Duping the easily duped

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by Avatard

Sharp as a bowling ball, as always.

I'm not playin ur little net games Tard.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

I'm not playin ur little net games Tard.

What do you have against table tennis?

JC

[Particle Man]

fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight! fight!

Everyone out to the parking lot! Then it's juice boxes and peanut butter crackers for everyone when the Principal comes!

[Particle Man]

the one time I regret turning sigs off




ok, not really

[Avatard]

Yeah, isn't it annoying when a 3rd party shuts you down?

Sorry to make sense, and fuck up your point.

[Homeslice]

And I didn't know that posts on an internet board had to be scientifically accurate and inclusive of all possible Fox viewers. I am sure some percentage of Fox viewers are normal, high-quality people......but that percentage is below average.

[Smittie61984]

To be fair to users, some of the traditional advice they get from IT or popular publications is no longer adequate. IT, says Grimes, tells people to go to only trusted sites. Unfortunately, by the beginning of 2009, the majority of infectious sites were mainstream. In a typical attack, users of FoxNews.com were told they needed to install a new codec to watch clips on the site. Once installed, the "codec" turned out to be a malicious piece of code undetected by most defenses, Grimes recounts

So they do what they were told to do (go to a main stream site) by the profesionals and then the profesionals say as of 2009 (what year is this?) that you have to be more careful, even with mainstream websites and they are somehow fooled?

You really dig deep to bash Fox News don't you? All the author did was state a website that many would not think would have malware that is very popular. They could have referenced Myspace, Facebook, Twitter but those are known my most to contain that shit. They probably could have used CNN, MSNBC, NYT, or even Current, but those sites do not recieve as many hits as Fox News does. Or the author has the same bias against Fox News you do and goes home and fondels his nuts to "Dave" every other night.

And no I do not watch Fox News. Fox News is too flashy for my taste (infact I watched 3 hours of MSNBC a couple of nights ago)

[Avatard]

First, I don't think I go out of my way to bash Fox News any more than they go out of their way to bash Obama. I guess I'm just "fair and balanced" that way...

Second, the humor I found in social engineering exploits against watchers of Fox News stems from the fact that Fox News clearly uses its own brand of "social engineering" to dupe its viewers.

To me (and apparently to the hackers) this indicates an audience easily lead, and ready to follow instruction, even if that instruction includes infecting their own PCs. In other words, it's really easy to (mis)lead sheep.

Max lulz.

[Smittie61984]

I saw one mention of "Fox News" and it was just a mention of a popular mainstream site. Seemed that users of Windows 7 are more at risk than someone of Fox News.

Fox News gets a shit ton of hits. So the malware people are going to target whatever has the most users because the odds of getting someone easily fooled are higher. Just because Fox News is chosen has little to do with the intelligence of its viewers. Let's say that Fox News gets 10,000,000 hits a day and 50% of their viewers are dumbasses. That's 5,000,000 potential targets. Let's say that CNN gets 5,000,000 hits a day and 70% of their people are dumbasses. That's 3.5million potential targets from CNN. Do the math.