wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
and vulnerabilities. Spurring people to download and install the updates on
a regular basis is like pulling teeth. It is a chore for people to keep patching,
especially given how much software we are using.
Software companies also stop supporting old software, a move they refer
to as “deprecating” a particular program. Unfortunately, but often for good
reasons, people grow attached to old software and don’t want to abandon it.
People often don’t have the financial resources to constantly upgrade their
tools. Additionally, abandoning software might render certain data and files
unusable. For example, if a person creates a video with a video editing
program, the video source file could be incompatible with other programs.
If the law holds software makers more responsible for the downstream
consequences of poor security choices, then software would likely become
more secure. More money would be invested in security. There would be
more testing before launching software. More care might be taken when
determining when to stop supporting updates and how best to safely
transition people to new systems.
We are not arguing that software must be perfect on security. But
software should at least be up to a reasonable standard. With the
proliferation of connected products and devices, so many things now have
software in them and this software often has poor security. Without greater
accountability, bad software can continue to flood the market and put us all
at serious risk.
Distributors
Distributors are a group of actors that help distribute insecure products and
services. They create places that appear safe—websites, platforms, online
marketplaces—and they make it easy for individuals to find out about
products and services and to purchase or use them. Unfortunately,
distributors fail to adequately screen these products and services. It’s akin to
supermarkets stocking their shelves with tainted food.
Ad Networks
Suppose you are a cautious Internet surfer. You don’t visit strange sites
or anything that seems dubious or disreputable. You just go to mainstream
news sites, large retailer sites, or the websites of big companies you know.
You think you are safe . . . but we have bad news for you.
Imagine you are on a popular website and you see an interesting ad. You
click the ad and suddenly you are thrown into a digital hell. The ad sends
you to a malicious site, which infects your computer with malware.
This malady is known as “malvertising”—a mashed-up word for
“malicious advertising.” Malvertising involves fake ads created by hackers
and fraudsters. When you click on them, the ads take you to a phishing site
or a site that will infect your computer with a virus.
Many popular websites use ad networks to select and deliver ads. Ad
networks are companies that serve ads on thousands of websites.22 Instead
of websites themselves selling and arranging all the ads themselves, ad
networks manage the sale of advertising opportunities. Many ads are
submitted to the various ad networks, and the networks often don’t have
time to examine each ad carefully—the system is highly automated.
The online advertising ecosystem is a remarkably complex network. It
involves “publisher sites, ad exchanges, ad servers, retargeting networks
and content delivery networks (CDNs). Multiple redirections between
different servers occur after a user clicks on an ad. Attackers exploit this
complexity to place malicious content in places that publishers and ad
networks would least expect.”23
A malicious ad might contain hidden coding that could allow a hacker to
install a virus or infiltrate a computer or computer network. Once inside, the
hacker can install ransomware or access data.24
But I only visit mainstream legitimate websites, you might think. I can’t
be infected if I’m visiting only sites of large reputable companies. If you
think this, you are wrong . . . very wrong. The list of mainstream companies
that have had malicious ads on their site is quite long.25 The only way to
completely protect yourself is to stay offline because there is little you can
do to combat this issue. Many antivirus software programs aren’t updated
fast enough to catch the ads. If you visit a site with a malicious ad, your
computer can be infected almost instantly. Some of the ads require you to
click, but some will do damage just by being loaded up when you visit the
website.
In 2017, fake Adobe Flash update ads were on Equifax’s website. When
people clicked the ads, their computers became infected with adware.26 In
2019, just one malvertiser was responsible for 100 million malicious ads.27
Malvertisers go to elaborate lengths to make themselves look like
legitimate companies. They create slick websites, LinkedIn profiles, Twitter
accounts, and more. These steps make it much trickier to use automation to
identify them.28
Ultimately, it comes down to a tradeoff that advertisers must make. Ad
networks can profit more by heavily automating their operations and having
weaker monitoring for security. They can increase security but at a greater
expense. They could also increase security by scaling down their business.
The only way they will make choices favoring more security is if they have
the right incentives. Currently, the incentives created by the market and the
law, however, are for them to be less secure.
Platforms
In the 1980s, spending time at indoor malls was very popular. People felt
safe there. The malls had security, the stores were mainstream and safe, and
there were food courts.
Today, online platforms present themselves as the digital world analogue
to malls in the 1980s. The problem is that although they appear safe, they
are not. Dangerous actors lurk there, and individuals visit at their own risk.
If you go to the app store for Apple or Android, you can find a multitude
of apps. Many look really neat, and it is so easy to download and use them.
You might think that they are safe because they are in the store. But often
they are quite risky.
Many apps have terrible security. According to one study, 43 percent of
Android apps and 38 percent of Apple apps had major security flaws.29
Another study found that 86 percent of mobile apps had a common security
vulnerability that could open the door for hackers.30
These findings should come as no surprise because there are not many
incentives for most app developers to prioritize security. They are more
interested in creating what sells—exciting features and functions. Users
don’t know enough about security to factor it into their decisions about
using apps. Thus, there isn’t much market incentive to invest a lot of time or

and vulnerabilities. Spurring people to download and install the updates on

a regular basis is like pulling teeth. It is a chore for people to keep patching,

especially given how much software we are using.

Software companies also stop supporting old software, a move they refer

to as “deprecating” a particular program. Unfortunately, but often for good

reasons, people grow attached to old software and don’t want to abandon it.

People often don’t have the financial resources to constantly upgrade their

tools. Additionally, abandoning software might render certain data and files

unusable. For example, if a person creates a video with a video editing

program, the video source file could be incompatible with other programs.

If the law holds software makers more responsible for the downstream

consequences of poor security choices, then software would likely become

more secure. More money would be invested in security. There would be

more testing before launching software. More care might be taken when

determining when to stop supporting updates and how best to safely

transition people to new systems.

We are not arguing that software must be perfect on security. But

software should at least be up to a reasonable standard. With the

proliferation of connected products and devices, so many things now have

software in them and this software often has poor security. Without greater

accountability, bad software can continue to flood the market and put us all

at serious risk.

Distributors

Distributors are a group of actors that help distribute insecure products and

services. They create places that appear safe—websites, platforms, online

marketplaces—and they make it easy for individuals to find out about

products and services and to purchase or use them. Unfortunately,

distributors fail to adequately screen these products and services. It’s akin to

supermarkets stocking their shelves with tainted food.

Ad Networks

Suppose you are a cautious Internet surfer. You don’t visit strange sites

or anything that seems dubious or disreputable. You just go to mainstream

news sites, large retailer sites, or the websites of big companies you know.

You think you are safe . . . but we have bad news for you.

Imagine you are on a popular website and you see an interesting ad. You

click the ad and suddenly you are thrown into a digital hell. The ad sends

you to a malicious site, which infects your computer with malware.

This malady is known as “malvertising”—a mashed-up word for

“malicious advertising.” Malvertising involves fake ads created by hackers

and fraudsters. When you click on them, the ads take you to a phishing site

or a site that will infect your computer with a virus.

Many popular websites use ad networks to select and deliver ads. Ad

networks are companies that serve ads on thousands of websites.22 Instead

of websites themselves selling and arranging all the ads themselves, ad

networks manage the sale of advertising opportunities. Many ads are

submitted to the various ad networks, and the networks often don’t have

time to examine each ad carefully—the system is highly automated.

The online advertising ecosystem is a remarkably complex network. It

involves “publisher sites, ad exchanges, ad servers, retargeting networks

and content delivery networks (CDNs). Multiple redirections between

different servers occur after a user clicks on an ad. Attackers exploit this

complexity to place malicious content in places that publishers and ad

networks would least expect.”23

A malicious ad might contain hidden coding that could allow a hacker to

install a virus or infiltrate a computer or computer network. Once inside, the

hacker can install ransomware or access data.24

But I only visit mainstream legitimate websites, you might think. I can’t

be infected if I’m visiting only sites of large reputable companies. If you

think this, you are wrong . . . very wrong. The list of mainstream companies

that have had malicious ads on their site is quite long.25 The only way to

completely protect yourself is to stay offline because there is little you can

do to combat this issue. Many antivirus software programs aren’t updated

fast enough to catch the ads. If you visit a site with a malicious ad, your

computer can be infected almost instantly. Some of the ads require you to

click, but some will do damage just by being loaded up when you visit the

website.

In 2017, fake Adobe Flash update ads were on Equifax’s website. When

people clicked the ads, their computers became infected with adware.26 In

2019, just one malvertiser was responsible for 100 million malicious ads.27

Malvertisers go to elaborate lengths to make themselves look like

legitimate companies. They create slick websites, LinkedIn profiles, Twitter

accounts, and more. These steps make it much trickier to use automation to

identify them.28

Ultimately, it comes down to a tradeoff that advertisers must make. Ad

networks can profit more by heavily automating their operations and having

weaker monitoring for security. They can increase security but at a greater

expense. They could also increase security by scaling down their business.

The only way they will make choices favoring more security is if they have

the right incentives. Currently, the incentives created by the market and the

law, however, are for them to be less secure.

Platforms

In the 1980s, spending time at indoor malls was very popular. People felt

safe there. The malls had security, the stores were mainstream and safe, and

there were food courts.

Today, online platforms present themselves as the digital world analogue

to malls in the 1980s. The problem is that although they appear safe, they

are not. Dangerous actors lurk there, and individuals visit at their own risk.

If you go to the app store for Apple or Android, you can find a multitude

of apps. Many look really neat, and it is so easy to download and use them.

You might think that they are safe because they are in the store. But often

they are quite risky.

Many apps have terrible security. According to one study, 43 percent of

Android apps and 38 percent of Apple apps had major security flaws.29

Another study found that 86 percent of mobile apps had a common security

vulnerability that could open the door for hackers.30

These findings should come as no surprise because there are not many

incentives for most app developers to prioritize security. They are more

interested in creating what sells—exciting features and functions. Users

don’t know enough about security to factor it into their decisions about

using apps. Thus, there isn’t much market incentive to invest a lot of time or