Access member only content, take part in discussions with comments on blogs, news and reviews and receive all the latest security industry news directly to your inbox. Join now for free.
A confirmation email has been sent to your email address - SUPPLIED EMAIL HERE. Please click on the link in the email to verify your email address. You need to verify your email before you can start posting.
If you do not receive your confirmation email within the next few minutes, it may be because the email has been captured by a junk mail filter. Please ensure you add the domain @scmagazine.com.au to your white-listed senders.
Cybercriminals are a busy bunch these days: stealing identities by the millions, grabbing credit and debit card account numbers, and waging a myriad other attacks on unwitting users, businesses and vulnerable websites. Their weapon of choice is the malware injection. Today, a page is infected every five seconds, triple the infection rate in 2007.
Among the most vulnerable -- and the most lucrative for cybercriminals due to their enormous reach -- are trusted, popular sites with unpatched vulnerabilities. In mid-2007, iFrame and SQL injections of malware began infecting legitimate websites, and the public started to heed the warnings of IT security analysts and pundits. The tone of their battle-cry was calm but unequivocal: Web 2.0 -- and its defining features of social networking, RSS feeds, user-generated content and mash-up applications -- would open up new opportunities for cybercriminals.
Basic classification of websites is fine and necessary. But the approach doesn’t address the reality that good sites can turn bad in a matter of hours, or even minutes. Or that criminals are using the entire internet as a computing grid for attacks, begging the question “Shouldn’t we be doing the same to protect ourselves?”
Login above or Register now and get unlimited access.
Already subscribed but have forgotten your login? Recover your password your here.