3 ms·
Over the years, the NY Times has delivered malware multiple times. In 2009 it turned your computer into a slave in the Bahama botnet and just recently it served
by Nadya 10y ago
Over the years, the NY Times has delivered malware multiple times. In 2009 it turned your computer into a slave in the Bahama botnet and just recently it served ransomware, along with some other high-profile, high-traffic websites.
Third party (Javascript-based) ads should be blocked for security concerns if nothing else.
As for the sponsorship banner that Troy is talking about - it's still an ad. A rather minimal, tasteful ad - but an ad at the end of the day.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
[1] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-by-rash-of-malicious-ads-spreading-crypto-ransomware/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/big-name-sites-hit-b...
E:
So jsnell's post does not seem insane, after finishing my full read of Troy's post I figured out why the parent post had been downvoted: almost nothing to do with the article. I then removed my line questioning why from my post.
- jsnell 10y agoThe comment was probably downvoted since it had nothing to do with the original post, and might as well have been posted based on just reading the title. The post does not suggest that people should not use ad blockers. It's lamenting that even a custom ad that's as technically benign as possible (text only, no tracking, no JS, not part of an ad network, unobtrusive) is getting blocked. And not just blocked as a side effect, but in a targeted manner. If someone really is only interested in blocking malware rather than in blocking ads, they should be furious that his ad blocker is over-reaching like this and blocking something totally harmless. While if they actually don't want to see ads, at least be honest about it.