'Methbot' Steals Between $3M And $5M In Ad Revenue Every Day

[Guest]

White Ops, the digital security company that discovered the scheme, described it as "the largest and most profitable ad fraud operation to strike digital advertising to date."

'Methbot' Steals Between $3M And $5M In Ad Revenue Every Day : Read more

 

[jkhoward]

Good.

 

[dgingeri]

I like this, mainly because it is undermining the culture of marketing that has taken hold in the US. I don't like the current in-your-face-everywhere, lies-about-everything-as-a-business-model marketing culture we have to deal with right now. Hopefully someone gets it through their heads and stops dealing with such marketing firms, and maybe stops shoveling money over to these snake oil salesmen.

 

[another_2000]

In almost every such case, just follow the money.

 

[Rancifer7]

thats some serious cash...

 

[jaber2]

I remember seeing this long ago, amazing how you can scale up like this

 

[eklipz330]

dgingeri, i just want to say that i'm very glad you posted that comment and i'm very glad that someone has their eyes open here on TH. it's sickening really. you get assaulted with ads here in the US, especially in NYC. meanwhile, in amsterdam, you'll have to really look for an ad to find one

 

[rantoc]

If its add companies that uses popup and such annoyance adds, thumbs up - Really hope this put at-least some of those garbage companies out of business. If it's discrete adds it's another matter since its the fuel that keeps many sites/servers light on.

 

[bit_user]

I like this, mainly because it is undermining the culture of marketing that has taken hold in the US.

Do you like paying for content on the web and every video you stream? If not, then it's imperative that ads actually work.

There's nothing to like about hackers stealing over $1B/year. It translates into less money for people who make the content, higher prices for stuff you buy, and more ads for those of us who don't block them. And wasting bandwidth to do it, just makes your page loads slower and increases costs to network operators (which they pass on to you).

What's unfortunate is that the ad industry really doesn't seem to be self-correcting. What will often happen is that industry consortia form to establish standards that address the systemic problems. But, I have a feeling that the ad networks view some of these systemic problems (and their proprietary solutions) as points of differentiation and competitive advantage.

As a result, no standards, no transparency, no oversight, and no control. If this continues, then Congress will start passing laws that the industry will like a lot less than if they could've gotten their **** together.

you get assaulted with ads here in the US, especially in NYC. meanwhile, in amsterdam, you'll have to really look for an ad to find one

You mean like billboards? Get your lawmakers to tighten restrictions. The city of Rio de Janeiro banned all outdoor advertising. I don't think it's realistic for NYC to follow, but at least it could be limited by zoning restrictions.

 

[bit_user]

In almost every such case, just follow the money.

Yeah, to Russia. And then what are you gonna do?

Even if Russia somehow miraculously cracks down on cyber crime, cybercriminals will always find safe jurisdictions from where to practice their trade. There's not a strictly law-enforcement solution to this problem. In general, the only way to make a serious dent in cybercrime is to take cybersecurity to the next level.

 

[dgingeri]

I like this, mainly because it is undermining the culture of marketing that has taken hold in the US.

Do you like paying for content on the web and every video you stream? If not, then it's imperative that ads actually work.

There's nothing to like about hackers stealing over $1B/year. It translates into less money for people who make the content, higher prices for stuff you buy, and more ads for those of us who don't block them. And wasting bandwidth to do it, just makes your page loads slower and increases costs to network operators (which they pass on to you).

What's unfortunate is that the ad industry really doesn't seem to be self-correcting. What will often happen is that industry consortia form to establish standards that address the systemic problems. But, I have a feeling that the ad networks view some of these systemic problems (and their proprietary solutions) as points of differentiation and competitive advantage.

As a result, no standards, no transparency, no oversight, and no control. If this continues, then Congress will start passing laws that the industry will like a lot less than if they could've gotten their **** together.

you get assaulted with ads here in the US, especially in NYC. meanwhile, in amsterdam, you'll have to really look for an ad to find one

You mean like billboards? Get your lawmakers to tighten restrictions. The city of Rio de Janeiro banned all outdoor advertising. I don't think it's realistic for NYC to follow, but at least it could be limited by zoning restrictions.

I wouldn't mind paying for the content I read, so long as the ads are gone. I do pay extra for Hulu Plus to get rid of the commercials. I do pay for Netflix, so I don't have to see commercials. I'd pay for HardOCP, Tom's Hardware, and Anandtech for my tech news and reviews, to the tune of about $2-3/month, if I didn't have to deal with ads. I'd do the same for regular news and economic and political news sites as well, if I could find reliable ones that isn't so biased toward either side. (News sites these days have all taken political sides, and none have the interests of the people in mind. Where is a good libertarian news site these days?)

I hate watching regular TV, and don't usually, because of all the commercials. I delete all the advertisements from my inbox without them even being read. I buy my products based on how well they do the job and how reliable and durable they are, and price as a tertiary matter, not on how much they've been shoved in my face by an ad. Well, I do actually avoid services or brands that advertise overly aggressively, because they are probably lying and aren't worth buying. For example, I avoid McDonald's whenever possible because I see their ads everywhere, but like going to Culver's because they don't advertise so much, and it just so happens that McDonald's food is the same price but much inferior quality compared to Culver's.

 

[bit_user]

I wouldn't mind paying for the content I read, so long as the ads are gone.

Maybe someday, we'll have that option.

I do like that most news is still free. If you want people to be informed, the least thing you could do is remove barriers to accessing good information. Whether they choose to partake of it is another matter...

I delete all the advertisements from my inbox without them even being read.

I sometimes look at spam I get from Newegg and a couple other online stores. But physical junk mail got so bad that I spent a while getting as much of it stopped as I could.

I buy my products based on how well they do the job and how reliable and durable they are,

Yes, but I'll admit there are couple things I buy that I wouldn't have know about without TV/streaming commercials or web ads. 99.9% of it is useless to me. Something like a car commercial would never influence my decision to buy one, or which to get. Same goes for most things.

McDonald's whenever possible because I see their ads everywhere,

Plus their products have too much salt, carbs, and the wrong fats. Even if you like burgers and fries, it's cheaper to make your own, even if you use better ingredients. I go low carb and skip the fries, soda, and bun. Which basically turns it into a bacon cheeseburger salad.

 

[none12345]

I dont really care that they are taking advantage of the shear lunacy of advertising market. It has gotten rather out of hand. So i just laugh at them.

But the scale of that op is rather impressive. Half a million ip addresses, wow.

 

[RomeoReject]

I do love how everyone is saying "Yeah, boo to advertising" but no one wants to step forward with an alternative. Do you want to pay for each website? A massively hiked internet fee that goes in to paying certain sites? Or perhaps they can just go whole-hog and start weaving ads in to every article or post, completely undermining half the internet.

Yeah, ads suck, but it's the tradeoff we get for free content. Either suck it up, or start paying.

 

[laststop311]

Wonder what that illegal money is funding in russia

 

[dgingeri]

I do love how everyone is saying "Yeah, boo to advertising" but no one wants to step forward with an alternative. Do you want to pay for each website? A massively hiked internet fee that goes in to paying certain sites? Or perhaps they can just go whole-hog and start weaving ads in to every article or post, completely undermining half the internet.

Yeah, ads suck, but it's the tradeoff we get for free content. Either suck it up, or start paying.

I am fully willing to pay for content, and do on Hulu and Netflix, in order to avoid ads, but it MUST be to avoid ads completely. There are a lot of sites out there who allow paying for reduced ads, or selling your email address to their [strike]spammers[/strike] partners. I just don't want that. I'm willing to pay $2-3 each per month for sites like Anandtech, HardOCP, or Tom's Hardware, or some decent general news sites, but that just isn't a possibility. Talk to me again about how happy I am when that does happen.

 

[surphninja]

Amateurs. The pro's build whole companies funded by ad-revenue (facebook, google, etc), and then find their own way to fudge the numbers about what really counts as a "view" or "interaction."

Can't wait until the online ad bubble pops and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

 

[bit_user]

Wonder what that illegal money is funding in russia

I think it's an industry, there. Like some countries have mining, oil, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. In Russia, hacking is probably just another industry. Both for private gain and on government contracts.

 

[dgingeri]

Russia's GDP is dependent on global organized crime

 

[RomeoReject]

I do love how everyone is saying "Yeah, boo to advertising" but no one wants to step forward with an alternative. Do you want to pay for each website? A massively hiked internet fee that goes in to paying certain sites? Or perhaps they can just go whole-hog and start weaving ads in to every article or post, completely undermining half the internet.

Yeah, ads suck, but it's the tradeoff we get for free content. Either suck it up, or start paying.

I am fully willing to pay for content, and do on Hulu and Netflix, in order to avoid ads, but it MUST be to avoid ads completely. There are a lot of sites out there who allow paying for reduced ads, or selling your email address to their [strike]spammers[/strike] partners. I just don't want that. I'm willing to pay $2-3 each per month for sites like Anandtech, HardOCP, or Tom's Hardware, or some decent general news sites, but that just isn't a possibility. Talk to me again about how happy I am when that does happen.

And that's awesome for you. The overwhelming majority however visit so many sites that to pay for each one would be ludicrously limiting. I'm glad you have the money to throw around, and I sincerely mean it when I say the sites should perhaps give you a "premium" option to pay for no ads. But between a few car sites, a few gaming sites, and a view "just for fun" sites, paying $2-3 dollars a month for each would quickly spiral in to a $30-50 monthly expense, not to mention spell a death knell for most forums and unfairly punish smaller companies.

 

[WarWolverineWarrior]

So pretty much, it's like clicking on your own videos on your YouTube channel to get money but it's way more exponential.

 

[wifiburger]

interesting... my first day on the internet with my crappy dial-up modem I blocked ads