us the light and we apologise for the inconvenience.
      • Conversely . . .

        Group B will suffer financial losses because of the opinions of Group A.

        Therefore ...

        All of Group B's research is tainted or unfounded because of their evil profit motive, and Group A's research is pristine because it's funded by government grants. Group A's ideas should be mandated, no matter how flimsy, and Group B should be ignored.

        It's just as illogical as the other way.

        The Planck Institute has measured an increase in the temperature of the sun. But it must be the evil corporations and their factories, and our terrible cars and airplanes polluting. It couldn't be the sun. That's natural, so it couldn't be the cause of global warming...

        "A huge scientific majority" in the 1960's supported the idea that "the next ice age is coming, and pollution from automobiles and smokestacks is the cause." Respected scientists and institutions, all. It was taught in grade-school as fact. Anyone who disagreed, no matter how sound the factual basis, was demonized and scorned.

        Sound familiar?

        Learned physicians and respected institutions also taught blood-letting for disease control for centuries. They "support[ed] this phenominon [sic] as fact." They, too, were wrong.

        The only thing they KNOW for sure is that THEY DON'T KNOW.

        Opinion is NOT fact, no matter what the spin. It's just a hypothesis, until the next one comes along.
      • Redneck good common sense..

        maybe those "rednecks" read in the enclopedia that the world had high CO2 before, at very high concentrations, and life on earth did better than it ever has since the Cambrian Epoch.
        • Exactly!

          So by pumping excessive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere we're actually encouraging life and environmental stability!

          That's what you're saying right? Great post.