Imagine a time when every site you go to was remotely monitored. The data from every site visited was intercepted by an entity who, on the official side of things, has the purpose of dropping “targeted ads” into your browsing experience. This entity isn’t Google’s ads, which is an ad system that puts ads on the site through a script, but much rather, an ISP-level ad system. It isn’t difficult to imagine that when prospects of this scenario become a step closer to being real, controversy closely follows in big ways.

These days, it seems like everything to do with controversy on the internet is ISP-related. If Phorm intended on implementing their technology in a quiet and non-controversial manner, there could have been many better times to implement it at the very least. The news comes right smack in the middle of times where record labels are suing Irish ISPs, China is busy blocking P2P, Japan is banning p2p users, Swedish lawmakers rejecting the idea of banning P2P users, and Italian P2P users dodging a P2P spying program.

A report earlier today points to the Foundation for Information Policy Research saying that Phorm is “intrusive and illegal”. It was only yesterday that the organization issued an open letter on the matter saying, “The provision of this service depends on classifying Internet users to enable advertising to be targeted on their interests. Their interests are to be ascertained for this purpose by scanning and analysing the content of traffic between users and the websites they visit.”

The letter goes on:

This activity involves the processing of personal data about Internet users. That data may include sensitive personal data, because it will include the search terms entered by users into search engines, and these can easily reveal information about such matters as political opinions, sexual proclivities, religious views, and health.

Users are apparently to be allocated pseudonyms for some of the processing, but at various processing stages the personal data can be linked to the pseudonym, the pseudonym can be linked to the IP address used, and the IP address can be linked to the user. Although we understand that this linkage will not be standard operating practice, it can nevertheless be performed.

The letter goes on to say that the technology is intrusive on users privacy and that the system must be an opt-in system. As it stands, three of the major British ISPs, BT, Talk Talk, and Virgin Media, are currently set to roll out this technology.

Bad Phorm, one of a number of sites decrying the technology says, “Naturally the ISP’s are not too keen on telling their users this, they’d much rather feed us all platitudes about how it’ll help combat phishing and how the targeted adverts will be so much better than the random ones we see today. In fact, they didn’t even announce it to the UK press, we had to find out about it from the New York Times!”

It may not be a surprise that a petition has been started regarding the manner. The petition, as of tonight, has collected over 7,000 signatures of people demanding that ISPs should not breach privacy through advertising technologies. Perhaps the only good news to come out of this is that now, at least, the British and US users have something in common.

Today, the BBC also reported on the controversy where Simon Davies and Gus Hosein of 80/20 Thinking Ltd said that the technology should go further and “Information from websites and queries regarding sexual content, political preferences, medical health, racial origin should be blocked from processing.”

The Open Rights Group have already issued their own update on the controversy. Among other things, they say, “The ISPs which propose to use Phorm are yet to respond to ORG’s call to publish the privacy impact assessment they commissioned from 80/20 Ltd (whose Director, Simon Davies, is also Director of Privacy International), as well as full details of how Phorm will work. Until we can all see for ourselves exactly how Phorm works – and across whose networks our data will flow – speculation about the privacy implications of Phorm will only continue.”

Digital Rights Ireland has responded to the incident. “…it’s essentially a matter of luck that we haven’t had private files compromised on [a large scale],” writes digital Rights Ireland, “We’d suggest you start making some noise. Start by complaining to your local TDs [sic] Let them know that personal privacy is an important issue for you. Ask them why the State has been so careless with our private information that the Data Protection Commissioner has said that he has warned of these risks for years, and has said that the State needs “a wake up call”. Ask them what they plan to do about it. And of course you can ask them why, in light of this carelessness, they should be trusted to bring in data retention.”

Professor Robert Clark took the opportunity to comment on the matter saying that careless breaches in such sensitive information isn’t entirely new to Ireland.

“Privacy and data protection all too often lose out when confronted by pressure for more police powers or greater administrative convenience.” Clark said, “The level of scrutiny by the Oireachtas was negligible. Successive Data Protection Commissioners have complained about this Big Brother philosophy but to little effect.”

While it is unclear as to what was on the laptops, blackberries and USB sticks, it is clear that the fears of a massive personal data breach are very real. Last year, the British government was rocked by controversy over successive losses in personal data including the loss of 25 million identities on two CDs. It is unclear if the data fell into the wrong hands, but it’s hard to ignore an issue involving the identities of nearly half the countries population. Digital rights advocates say that such breaches are all the more reason not to have strict data retention policies.

McAfee recently announced the results of its SiteAdvisor research report which created a global road map of the riskiest, and the safest, places to surf and search on the internet.

It analyzed and ranked 265 top-level domains like Japan (.jp), France (.fr) and Commercial (.com) based on McAfee’s Web safety tests for spyware, spam, exploits and scams.

The report is called “Mapping the Mal Web,” and unsurprisingly reveals large differences in safety from one domain to another. It estimates that each month, internet users make more than 550 million clicks to “risky” Web sites and that even relatively safe domains like Germany (.de) or the United Kingdom (.uk) account for millions of risky clicks.

“With this report, McAfee has created a guide book to the Web’s most dangerous top level domains,” said Mark Maxwell, Senior Product Manager, McAfee Consumer and Small Business. “When it comes to safety, it turns out that the Web is no different than the physical world. There are safe neighborhoods and safe Web domains, and then there are places no one should ever visit.”

In compiling its report, McAfee’s Site Advisor added an intuitive red, yellow, or green ratings to sites and search results based on proprietary tests of millions of Web sites representing more than 95% of the trafficked Web.

Red ratings were given to risky sites that fail one or more of McAfee’s tests for adware, spyware, viruses, exploits, spammy e-mail, excessive pop-ups or strong affiliations with other red-rated sites. Green- rated sites passed each of these tests. Lastly, Yellow ratings were given to sites which passed McAfee’s safety tests but, which still have nuisances, such as excessive pop-ups, which thereby warrant a user advisory.

Key Findings?

• The incidence of red and yellow sites varies dramatically across top- level domains, ranging from a low of 0.1% for Finland (.fi) to a high of 10.1% for the tiny island of Tokelau (.tk). Overall, 4.1% of all sites tested by SiteAdvisor are rated red or yellow.
• Some Web activities, like registering at a site or downloading a file, are significantly more risky when done at certain domains. For example, giving an e-mail address to a random .info domain results in a stunning 73.2% chance of receiving spammy e-mail.
• The most risky large country domains are Romania (.ro, 5.6% risky sites) and Russia (.ru, 4.5% risky sites). These country domains are also the most likely to host exploit or “drive-by-download” sites.
• “.info” is the riskiest generic domain, with 7.5% of its sites rated as risky. .com is the second most risky generic domain, with 5.5% of sites rated as risky.
• “.gov” is the only frequently tested domain for which SiteAdvisor has found no risky sites. .gov is only available to United States government agencies.
• A consumer is almost 12 times more likely to encounter a drive-by-download while surfing Russian domains as Columbian ones.
• Registering at a Web site in India results in a 4.3% chance of getting spammy e-mail. Taking the same action with a domain registered in China yields a 7.2% chance.
• 5.2% of Vietnamese Web sites have risky downloads. Just 0.5% of Singaporean sites host such files.
• 2.7 million times every month, casual Web surfers visit risky Dutch Web sites. Even though Hong Kong has approximately the same percentage of risky Web sites, those risky domains receive just 52,000 clicks each month.
• Four of the five least risky country TLDs(top level domains) are Nordic countries – Finland (0.10%), Norway (.no, 0.16%), Sweden (.se, 0.21%) and Iceland (.is, 0.19%). Ireland (.ie, 0.11%) rounds out the top five least risky country TLDs.
• Even though the Netherlands (.nl), Germany (.de) and the United Kingdom (.uk) are all relatively safe TLDs, ranking 31st, 33rd and 51st most risky, each of their TLDs account for more than 2 million clicks to red and yellow sites every month. Likewise Japan (.jp) is ranked 57th most risky and yet red and yellow rated .jp sites receive an estimated 1.6 million clicks each month.

Risk by region?
Asia/Pacific

The countries of China (.cn) and South Korea (.kr) were found to be the riskiest major country domains in the Asia/Pacific region, with 3.7% and 2.6% of their sites rated as risky, respectively. Japan and Australia (.au) are overwhelmingly less risky, with just 0.4% and 0.2% risky sites, respectively.

Europe and the Middle East

Romania and Russia are considered to be the most risky domains in the Europe/Middle East region, with 5.6% and 4.5% risky results, respectively. By contrast, Germany, the region’s domain with the most tested sites, has just over 1% risky sites.

The Americas

Here in my own backyard, Latin American and South American countries are somewhat safer than countries in other regions. According to a recent study Internet penetration rates in Latin and South American countries are modest. 19.8% of Argentineans, 18.6% of Mexicans and 11.3% of Brazilians are online. By comparison, 70.5% of South Koreans and 63.6% of Americans are online.

McAfee apparently found that economically motivated scammers seek out the largest Web audiences possible in order to maximize their profit potential.

At 2.1% red and yellow, the United States (.us) is the riskiest TLD in the Americas, while Venezuela (.ve) is the riskiest TLD in Latin and South America, with 1.5% of sites rated as risky. Brazil (.br), Mexico (.mx) and Argentina (.ar) are all relatively safe domains, each with just under one percent risky sites.

Riskiest for Downloads?

Of those sites with tested downloads, Somoa (.ws), .biz and Bulgaria (.bg) are the riskiest. 14.0%, 11.4% and 9.9%. In other words, among the ese country’s TLDs you have at least a 1 in 10 chance of downloading from a risky site.

Riskiest for Spam?

An astonishing 73.2% of the more than 6,000 .info sites that McAfee tested for e-mail practices are rated risky, meaning that SiteAdvisor registrations at these sites resulted in the receipt of high volume e-mail, spammy e-mail or both.

Russia and South Korea trail the .info TLD with 21.7% and 19.6% respectively. While less risky than registering at a .info domain, consumers who provide their e-mail addresses to randomly chosen Korean or Russian domains have a 1 in 5 chance of receiving high volume e-mail, highly commercial e-mail or both.

Riskiest for Exploits?

You are more than 5 times as likely to encounter an exploit site while browsing a .nu or .ru based site than while surfing .com TLDs. In fact, the tiny island of Niue and the massive Russia vie for the domain most frequently used to launch an exploit or drive-by-download type attack. While rare – just 0.45% and 0.43% of sites tested, respectively – exploits are arguably one of the most dangerous kinds of threats that Internet users face today because successful exploits can lead to permanent computer failure and identity theft.

Which Domains are the Safest?

Four of the five least risky country TLDs are the Nordic countries: Finland (0.10%), Norway (0.16%), Sweden (0.21%) and Iceland (0.19%). Ireland (0.11%) rounds out the top five least risky country TLDs.

McAfee feels that the reason these countries have the safest TLDs is due to the fact that their governments have stricter regulations of these domains. Registrations in Norway are limited to companies registered with the government. Prior to 2003, Finland and Sweden had similar requirements.

“.gov” is the only frequently tested TLD for which SiteAdvisor found no risky sites. “.edu” is also apparently quite safe, with just 0.3% of sites rated risky. It makes sense in both cases since there are strict registration requirements which obviously limit who can operate sites with these domains.

Which Domains are the Riskiest?

Seven TLDs (.com, .info, .net, .biz, Tuvalu (.tv), Cocos Islands (.cc), and China (.cn)) earn the dubious distinction of ranking in the top 20 riskiest for each of the four risky facets we examined.

Of these seven domains, .biz and .info are the overall worst domains with highly risky rankings in each of the four categories:

“.info” ranks 2nd in overall risk, 1st in spam, 10th in download risk, and 12th in exploit risk.

“.biz” ranks 6th in overall risk, 6th in spam, 2nd in download risk, and 5th in exploit risk.

Conclusions?

I think it’d have to be the fact that once again, NEVR, EVER DOWNLOAD anything from sites you either don’t know or are from a suspect location or domain.

For example, thinking of purchasing an item from a site located in Russia and they are requesting your credit card info? Probably not a good idea to say the least. Is it unfair to legitimate Russian sites? Yes but, I don’t think the legitimate Russian sites will exactly line up in droves to help you fix your credit or repay lost money if a site steals your credit card info or fails to send you an item as promised. It’s called “street smarts.”

Furthermore, when it comes to spam an unwanted e-mail its best to have what I call a “dump mailbox,” an e-mail account that you use only for the purposes of registering or activating site memberships, promotions, or other online activities that involve sites that you never want to hear from in a million years.

Moreover, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and simply avoiding unknown sites or shady sounding deals can go a long way towards keeping you and your PC safe.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/security/What_countries_have_the_riskiest_websites’;

RELATED NEWS AND “HOW TO” GUIDES:
Greedy Torrent – “The Survival Kit for a Leech”
3 Quick Ways to Watch Movies for FREE!
3 quick ways to watch TV shows for FREE
BitTorrent tracker sites & search engines
Azureus – A Beginner’s Guide to BitTorrent Downloading
uTorrent – A Beginner’s guide to BitTorrent downloading
Watch The Simpsons, The Office, Jackass, South Park, Lost, X-Men, and More On-Demand For Free

SOULXTC: “walkin’ the streets of P2P”

The colored address bar is designed to be a sign that a specific site can be trusted, giving people the green light to carry out transactions there. It is a weapon in the fight against phishing scams, which use fraudulent Web sites.
High Impact

The idea is among the draft guidelines created by the CA Browser Forum, an organization comprised of companies that issue certificates for Web sites and major browser makers. Last week, Microsoft decided to adopt that draft version for IE 7, released last month. It plans to add the functionality in January.

A primary concern is to help the targets of online scams, said Markellos Diorinos, a product manager for Windows at Microsoft. “If you look at the phishing problem today, it is usually about all the big brands that get hijacked,” he said. “We addressed the problem that we have at hand today, and that was one very important thing for us.”

“The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.” – Thucydides

Some of you know by now that I run a blog with my best friend where we investigate various malware outbreaks. The blog (www.webdefenders.net) is in essence a research arm of Jay Loden’s AIMFix project. We try our best to publicly shame the people responsible for damage-inflicting scourges on the Interweb.

A few days ago we recieved a cease and desist order from a lawfirm retained by Dan Yomtobian, the man responsible for Xupiter. I wont get into a lengthy diatribe about what Xupiter is here. It’s been written about at length by the press since 2003. In simplest terms, Xupiter was a piece of software alleged by thousands of people to arrive on a PC without consent and unleash torrents of unwanted advertising. At one time, Xupiter was responsible for a then record-breaking help thread on SpywareInfo.com. It was even bundled with Grokster during Wayne Rosso’s tenure there, until the distribution suddenly came to a halt. Suprise?

After the fall of Xupiter, nobody heard much from Yomtobian until he published a series of business oriented websites promiting his services. None of these sites addressed his past endeavors, so my partner and I published a tell-all article about the depth of our findings over the past few years. The article draws its support from corporate documents, WHOIS records, even direct quotes from Microsoft’s Help Center and Wired.com articles.

Evidently, the fact that a Google query for “Dan Yomtobian” returns our article as the second result on the first page is damaging to its subject’s reputation. So on 09JUN06, we recieved a cease and desist order alleging that we’d made “false and defamatory statements” and demanding that we take it down immediately. No evidence was given that anything we said was provably false. Just a threat that Yomtobian had authorized the firm to pursue all legal remedies if we failed to compy with the order.

So why hasn’t Yomtobian targeted Wired or Microsoft? The answer is obvious. They have (besides the truth) enough money to deflect things like this. Organizations of their stature would laugh at a lawsuit alleging that Xupiter was innocuous. By contrast, Chris and I are full-time college students. It’s easier to make an example of us than Microsoft. So, after much thought I have decided to comply with the order.

Simply put, it is to my selfish benefit to comply right now. I’m working extremely hard in school to hopefully attend Quinnipiac’s law program once I graduate. I’m training to play a college sport. In our spare time, Chris and I are putting together a new Internet startup. So unlike the kid who abandons his ambition, stops cutting his hair, and goes on to live in his parents’ basement once he realizes that justice is evasive, I will pursue the absolute height of my productive capacity and mount a proper legal defense once I have the resources to do so.

I’m 19 years old. Like so many my age, I don’t have my life all mapped out yet. But if nothing else, I’m confident that at no point in my life will I need to send cease and desist letters to bloggers writing about how I spent my 20’s. That’s more than I can say for some people.

However, it appears some courts are finally pointing out to the RIAA that they don’t have the right to do some of these things. The latest example involves one of the lawsuits, where the accused claims she never was involved in file sharing. The RIAA demanded full access to her computer — which she rightly felt was a violation of her privacy, as there was a lot more on her computer that obviously had nothing to do with the case.

A judge has agreed and told the woman she can hire her own forensics expert, and bill the RIAA for any expenses.