ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

The Web's most dangerous keywords to search for

By | May 27, 2009, 4:50pm PDT

Summary: Which is the most dangerous keyword to search for using public search engines these days? It’s “screensavers” with a maximum risk of 59.1 percent, according to McAfee’s recently released report “The Web’s Most Dangerous Search Terms“. Upon searching for 2,658 unique popular keywords and phrases across 413,368 unique URLs, McAfee’s research concludes that lyrics and anything [...]

Which is the most dangerous keyword to search for using public search engines these days? It’s “screensavers” with a maximum risk of 59.1 percent, according to McAfee’s recently released report “The Web’s Most Dangerous Search Terms“.

Upon searching for 2,658 unique popular keywords and phrases across 413,368 unique URLs, McAfee’s research concludes that lyrics and anything that includes ‘free” has the highest risk percentage of exposing users to malware and fraudulent web sites. The research further states that the category with the safest risk profile are health-related search terms.

Here are more findings:

  • The categories with the worst maximum risk profile were lyrics keywords (26.3%) and phrases that include the word “free” (21.3%). If a consumer landed at the riskiest search page for a typical lyrics search, one of four results would be risky
  • The categories with the worst average risk profile were also lyrics sites (5.1%) and “free” sites (7.3%)
  • The categories with the safest risk profile were health-related search terms and searches concerning the recent economic crisis. The maximum risk on a single page of queries on the economy was 3.5% and only 0.5% risky across all results. Similarly, even the worst page for health queries had just 4.0% risky sites and just 0.4% risk overall

This isn’t the first time McAfee is attempting to assess the risk percentage of particular search terms, as the company did similar studies in 2006 and 2007. And whereas the research attempts to raise awareness on malicious practices applied by cybercriminals, it also has the potential to leave a lot of people with a false feeling of security since it’s basically scratching the surface of a very dynamic problem.

With cybecriminals anticipating the dynamic nature of Web 2.0, they too, adapt dynamically to the changing environment. In the context of blackhat SEO, like true marketers they apply basic mass marketing keyword practices, which may get wrongly interpreted as the use of particular keywords only.

In reality, mass marketing from blackhat SEO perspective means a very diverse set of topics usually consisting of hundreds of thousands of syndicated news/video/blog titles aggregated over a recent period of time, all operated by the same group. Therefore, the search term “screensavers” or any related phrases is among the hundreds of thousands of others part of a single malware campaign.

In October, 2008, cybercriminals taking advantage of blackhat SEO for malicious purposes, started syndicating popular Google Trends keywords in real-time in order to occupy the top ten search results with hundreds of automatically registered Windows Live Spaces serving Zlob variants as fake codecs back then. This dynamic approach not only undermines any static lists of “most dangerous keywords to search for”, but also, tipped more cybercriminals on the basics of event-based blackhat SEO campaigns serving malware.

For instance, in an attempt to hijack the anticipated traffic of people searching for the Twitter XSS worm StalkDaily/Mikeyy, blackhat SEO campaigns using related keywords started appearing in public search engines serving scareware. At least that’s what appeared at the first place, since a much more in-depth research revealed that the Mikeyy keywords are part of a diverse blackhat SEO farm. The same Ukrainian group took advantage of the swine flu buzz and launched another blackhat SEO campaign earlier this month, again consisting of swine flu related keywords in between the diverse set of topics that they’ve generated on the hundreds of domains participating.

Furthermore, taking into consideration the fact that nowadays legitimate and compromised web sites serve more exploits and malware than the purely malicious ones (77% of Websites that carry malicious code are legitimate sites; Thousands of legitimate sites SQL injected to serve IE exploit; Over 1.5 million pages affected by the recent SQL injection attacks; Gumblar - approximately 17,000 compromised sites), a compromised web site’s index would undermine any such static lists of dangerous keywords to search for based on the diverse content that it’s providing.

So, which is the most dangerous keyword to search for on the Web? That’s a variable which cybercriminals play with at any moment.

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

Topics

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

Disclosure

Dancho Danchev

More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile.

Biography

Dancho Danchev

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, and cybercrime incident response. He's been an active security blogger since 2007, and maintains a popular security blog sharing real-time threats intelligence data with the rest of the community on a daily basis. More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile. You can also follow him on Twitter

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
117
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The Web's most dangerous keywords to search for
birumut Updated - 2nd May 2011
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
seslisohbet seslichat
0 Votes
+ -
nt
0 Votes
+ -
click here
magallanes 1st Jun 2009
britney_spears_nude.exe

wink
0 Votes
+ -
These sites contain WINDOWS malware, viruses and
scareware. Nowhere in the article is that said. The Key
words give WINDOWS OS machines malware.

If you run linux or OSX or BSD or any other OS on your
computer your chances of getting the malware approaches
zero.
0 Votes
+ -
Not true
soonerproud 28th May 2009
There are both OSX and Linux rootkits and trojans in the wild. Many porn sites are now using social engineering to trick Mac users into installing a trojan disgused as a codec. Malware is becoming cross platform and is much more complex than simple viruses and worms.
0 Votes
+ -
FUD again
gertruded 28th May 2009
It didn't take the MS shills long to spread the FUD again. The chances of
getting into trouble with Macs and linux are almost zero while that for
WINDOWS is almost a certainty. That is the fact.
0 Votes
+ -
"The chances of getting into trouble with Macs and linux are almost zero while that for WINDOWS is almost a certainty."

Almost a certainty? For everyone? For the majority? No. Are Linux and Macs *currently* less likely to be infected if they skinny dip in the cesspool that is the web?

Yes. But then AVG Free and its ilk are remarkably effective in protecting even the biggest idiot that might be running Windows 98.

Hyperbole. The enemy of accuracy.
0 Votes
+ -
Shill?
lestertrad@... 28th May 2009
Um... Shills are usually in the employ of the side with the deepest pockets, like Microsoft and the international Communist conspiracy.
0 Votes
+ -
Au contraire
cdmsr 28th May 2009
Shills are the accomplices of the con artits targetting the deep pockets.
0 Votes
+ -
AVG no longer supports Windows 98.
CodeCurmudgeon Updated - 28th May 2009
I just tried updating my folks little-used Windows 98 computer, and AVG informed me that they no longer support Windows 98. I'm either going to have to scrounge up some more RAM (it's a quarter gig shy of Ubuntu's minimum recomendation of 384Meg) for the contraption or cajole 'em into buying a new box.

Or maybe one of the extra-light weight Linuxes like Puppy would work for 'em.

"Microsoft delenda est!"
0 Votes
+ -
Re: AVG no longer supports Windows 98
MooMooMooMooMoo 28th May 2009
Try Avast. I use it both on Win 98 & Win XP.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know if any support W98, one would just have to visit them and see. I have been using Comodo lately.
0 Votes
+ -
Very few free AVs
Greenknight_z 29th May 2009
Comodo AV is not good at all, Avast is a much better choice. Avira Antivir is another good one, though I hear that the update servers for the free version are very slow. AVG has gotten to be too much of a resource hog to use on a slow computer, even if it did support Win98. I speak from experience, as a former AVG Free user.
0 Votes
+ -
Avast is about all...
JCitizen 30th May 2009
that is worth trying - Avira may be good on newer computers but is too slow on the trigger to trust on older machines.

I've personally seen that happen during one .bat attack where Avira was a little too slow to recognize the injection zip package.
0 Votes
+ -
If your parents are retired...
914four 28th May 2009
...check with your local AARP or equivalent, there are groups that donate free computers with Ubuntu to seniors.
My brother in law recently laughed at me when I told him of my experience with an old HP laptop w/ Ubuntu I put together for my cousin. He donates his time to a local church group that recycles old computers for the elderly and he said they do this all the time. They often get bulk shipments from corporations replacing gear and since they can save the recycling fee by donating they can save money (I couldn't figure this out at the time since shipping would be the most expensive element, but I guess you have to ship them for recycling too).
0 Votes
+ -
Ha, you think AV protects you ?
Alan Smithie 28th May 2009
It may reduce your chances but it NEVER fully protects you. There is no such thing as foolproof security.
0 Votes
+ -
Of course not
CodeCurmudgeon 28th May 2009
You have to be sensible about where you browse, and never, ever let anything install on your system unless you are sure of the source.

Of course I have had only one computer get infected and that was a new-to-me surplus Windows 2000 box which got infected through the instant messaging process while downloading the anti-virus. . . One of the reasons I don't use Windows on my own PCs any more. I've been trying to talk 'em unto using Ubuntu at work, but using Microsoft enhances our budget, even though has been cut a few million dollars this year.

"Microsoft delenda est!"
0 Votes
+ -
Another Winbloze fanboy eats crow...
Wintel BSOD Updated - 28th May 2009
Here's the extent of the threats to Ubuntu. The vast majority of 'em are years old...

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Linuxvirus

Now if they're wrong, then please tell us. You'd be doing us a world of favor instead of the fear mongering like you jealous Winbloze fanboys like to portray.
0 Votes
+ -
Not a bad post for someone with no clue.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 29th May 2009
Come back and post something when you actually try modern linux for the first time and actually get infected.

What's tiresome is these Windows users with no Linux experience and all the answers. (they probably never burned a working, bootable iso disk)

BTW, keep checking your bank and credit card statements - that's the only way to know if you are infected. Don't expect an anouncement about a keylogger or rootkit from AVG, Symmantec or any other AV company.

I had 2 keyloggers running on XP and the AV's had absolutely no clue.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
psybot
Loverock Davidson 28th May 2009
Looks like the psybot worm for linux just blew your whole argument out of the water. The worst part is that linux doesn't have antivirus software so you have no way of telling if you are infected, where as on Microsoft Windows you have several layers of protection from the OS, file permissions, antivirus, and built-in firewall. As an additional bonus Microsoft Windows will also prompt you with a big warning before installing any software. On linux you have no protection and its easier to actually get infected because it leaves the telnet port open.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
re:psybot
zdneter0000 28th May 2009
The psybot worm is aimed at routers, cable
modems, and routers. Yes, the targeted models
are using a version of Linux, but it does not
exploit any vulnerability in the software. It
will brute force any weak telnet and ssh login
passwords. http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=15197

As far as Linux not having any antivirus
software, you are wrong. Symantec, Kaspersky,
Antivir, AVG, Panda, and many others offer Linux
solutions.

Any modern Linux distribution does not leave the
"telnet port open" by default and hasn't for
years.
0 Votes
+ -
It does leave SSH on
LiquidLearner 28th May 2009
and since it's a brute force attack on weak passwords it really doesn't matter if it's on SSH or telnet. So what was the argument again?

It infects routers running Linux, yes?
0 Votes
+ -
You need a new nym.
kozmcrae 28th May 2009
LsD brought up the telnet non issue. It infects routers, yes? Yes, it infects routers. Does it leverage a security hole? Only the security hole in the users head.
0 Votes
+ -
Lovey doesn't care...
914four 28th May 2009
...about Linux bugs that have had patches for 5 or 10 years, he just collects the bugs to spread them casually in conversation. It's sort of like someone who brings a cockroach to a restaurant so they can drop it in their plate and get a free meal.
0 Votes
+ -
Heh...There's a fly in my soup!
apostate 28th May 2009
CTS (Chuckles to self)

Since I didn't quite LOL....But still, well said.
0 Votes
+ -
MIPS routers only muppet
Alan Smithie 28th May 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Excuse me
CodeCurmudgeon 28th May 2009
I know Loverock is a troll, but I just can't resist the blatant lies of this post.

*nix goes back to the days when essentially ALL computers were shared resources and security was necessary to keep your users from stepping on each other. Therefore security was designed in from the beginning.

I don't know of a Linux distribution which has ANY ports open by default. You have to install listeners and configure the firewall to open the desired ports. The firewall (iptables) has been built into the kernel since 2.4.

Further, file permissions have been present in *nix since long before MS-DOS was introduced, never mind Windows.

As for anti-virus, there are several available for Linux. I run AVG-Free for Linux workstations on my home box, mostly to make sure I don't propagate Windows viri to my friends. I used to run F-Prot for Linux, but that required dropping down to a command line interface which was about the same as it was when I first used it back in the '80s.

Malware designers need to thank Microsoft for making the computer world a monoculture through which their epidemics can spread like wildfire. As any ecologist will tell you monoculture is hazardous.

"Microsoft delenda est!"

0 Votes
+ -
You obviously are NOT a Linux user. Clam AV has been around for Linux for quite a while. I use it myself on my Ubuntu machine. in addition, there is also a firewall for Linux as well as more secure file permissions and kernel/OS. Your argument is so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look dense.
0 Votes
+ -
There are others as well
kimvette 28th May 2009
There is a plethora of antivirus solutions for Linux. However, they are mainly for protecting Windows users, since most viruses don't target Linux, and even if they did, they don't spread much because unlike on Windows, *nix users are not root/Administrator by default. So, you pretty much have to go out of your way to make the system vulnerable.

Now, there are certain applications on Linux which have had vulnerabilities from time to time - including openssl and apache. However, unlike Windows (or even Mac OS X, which is actually unix under the hood) Linux vendors generally turn security patches around very, very quickly and patch them within hours or days of discovery of the vulnerability. Not so with Windows, where Microsoft has only recently patched serious holes in Windows that were known for the better part of a decade.

In addition, since everything is generally locked down by default, there are fewer services listening on an out-of-the-box install, and modern distributions often enable firewalls by default.

Windows is improving, by all means, but Windows will never match *nix's inherent security qualities BECAUSE Microsoft will not do what Apple did and cut the cord on backwards compatibility. The whole problem with Windows stems from the days where Windows was built with NO security in mind, and any time Microsoft has tightened security, it has wreacked havoc with enterprise and home applications. for a LONG time you couldn't run a full-screen directX game without admin access, and to this day key applications like AutoCAD, Quickbooks Pro, and Tradestation REQUIRE administrator access. You can work around it with some applications by opening up some registry keys and directories, but not in all cases.
0 Votes
+ -
OSX...
JCitizen 28th May 2009
I thought was more BSD related using Unix 3 standards? Oh well!

You are right about application vulnerability, and you can bet your bippy, that if ever a cracker would care to waste his time on it, that would be the vector.

McAfee brags about being the first AV to nail the first Apple virus in 2006. It seems it is the favorite "Windows" AV for Apple users.
0 Votes
+ -
That phrase was retired with DOS. Just FYI LsD.
0 Votes
+ -
Free software to the rescue!
kimvette Updated - 28th May 2009
Check out denyhosts: http://denyhosts.sourceforge.net/

I use this. It is remarkably good and fairly easy for any sysadmin to configure. If you know what SSH is, you should have the qualifications to configure denyhosts. You can configure it to block IPs based on a # of rejected logins - down to 1 failed login (which IMHO is far too strict).

If a brute force attack gets in on the first attempt, either it's just the cracker beating remarkable odds, or you used a common word for your password (which most Linux distros will by default scold you for). Windows, Linux, OS X, VMS, MVS, and any other user/password-accessible means of login are all equally vulnerable from that perspective.

However, *nix type operating systems are far, far easier to configure to detect and lock down brute-force attempts, without having to pay for proprietary software where trustworthiness is questionable. McAfee in particular has shown to be untrustworthy and unreliable over the last few years.
0 Votes
+ -
The Telnet port
anothercanuck 28th May 2009
Is only ever used by Windows users (because every other OS supplies SSH), so only Windows users are forced to put their passwords at risk. When is MS going to move into the this century?
0 Votes
+ -
The Web's most dangerous keywords to search for
interested_amateur@... 29th May 2009
Are you sure about no AV or firewall on Linux? I'm using Mandriva 2009 and it loads both programs when you download it.

I think you should download both Ubuntu and Mandriva. Then try to download an AV and firewall of your choice. Get back to us on what both OSs say.

Interested Amateur

0 Votes
+ -
as a Mac user
gkrwc 1st Jun 2009
I think the point was made at least a week ago
that MS has a bit more trouble with bottnits ,viruses
Trojans and high cost of new OS 400 plus $ It?s a bit
of a dead horse ,so could we lay off this kind of rant
shake hands and move on to a life of appreciation of
the skills hard work strong interests we all have on
the subject computers and internet . Given our ? interesting
times we live in " we need all the support of each we can get
and hopefully give . gk
0 Votes
+ -
?
paladin2 28th Aug 2009
What is "almost zero"? Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and big atom bombs as the saying goes. My sister uses Macs and she has some kind of security running. Maybe 'almost zero' is close to the number of their market share. I am not knocking Mac but the Mac users who think they are untouchable are 'almost right'. Same with FireFox as it gains market share, they used to call that one untouchable. Thankfully I prefer Opera.
0 Votes
+ -
Obviously you have never used Linux
Alan Smithie 28th May 2009
Or would would have not made such a stupid statement about installing codecs on a Linux box.
0 Votes
+ -
He didn't.
Erroneous 28th May 2009
He specifically mentioned OSX. He used rootkit in conjunction with Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
Implication by succeeding sentences
Alan Smithie Updated - 28th May 2009
PS if you run executable code from untrusted source then you deserve all you get.
0 Votes
+ -
There was no implication.
Erroneous 28th May 2009
He put both together in one sentence and singled out one in another.

PS that goes for any OS and I agree with it. Too take it one step further though. Running executable code from even a trusted source has been known to bite people also.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes he did
Wintel BSOD 28th May 2009
Read his first sentence again.

There are both OSX and Linux rootkits and trojans in the wild.

Everything else afterward was implied as far as Linux goes.
0 Votes
+ -
@Anything
Erroneous 28th May 2009
"Many porn sites are now using social engineering to trick Mac users into installing a trojan disgused as a codec."

Try reading the second sentence. It specifically says Mac. Not Linux. No implications, not direct statements at Linux. Just a direct reference to Macs.
0 Votes
+ -
That was the second sentence...
Wintel BSOD 28th May 2009
... not the first. I read the implication into it as well.

Try not to be disingenuous, ok....
0 Votes
+ -
He mentioned both....
Erroneous 28th May 2009
for rootkits. Macs specifically for trojans. How is that implying Linux for trojans? If he got any more specific he would have to list the OSX version and patch level. Reading in to what the original author says is the problem here.
0 Votes
+ -
Had there been no mention of Linux...
Wintel BSOD Updated - 29th May 2009
...you might've had a point, but since he chose to include it in his little FUD whine, the implication is still there.

And your still being disingenuous...
0 Votes
+ -
It is true that...
arminw 28th May 2009
ONLY Windows computers are subject to malware without any
user involvement whatsoever. Just connecting an unprotected
Windows computer to the Internet for a while will get it
compromised, as will merely surfing to an infected website. No
operating system can protect against the user deliberately
installing a program. All OSX exploits, without a single exception,
are of the variety requiring user interaction, such as entering an
administrator name and password.
0 Votes
+ -
True but not true.
Bruizer 2nd Jun 2009
It is true that both OS X and Linux has a few exploits in the wild but it is
not true that they are at all "many" or common compared to the Windows
side. So wile the technology of viruses and exploits is improving, the
vast majority of them (think >99% or so) are still simply Windows only
exploits that do not impact other OSs.

That said, it does not matter what OS you use, safe computing is always
required.
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm...
fewiii 28th May 2009
Time to pluck a pigeon...
0 Votes
+ -
Do you understand English?
dbisse@... 28th May 2009
I run Linux.
I open browser.
I open Google Search.
Type in Screensavers.

I get 8 out of 10 sites on 1st page that are bogus.

That is what the article was about your dunce.
Searching the internet using a crappy search engine like Google will you get you screwed. It is not OS dependent.
0 Votes
+ -
seriously, a suggestion?
paladin2 28th Aug 2009
I'm not being smart or trying to start an argument but, most likely out of ignorance, why is google 'crappy' and what search engine do you use? Like I already stated I just want to know, not discuss it.
0 Votes
+ -
This is Windows only malware!
whisperycat 28th May 2009
This report was produced by McAfee. McAfee are one of the 3rd party anti-malware vendors without whom Windows software would be useless. Have a look at their "Threat Centre" - every single exploit is a Windows exploit.

http://www.mcafee.com/us/threat_center/default.asp

I wonder why neither McAfee or ZDnet clarified whether or not this report refers ONLY to Windows risks and Windows malware?



0 Votes
+ -
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
seslisohbet seslichat

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
Click Here
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