Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

The effects of malware ads - who pays?

An increasing number of websites are effectively banning access to those who have ad-blocking software.

These sites claim that if you don't see the ads then you ought not be allowed to see the content because, as we all know, ads pay for content.

On the face of it this might sound pretty reasonable -- except for the fact that sometimes, ads are more than ads -- they're malware in disguise.

While it might be tempting to think that malvertising (as it's called) only affects the smaller sites and those ad networks which can't afford to pre-scan their advertisements, but you'd be wrong if that was your belief.

According to this BBC story "more than a quarter of the world's 1,000 most visited websites had delivered malware through malicious advertisements in 2015".

Now that puts the "average" Net user at an awful disadvantage when it comes to keeping their computer or smartphone safe from evil little sods hell-bent on stealing from them or disrupting their online activities.

Surely, with this kind of statistic being rolled out, anyone who has a desire to avoid being infected with malware would be foolish not to use ad-blocking software.

The ad networks and sites affected have a different perspective however. They think that users should keep watching the ads -- but install antivirus software.

Excuse me... but who is going to pay for this AV software?

And who is going to pay if your system gets trashed by malware delivered via a site that denies access if your ad-blocking software is active?

These are important questions that need to be answered because the potential losses are horrendous if you become the victim of malvertising that dumps ransomware or other nasties on your machine.

Surely it is the ad network and the website on which the ads appear who should be totally liable for any losses or damages that occur as a result of malvertising -- especially if they deny you access when using ad-blocker software. In fact, if you are forced to turn off your ad-blocker and then get infected, one could argue that they were an active party to the malvertising and subsequent losses.

This might all sound a little strange from a writer who relies on ad-funding to pay his bills and make his living sustainable -- but I'm also a realist who appreciates that there are responsibilities here that ought not be shirked.

One of the reasons that I've opted only to go with text-based ads on this website is because they pose a much lower (but not zero) risk of containing malware and I don't want to put my readers at risk. Other sites however, have a greater commercial imperative and they are happy to fill their pages with gaudy Flash-based ads which are a popular delivery vector for such malware.

What do readers think?

Should the burden of avoiding malvertising and fixing the damage done by it fall solely on the shoulders of consumers -- or should ad networks and websites have a financial responsibility to ensure their offerings are, at all times, benign?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font