What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
22 Comments
- JeSTeRSeVeN, on 10/27/2009, -0/+24Even more justification for my continued use of Adblock Plus.
- badqat, on 10/27/2009, -0/+23I gotta agree here - had Gawker done their due diligence, they likely would have prevented the situation from happening.
Sucks when you have to be wary of ads...bad enough we're surrounded by them, but to know they may contain a malicious payload - eesh. - dhilton, on 10/27/2009, -0/+10How is Suzuki reacting? Possibly bad publicity.
- urbanetruth, on 10/27/2009, -0/+9It wouldn't be the first time that Gawker spread something malicious
- RedStateRetard, on 10/27/2009, -0/+7I find the gawker family's revised commenting system more annoying than any malware.
- Cygea, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6I would hope that a large website would have some sort of control over the ads put on their website, but this isn't the first time gawker has been lazy, or has been tricked.
- JMilton, on 10/27/2009, -0/+5A whole new reason for installing Ad Block Plus if you haven't done so already.
- Barackalypse, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3If ads bother you, get Firefox and Adblock+
- liquisoft, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3These types of companies contact all manner of large websites with "media buys" and try to sneak their stuff in. It can be tough to catch, but there are usually clues. Unfortunately, the FBI doesn't give a crap about people who try to do this and will almost never follow up on any report.
- geekworking, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3And No-Script for anything that might not get Ad-blocked.
- paulmer2003, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Serves them right.
Also, meh @ GAwker for their terrible webdev and never listening to their readership... - javaroast, on 10/27/2009, -0/+3Yawn. Maybe an article about malicous payloads in ads isn't the best place to make this case. This is just another in the long line of examples why adblock all the time is the only way to go.
- Yage2006, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2NoScript FTW :)
- zebbers, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1NoScript is the key here.
- inactive, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1The only ads I see are the ones disguised as normal submissions, and those are really lame. I would gladly turn off adblock for Digg if it meant getting rid of them.
- socivitus, on 10/27/2009, -3/+4This just gives people more reason to use adblock and hurts the already online advertising industry. You may hate ads digg, but they allow us to enjoy many of the sites we love without paying a per-site premuim.
- miaow, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1I'm amazed that this kind of criminal activity is still tolerated by governments. They don;t seem bothered. If necessary, a law should be passed making the software makers or OS etc liable. Also the offence should be on a par with burglary. Offenders should potentially see jailtime. To me it still seems down to slackness.
- TheBigDiz, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1AdBlock Plus and NoScript for the ***** win!
- addiktion, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1For sure. They go after consumers or pirates and totally ignore these scamming criminals or spammers. WTF?
- pauldy, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Meh it's gawker it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they knew about it ahead of time and charged a bit more for the ad.
- JohnnySoftware, on 10/27/2009, -2/+1You think most web site owners who serve up ads from third parties are doing their due diligence on the content?
Verifying the safety of the content and insuring that it is frozen and not served up live from some other site you do not control takes some technical knowledge. - inf0, on 10/27/2009, -5/+1The ads on this site are atrocious... I come here like once every couple months now and I can say it's getting worse and worse.
Thank-you for reddit.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is