Religion
Related: About this forumReligious Sites Carry More Malware Than Porn Sites, Security Firm Reports
The annual Internet Security Threat Report from Symantec also says malware threats to Android phones are up dramatically.
By Daniel Ionescu | PC World | 30 April 12
Religious and ideological websites can carry three times more malware threats than pornography sites, according to research from security firm Symantec. The firms annual Internet Security Threat Report also found that threats to mobile devices continue to grow, almost exclusively for Googles Android mobile OS
Internet security reports from companies that also sell anti-virus solutions should be taken with a pinch of salt, given the potential of conflict of interest, but Symantecs authoritative findings are nevertheless interesting.
Symantec found that the average number of security threats on religious sites was around 115, while adult sites only carried around 25 threats per site--a particularly notable discrepancy considering that there are vastly more pornographic sites than religious ones. Also, only 2.4 percent of adult sites were found to be infected with malware, compared to 20 percent of blogs.
Why religious sites you might ask? We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free--its not good for repeat business, said the report.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/mobile-phone/3354811/religious-sites-carry-more-malware-than-porn-sites-security-firm-reports/
It figures porn sites use better protection.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)That's pretty well documented. Scam capital of the US of A: Salt Lake City.
rug
(82,333 posts)"Religious and ideological websites can carry three times more malware threats".
ret5hd
(20,519 posts)just askin'.
rug
(82,333 posts)You assume DU is ideological rather than partisan.
ret5hd
(20,519 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)And your point is?
ret5hd
(20,519 posts)for some unknown poster linking you to some unnamed site?
rug
(82,333 posts)You want the link to the site?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Those lamb chops are so tasty.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)Faith takes care of everything.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)porn sites are trying to make you feel good because when you're feeling good it makes them more successful
religious sites are trying to make you feel bad/feel guilty, because when you're feeling bad/guilty, they are more successful...so how can you begrudge them a computer destroying virus when its your immortal soul at stake
longship
(40,416 posts)I wouldn't use anything else.
rug
(82,333 posts)I couldn't figure it out.
You wouldn't like to be my guru.
longship
(40,416 posts)It also happens to be secure.
msongs
(67,441 posts)Silent3
(15,266 posts)I don't think they can possibly mean that 115 different attack vectors are being thrown at you all at once on average, per web site every time you visit a religious web site. I don't think that many different invasive intrusions could be made on a web server to infect it with so much malware without the site being entirely crippled.
So what exactly are they counting?
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't know what the hell it means. I must seek counsel from my guru longship.
Silent3
(15,266 posts)Not in the text (which is searchable) and not in any of the diagrams (since not automatically searchable, it's possible I might have missed something). I didn't even see any chart or graph where "religious" or "religion" was at item listed, and only one place in the text where the higher risk of religious and ideological sites was mentioned, but without any such number associated with it.
This makes me more suspicious that that number of "115" is someone's misinterpretation of the content of that document, a misreading of one of the charts and graphs, or maybe just a number pulled out of someone's ass. Then again, there could be another document or report involved as well, but even then, I'd suspect misinterpretation or misrepresentation. The number simply doesn't make sense.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)The porn kings (and some queens) probably spend a lot more money protecting their sites than religious orgs do. Not that most religious organizations don't have the money to do the same, but I think many religious groups have a certain naivety that makes them think their religious status somehow protects their endeavors.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Now.
struggle4progress
(118,341 posts)Ionescu says: Symantec found that the average number of security threats on religious sites was around 115, while adult sites only carried around 25 threats per site
Here's a link to the pdf Symantec report: http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/other_resources/b-istr_main_report_2011_21239364.en-us.pdf
My search finds the word "religious" only once in the document: Moreover, religious and ideological sites were found to have triple the average number of threats per infected site than adult/pornographic sites.
Note that Ionescu writes about "average number of security threats" per site whereas the document actually discusses "average number of security threats" per infected site