Ads providers should be held responsible for delivering malware. All the tracking (that includes fingerprinting for clients that do not want to be tracked) should also be illegal.
How is this acceptable for society goes beyond me. And then corporations blame individuals when they get scammed. It is your fault that we have all your information and leak it everywhere, when it is not just directly sold.
And add jail time to fines. Fines means nothing for the rich.
I think it would be nice for them to be held accountable but I get the feeling this is part of a wider nation state intelligence apparatus and I doubt that they will hold themselves accountable.
nah, you'll never get there that way. Even if there was willpower to do it legislating these things is too hard.
What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).
If they win the landscape will change. It would set a precedent for civil liability for infecting your users even when it's not your content directly. That would likely spook the shit out of the market, security becomes a feature.
Why the website instead of the ad provider? The website didn't server the ad. The ad provider did and should be the responsible part to ensure what it provides is not malicious.
Attacking a single website does nothing. If you bankrupt the site, there are millions more sites. If you attack the ad provider, bankrupting it, and shutting it down, millions of sites are now protected.
The website is signing up for a service. You could say that a website continuing to use the service of a known malicious ad provider is problematic, but are there any ad providers known to have not served malicious something?
I think you're also confusing multiple malicious activities occurring on the web. Data harvesting is another thing that needs to be banned into oblivion. Rarely are sites doing that natively. It is being done as a second part of service the site wants. A site/app wants naturally wants to seen analytics about how visitors are using the site/app, so they include some third party tool that provides that data to an extent at the cost of collecting/keeping that data for their own use. Want to make it easy for users to interact with social platforms regarding your site/app, they now get to collect/keep that data. That's a different thing than being served malicious ads.
The website is partnering with another business, often as their primary or only means of revenue. That is their entire business. This is not you signing up for a service like Netflix. It is a B2B partnership, and in fact, if you look at the direction money is flowing, they're the ones selling the service (access to users' computers). It is their responsibility to choose their business partners and what ads they'd be running. If they're not doing any examination of what they're inflicting on their users, and just letting whomever's buying send whatever payloads they'd like, then yeah that's negligent at best.
"I'll pay you if you run this software on your visitors' computers without asking questions" is not a "service" you sign up for. That's about as shady a deal as it sounds.
Sure it did. The content coming from elsewhere doesn’t change their decision to include it when the user loads their page. It makes it wildly important.
This is no different than the “I’m too big, can’t tell what my subsidiaries are doing!” wink
Pay attention, do due diligence to do things correctly, or don’t do them.
If such a thing were passed, it can't apply retroactively. But yes, google people would go to jail when they inevitably flout it as they are accustomed to doing. We should make this happen.
People in the US have a unique window of opportunity starting TODAY (Oct 2026) in many places with early voting. I implore everyone who is able to vote in the midterms to do so.
You will have to look at the candidates in your area and do your due diligence. Its unlikely a given candidate will be perfect, but there is generally tremendous differences between them as far as overall posture on privacy and surveillance.
So you search for company A wanting to buy their product. You check out. Basically every setup I've audited has every tracking product ever for everything.
So you buy X, and the company sends that purchase event with your information to Meta, Google, TikTok, Applovin, Klaviyo, and 10 others.
This idea is hopelessly entrenched in every marketing department, who has leadership's ear: We HAVE to send EVERYTHING to EVERYONE otherwise our ROAS will go DOWN!
Every platform works this way, they're all set up to put giant red banners on your marketer's dashboards
"You could be getting 50% better results if you sent <customer_2nd_grade_report_card>!"
This is not the problem. You visiting any website can lead to your computer running the same code.
The main problem is that the exploits from js to code execution or data exfil are possible in the first place. The issue is that you have JS, which is generally pretty isolated, able to talk to bundled libraries (like libwebrtc), which often contain the exploits and share the same memory space. There needs to be a intermediate layer between JS talking to any such library, like process isolation with IPC for communication.
As much as it sucks for the ecosystem that's built itself up around the world wide web, good ad blockers and fingerprinting protection are as important as firewalls and antiviruses now. There's no more babies in this fetid bathwater.
How paranoid should one be of, say for example, a wasm vulnerability exploited on zero day by a bad JS ad?
I am scared for my parents to get exposed to this kind of thing from bad ad network actors. Does anyone have some practical concrete recommendations they took? Like I don't think they can install ublock origin and whitelist sites on demand in Firefox they way I do.
The only practical thing right now is to make sure they don't have the money on device and have 2 fac for email and bank accounts. But every now and then there are phishing attamepts that they could fall prey to.
Awful lot of words here, but not much explanation of the actual capabilities of the "zero-click spyware". Tacking on the phrase "zero-click" suggests some kind of browser exploit, but it seems like this is just the same sort of thing as tracking cookies, third-party telemetry etc.
Yes, in fact I skipped to that section. It describes targeting, and then a vague mention of ad impressions leading to "connections" to a C2 server (but the simple fact of contacting a domain doesn't establish C2; anyone can send an AJAX request anywhere). Then they describe a "fingerprint" of servers which appears to consist of... HTTP responses with several blank fields and a claim of running on Apache. Then they say that they found a compromised DLL, which they attribute to the ads based on the DLL hard-coding some domains related to the ad campaign.
But there is nothing explaining how the DLL becomes zero-click compromised by the ad.
What can we expect from the most unpopular country in the world:
Based on responses from roughly 46,700 people assessing 129 countries, X ranked as the most negatively perceived country worldwide, ahead of North Korea, Afghanistan, and Iran. The most positively viewed were Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and Italy.
I'm of the belief that when that happens, it is state-sponsored bots messing with the voting. Sometimes when I make a comment on political matters, it gets waves of upvotes and downvotes.
Thanks by the way for introducing me to that graph. I didn't know that anyone collected that kind of stuff.
This was my first question as well. There’s a big gap between “ad network delivers JS” and a zero-click browser exploit. CitizenLab has done some great research including OSINT on the former, but there’s a conspicuous gap between it and the DLL ending up on the victim’s machine.
Someone should look at mergers of large digital advertising companies after Trump's most recent election... And then look at the timing of it. The countries involved happened to be Israeli and have many employees based out of Argentina. Which is crazy since the United States, Israel and Argentina happened to become extremely close after that election cycle...
I wonder how we're going to unwind this mess in the upcoming years. It seems as if there was a concerted effort to plan this all out before Trump got elected, and then everything fell into place. They obviously have a post Trump plan ready to go. I partially blame the left(really the moderates) in the U.S. For being so unbelievably complacent that it led us to this mess. I just wonder how we're going to unwind this. Nothing lasts forever, but the transition in between states always tends to be disrupting.
Apps should be required to disclose every single ad network they use as part of their app store disclosures. I want a lot more transparency as to where the ads are coming from inside the app itself.
I've witnessed consumer apps throwing quite heinous malware/sketchware advertisements and watched the banners rotate between 4-5 different ad vendors to keep things hot and spicy.
The incentives are lopsided, there’s so much money to be made by selling access to you and your devices, and controlling you, than just taking your money.
Indeed, it seems there are some externalities that a 100% free market doesn’t protect against for which regulation is probably the best tool.
A regulation here that applies to all app stores is even business friendly as an appstore which wanted to do this already wouldn’t be punished by trying to do this on their own, for the reasons you mentioned.
How is this acceptable for society goes beyond me. And then corporations blame individuals when they get scammed. It is your fault that we have all your information and leak it everywhere, when it is not just directly sold.
And add jail time to fines. Fines means nothing for the rich.
What we need is some greedy lawyers and civil liability. Find a campaign that infected enough individuals, fire up a class-action lawsuit against the website on which the ads where actually shown (not the ad provider).
If they win the landscape will change. It would set a precedent for civil liability for infecting your users even when it's not your content directly. That would likely spook the shit out of the market, security becomes a feature.
Attacking a single website does nothing. If you bankrupt the site, there are millions more sites. If you attack the ad provider, bankrupting it, and shutting it down, millions of sites are now protected.
Your logic just doesn't compute
I think you're also confusing multiple malicious activities occurring on the web. Data harvesting is another thing that needs to be banned into oblivion. Rarely are sites doing that natively. It is being done as a second part of service the site wants. A site/app wants naturally wants to seen analytics about how visitors are using the site/app, so they include some third party tool that provides that data to an extent at the cost of collecting/keeping that data for their own use. Want to make it easy for users to interact with social platforms regarding your site/app, they now get to collect/keep that data. That's a different thing than being served malicious ads.
"I'll pay you if you run this software on your visitors' computers without asking questions" is not a "service" you sign up for. That's about as shady a deal as it sounds.
Sure it did. The content coming from elsewhere doesn’t change their decision to include it when the user loads their page. It makes it wildly important.
This is no different than the “I’m too big, can’t tell what my subsidiaries are doing!” wink
Pay attention, do due diligence to do things correctly, or don’t do them.
Too bad no one has the guts to enforce the law that way.
People in the US have a unique window of opportunity starting TODAY (Oct 2026) in many places with early voting. I implore everyone who is able to vote in the midterms to do so.
Easy, when your society glorifies and deifies greed, you can excuse literally any act so long as it makes enough money.
That's it. That's the entire explanation. It's capitalism and greed.
So you search for company A wanting to buy their product. You check out. Basically every setup I've audited has every tracking product ever for everything.
So you buy X, and the company sends that purchase event with your information to Meta, Google, TikTok, Applovin, Klaviyo, and 10 others.
This idea is hopelessly entrenched in every marketing department, who has leadership's ear: We HAVE to send EVERYTHING to EVERYONE otherwise our ROAS will go DOWN!
Every platform works this way, they're all set up to put giant red banners on your marketer's dashboards
"You could be getting 50% better results if you sent <customer_2nd_grade_report_card>!"
The main problem is that the exploits from js to code execution or data exfil are possible in the first place. The issue is that you have JS, which is generally pretty isolated, able to talk to bundled libraries (like libwebrtc), which often contain the exploits and share the same memory space. There needs to be a intermediate layer between JS talking to any such library, like process isolation with IPC for communication.
I am scared for my parents to get exposed to this kind of thing from bad ad network actors. Does anyone have some practical concrete recommendations they took? Like I don't think they can install ublock origin and whitelist sites on demand in Firefox they way I do.
The only practical thing right now is to make sure they don't have the money on device and have 2 fac for email and bank accounts. But every now and then there are phishing attamepts that they could fall prey to.
and they’re just as troublesome as they were before,
to the degree they’re provably being used to decide who to send malicious payloads to…
Zero-click simply highlights if the user needs to actively interact with the malicious payload - or not.
https://citizenlab.ca/research/how-discover-tech-turned-targ...
But there is nothing explaining how the DLL becomes zero-click compromised by the ad.
No, their attribution is much more robust than this. Neglecting those details to oversimplify your explanation is intellectually dishonest.
> there is nothing explaining how the DLL becomes zero-click compromised [...]
They do, just a little later in that same section: "Both samples use a COM hijack for persistence [...]" through a malicious DLL.
https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1546/015/
Hope we follow guidelines under this link or “then nobody gets it!”
Based on responses from roughly 46,700 people assessing 129 countries, X ranked as the most negatively perceived country worldwide, ahead of North Korea, Afghanistan, and Iran. The most positively viewed were Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and Italy.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260513-israel-becomes-wo...
The CTO happens to have worked for Radware
https://radware.com/
https://www.innovid.com/about-us/news/mediaocean-completes-a...
Then you can drastically reduce the mobile in browser block list which helps a lot with battery
I've witnessed consumer apps throwing quite heinous malware/sketchware advertisements and watched the banners rotate between 4-5 different ad vendors to keep things hot and spicy.
A regulation here that applies to all app stores is even business friendly as an appstore which wanted to do this already wouldn’t be punished by trying to do this on their own, for the reasons you mentioned.