Virus from web surfing

[Edward Diener]

I was at a friend's house yesterday with a number of other people and he
was surfing the web at one point when a virus protection program on his
laptop, called Webroot, warned him from entering a web site. Nonetheless
he entered the web site, did not download anything from that site, and
this morning is having problems with booting his computer. I talked to
him on the phone and when he described the problem to me ( he is not
very computer savvy ), he said he was getting an error about the hard
disk not being found on bootup.

I am pretty computer experienced and I did not think that merely going
to a website can introduce a virus onto a system without actual
executing some file on that system. Am I naive about my belief, or is it
more likely that he has encountered some hardware problem which just
coincides with what he had done yesterday ? He had taken the laptop to
Best Buy about 2 weeks ago to fix a hardware problem and what occurred
this morning sounds ot me as if the problem he previously had with his
hardware may have reoccured.

Of course I realize that without visiting him and looking at what he is
describing as happening over the phone, I can not know what is wrong
with his computer, but I though I would ask here anyway to see if anyone
has experienced a virus that can be triggered by just surfing to a web site.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Edward Diener" <[email protected]>

| I was at a friend's house yesterday with a number of other people and he
| was surfing the web at one point when a virus protection program on his
| laptop, called Webroot, warned him from entering a web site. Nonetheless
| he entered the web site, did not download anything from that site, and
| this morning is having problems with booting his computer. I talked to
| him on the phone and when he described the problem to me ( he is not
| very computer savvy ), he said he was getting an error about the hard
| disk not being found on bootup.

| I am pretty computer experienced and I did not think that merely going
| to a website can introduce a virus onto a system without actual
| executing some file on that system. Am I naive about my belief, or is it
| more likely that he has encountered some hardware problem which just
| coincides with what he had done yesterday ? He had taken the laptop to
| Best Buy about 2 weeks ago to fix a hardware problem and what occurred
| this morning sounds ot me as if the problem he previously had with his
| hardware may have reoccured.

| Of course I realize that without visiting him and looking at what he is
| describing as happening over the phone, I can not know what is wrong
| with his computer, but I though I would ask here anyway to see if anyone
| has experienced a virus that can be triggered by just surfing to a web site.


Probably a coincidence and has a CMOS battery problem.
Help him make sure the CMOS recognizies that a hard disk is recognized etc.

 

[RayLopez99]

Probably a coincidence and has a CMOS battery problem.
Help him make sure the CMOS recognizies that a hard disk is recognized etc.

???Probably a coincidence??? Probably not Dave. I used Webroot for a
long time and it has saved me from harm when surfing free porn. I
stopped using it (Comodo is now loaded, as my Webroot subscription ran
out) which does not give you the "option" of entering (it just blocks
it), so yes, if this guy overrode Webroot's block he could have
problems.

RL

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "RayLopez99" <[email protected]>

| On Jan 2, 7:01 pm, "David H. Lipman" <[email protected]>
| wrote:



| ???Probably a coincidence??? Probably not Dave. I used Webroot for a
| long time and it has saved me from harm when surfing free porn. I
| stopped using it (Comodo is now loaded, as my Webroot subscription ran
| out) which does not give you the "option" of entering (it just blocks
| it), so yes, if this guy overrode Webroot's block he could have
| problems.

Until there is further information I will call it a coincidence as Webroot warning him
about entering a web site does not provide enough information.
What warning was this ?
We don't have facts about said warning and it contents.

He also indicated that the laptop had been taken to Best Buy about 2 weeks prior.

 

[default]

I am pretty computer experienced and I did not think that merely going
to a website can introduce a virus onto a system without actual
executing some file on that system. Am I naive about my belief, or is it
more likely that he has encountered some hardware problem which just
coincides with what he had done yesterday ?

I'm not commenting on Webroot or what's "likely" in this specific
situation. But I'd like to update your terminology and conceptual
understanding of how web sites work. Whenever you "enter" or "go to" a
web site, you are downloading "stuff". Especially if scripts are enabled
but even if not, you are downloading potentially dozens of files of
various types, which are then "interpreted" by software on your system.
You would like to think of them as only "data" and not "executable", but
the fact is that many of them have an executable aspect to them.
(Javascript is part of most web pages and is most definitely
"executable". Disabling it helps, but isn't fool-proof, and most people
don't even do that.) If local software, such as the OS or the browser or
other helper software like Acrobat Reader or image renderers, etc., has a
vulnerability and the downloaded files take advantage of that
vulnerability, then you can definitely be infected. It does NOT require
explicit "actual executing some file". A lot of previously reported
malware is in this category. Keeping your OS and other programs up to
date should eliminate previously discovered vulnerabilities, but not
newly discovered ones (so-called zero-day). And anti-virus software
generally does not protect against zero-day attacks.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per default:

I'm not commenting on Webroot or what's "likely" in this specific
situation. But I'd like to update your terminology and conceptual
understanding of how web sites work. Whenever you "enter" or "go to" a
web site, you are downloading "stuff". Especially if scripts are enabled
but even if not, you are downloading potentially dozens of files of
various types, which are then "interpreted" by software on your system.
You would like to think of them as only "data" and not "executable", but
the fact is that many of them have an executable aspect to them.
(Javascript is part of most web pages and is most definitely
"executable". Disabling it helps, but isn't fool-proof, and most people
don't even do that.) If local software, such as the OS or the browser or
other helper software like Acrobat Reader or image renderers, etc., has a
vulnerability and the downloaded files take advantage of that
vulnerability, then you can definitely be infected. It does NOT require
explicit "actual executing some file". A lot of previously reported
malware is in this category. Keeping your OS and other programs up to
date should eliminate previously discovered vulnerabilities, but not
newly discovered ones (so-called zero-day). And anti-virus software
generally does not protect against zero-day attacks.

That one made it to my "keepers" file.

Thanks!

 

[Edward Diener]

I'm not commenting on Webroot or what's "likely" in this specific
situation. But I'd like to update your terminology and conceptual
understanding of how web sites work. Whenever you "enter" or "go to" a
web site, you are downloading "stuff". Especially if scripts are enabled
but even if not, you are downloading potentially dozens of files of
various types, which are then "interpreted" by software on your system.
You would like to think of them as only "data" and not "executable", but
the fact is that many of them have an executable aspect to them.
(Javascript is part of most web pages and is most definitely
"executable". Disabling it helps, but isn't fool-proof, and most people
don't even do that.) If local software, such as the OS or the browser or
other helper software like Acrobat Reader or image renderers, etc., has a
vulnerability and the downloaded files take advantage of that
vulnerability, then you can definitely be infected. It does NOT require
explicit "actual executing some file". A lot of previously reported
malware is in this category. Keeping your OS and other programs up to
date should eliminate previously discovered vulnerabilities, but not
newly discovered ones (so-called zero-day). And anti-virus software
generally does not protect against zero-day attacks.

I understand about scripts being downloaded and running on the client
side and I understand that if Javascript does something on the client
side as it runs it can theoretically change something on the client
computer. But as a programmer myself I have never heard or seen of any
ability which Javascript has to actually access the client computer's
hardware or file system. While some Javascript release in a browser
could have a bug in it which allowed such intrusion I would strongly
imagine that this would have been fixed and that every browser one uses,
if one keeps the browser up-to-date, will pick up such a fix. Of course
my friend could have been using an old version of a browser running some
early version of Javascript which allowed a hacker to subvert his
system. But my gut feeling is that Javascript has been gone over by so
many people down through the years to stop such an intrusion that is it
unlikely that some virus occurred from running it on the client side.
However, I am willing to listen to those who tell me otherwise.

I admit to not disabling Javascript myself as plenty of web sites that
rely on it will no longer work properly. But then again I am pretty
careful where I surf on the Internet, unlike my friend who is much more
of a novice.

I agree that if other software involved in rendering a web page or its
images have a vulnerability, that is a place hackers will attack.

The upshot for my friend is that he took his laptop back to Best Buy and
they told him his hard drive stopped working. Since he bought it from
Best Buy originally, and since my view of Best Buy is that they sell
cheap and easily breakable computer hardware ( unfortunately my friend
does not know about New Egg etc. ) I think they just sold him a cheap
system, which worked nice for a short while but now he has started a
cycle of paying for who knows what will break down next.

 

[Edward Diener]

From: "RayLopez99"<[email protected]>

| On Jan 2, 7:01 pm, "David H. Lipman"<[email protected]>
| wrote:




| ???Probably a coincidence??? Probably not Dave. I used Webroot for a
| long time and it has saved me from harm when surfing free porn. I
| stopped using it (Comodo is now loaded, as my Webroot subscription ran
| out) which does not give you the "option" of entering (it just blocks
| it), so yes, if this guy overrode Webroot's block he could have
| problems.

Until there is further information I will call it a coincidence as Webroot warning him
about entering a web site does not provide enough information.
What warning was this ?
We don't have facts about said warning and it contents.

He also indicated that the laptop had been taken to Best Buy about 2 weeks prior.

When my friend took the laptop back to Best Buy they said the hard disk
stopped working and they would install a new one for a pretty hefty fee.
I admit I never thought a virus could find a vulnerability to knock out
an entire hard drive, if that is what happened. So I also think it was
just an unfortunate coincidence along with my friend probably having
bought a fairly cheap, but poor laptop from Best Buy. If he had asked me
first before he bought it I would have guided him to New Egg to look for
what he might want.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Edward Diener" <[email protected]>


| When my friend took the laptop back to Best Buy they said the hard disk
| stopped working and they would install a new one for a pretty hefty fee.
| I admit I never thought a virus could find a vulnerability to knock out
| an entire hard drive, if that is what happened. So I also think it was
| just an unfortunate coincidence along with my friend probably having
| bought a fairly cheap, but poor laptop from Best Buy. If he had asked me
| first before he bought it I would have guided him to New Egg to look for
| what he might want.

First you have to stop using the term virus. That term is often too abused. We can
consider it as malware and the vast majority are trojans and not viruses.

Then we can consider payload and intent. The vast majority of Today's malware has an
intended payload that needs the computer operation not dysfunctional. Therefore we can
usually discount a malware that will want to knock out a hard disk.

There is a relationship between the hardware endurance and the cost of the hardware. The
cheaper the hardware the less likely it will endure time. Hard disks are very much in
line with this as they are mechanical (few are SSD) and can breakdown very easily and
cheap drives are often the result of low quality control manufacture runs.

To what degree we can determine this as a coincidence will depend upon what exactly
webroot was warning about. That exact message has yet to be described.

While there is always the possibility of a drive-by download and the
vulnerability/exploitation vector, the chances are very, very, slim that such an encounter
will have such a draconian effect as a hard disk failure. The fact that you report that
the notebook had a "some hardware problem" only a fortnight prior is much more likely that
we have a coincidence rather than a malware caused problem.

 

[Edward Diener]

From: "Edward Diener"<[email protected]>



| When my friend took the laptop back to Best Buy they said the hard disk
| stopped working and they would install a new one for a pretty hefty fee.
| I admit I never thought a virus could find a vulnerability to knock out
| an entire hard drive, if that is what happened. So I also think it was
| just an unfortunate coincidence along with my friend probably having
| bought a fairly cheap, but poor laptop from Best Buy. If he had asked me
| first before he bought it I would have guided him to New Egg to look for
| what he might want.

First you have to stop using the term virus. That term is often too abused. We can
consider it as malware and the vast majority are trojans and not viruses.

I think you are nitpicking but "malware" is fine with me also.

Then we can consider payload and intent. The vast majority of Today's malware has an
intended payload that needs the computer operation not dysfunctional. Therefore we can
usually discount a malware that will want to knock out a hard disk.

There is a relationship between the hardware endurance and the cost of the hardware. The
cheaper the hardware the less likely it will endure time. Hard disks are very much in
line with this as they are mechanical (few are SSD) and can breakdown very easily and
cheap drives are often the result of low quality control manufacture runs.

Agreed. I bought a laptop myself a few years ago and my hard drive went
out on me after just a few months. This was a decent quality system, and
the manufacturer honored the warranty and I was able to get a
replacement without any cost. Nothing on it has failed since.

To what degree we can determine this as a coincidence will depend upon what exactly
webroot was warning about. That exact message has yet to be described.

I do not think my friend even remembers the exact message other than
that Webroot warned him when he attempted to go to the website that it
was a known website for malware. I have never used Webroot myself and I
do not use software that warns me about Internet sites. I still believe,
as you have strongly suggested, that the failure of my friend's hard
drive was a coincidence to his surfing to a web site when he had been
warned by Webroot that it might have been dangerous.

I also continue to believe that malware will not generally be able to
infect someone's computer by just surfing web sites as opposed to
downoading/executing programs or opening e-mail attachments etc.

While there is always the possibility of a drive-by download and the
vulnerability/exploitation vector, the chances are very, very, slim that such an encounter
will have such a draconian effect as a hard disk failure. The fact that you report that
the notebook had a "some hardware problem" only a fortnight prior is much more likely that
we have a coincidence rather than a malware caused problem.

I agree with you. I just wanted to find out if anybody on the NG knew of
any malware which is dangerous enough to infect a computer simply
because one surfs to some web site.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Edward Diener wrote:
[...]

I think you are nitpicking but "malware" is fine with me also.

It's better. For a thing to be a virus, it *must* not kill its host too
soon. Other malware might have just that intention and no other.

[...]

I also continue to believe that malware will not generally be able to
infect someone's computer by just surfing web sites as opposed to
downoading/executing programs or opening e-mail attachments etc.

There, you may be mistaken. Generally, these malware program's servers
use exploits of various software vulnerabilities to automate
drive-by-download and execution of the offered malware.

I agree with you. I just wanted to find out if anybody on the NG knew of
any malware which is dangerous enough to infect a computer simply
because one surfs to some web site.

IE probably has yet *another* unpatched vulnerability. That doesn't mean
other browsers don't also. It's not the malware (say, a keylogger), it's
the way it is served (say, an exploit of a browser which is *also* malware).

 

[FromTheRafters]

I'm not commenting on Webroot or what's "likely" in this specific
situation. But I'd like to update your terminology and conceptual
understanding of how web sites work. Whenever you "enter" or "go to" a
web site, you are downloading "stuff". Especially if scripts are enabled
but even if not, you are downloading potentially dozens of files of
various types, which are then "interpreted" by software on your system.
You would like to think of them as only "data" and not "executable", but
the fact is that many of them have an executable aspect to them.
(Javascript is part of most web pages and is most definitely
"executable". Disabling it helps, but isn't fool-proof, and most people
don't even do that.) If local software, such as the OS or the browser or
other helper software like Acrobat Reader or image renderers, etc., has a
vulnerability and the downloaded files take advantage of that
vulnerability, then you can definitely be infected. It does NOT require
explicit "actual executing some file". A lot of previously reported
malware is in this category. Keeping your OS and other programs up to
date should eliminate previously discovered vulnerabilities, but not
newly discovered ones (so-called zero-day). And anti-virus software
generally does not protect against zero-day attacks.

I'm thinking the OP already knows this, but thanks for the nice post for
completeness' sake. If the OP were to look up the recent IE exploit
vector, he may begin to understand how such malware can be foisted via
webpage content.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Edward Diener wrote:
[...]

I understand about scripts being downloaded and running on the client
side and I understand that if Javascript does something on the client
side as it runs it can theoretically change something on the client
computer. But as a programmer myself I have never heard or seen of any
ability which Javascript has to actually access the client computer's
hardware or file system. While some Javascript release in a browser
could have a bug in it which allowed such intrusion I would strongly
imagine that this would have been fixed and that every browser one uses,
if one keeps the browser up-to-date, will pick up such a fix. Of course
my friend could have been using an old version of a browser running some
early version of Javascript which allowed a hacker to subvert his
system. But my gut feeling is that Javascript has been gone over by so
many people down through the years to stop such an intrusion that is it
unlikely that some virus occurred from running it on the client side.
However, I am willing to listen to those who tell me otherwise.

It only takes minutes for your browser version to become *old* in this
sense.

I admit to not disabling Javascript myself as plenty of web sites that
rely on it will no longer work properly. But then again I am pretty
careful where I surf on the Internet, unlike my friend who is much more
of a novice.

I agree that if other software involved in rendering a web page or its
images have a vulnerability, that is a place hackers will attack.

The upshot for my friend is that he took his laptop back to Best Buy and
they told him his hard drive stopped working. Since he bought it from
Best Buy originally, and since my view of Best Buy is that they sell
cheap and easily breakable computer hardware ( unfortunately my friend
does not know about New Egg etc. ) I think they just sold him a cheap
system, which worked nice for a short while but now he has started a
cycle of paying for who knows what will break down next.

Javascript should be "well behaved" by now, but can be used maliciously.
I'm only mentioning misbehaving software.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2488013.mspx

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Edward Diener" <[email protected]>


| I think you are nitpicking but "malware" is fine with me also.


| Agreed. I bought a laptop myself a few years ago and my hard drive went
| out on me after just a few months. This was a decent quality system, and
| the manufacturer honored the warranty and I was able to get a
| replacement without any cost. Nothing on it has failed since.


| I do not think my friend even remembers the exact message other than
| that Webroot warned him when he attempted to go to the website that it
| was a known website for malware. I have never used Webroot myself and I
| do not use software that warns me about Internet sites. I still believe,
| as you have strongly suggested, that the failure of my friend's hard
| drive was a coincidence to his surfing to a web site when he had been
| warned by Webroot that it might have been dangerous.

| I also continue to believe that malware will not generally be able to
| infect someone's computer by just surfing web sites as opposed to
| downoading/executing programs or opening e-mail attachments etc.


| I agree with you. I just wanted to find out if anybody on the NG knew of
| any malware which is dangerous enough to infect a computer simply
| because one surfs to some web site.

I have been accused of 'nitpicking' (and other terminology) for wanting to not use the
term virus insatead of malware often. It is an important point because a virus has
magnitutude greater problem in that it self propogates. That is it able to replicate and
speread all by itself. Thus when one is infected with a true virus then you must look at
not only that PC that was infected but all medai that PC came in contact with such as
Flash Drives, memory cards, external hard disk, etc. Just remember all virusess are
malware but not all malware are viruses.

You stated ...
"I also continue to believe that malware will not generally be able to infect someone's
computer by just surfing web sites as opposed to downoading/executing programs or opening
e-mail attachments etc."

That's wrong. "Default" brought up the exploitation/vulnerability vector and it is a very
important concept because it is so easy to get infected if you visit a malicious web site
(or compomnised web site) that uses exploitation code that specifically tragets a
vulnerability on your system. Often they will use a laundry list of exploits such as in
the Phoenix Exploit Kit. The code will try a battery of didfferent exploits based upon
software on yoiur PC and if your PC has an exploitable software then you will be infected.
It will be subtle and won't give you and inkling that you became infected. Like I
mentioned earlier, it is to the advantage of the malware to have a functional computer to
perform its payload. For example a spam bot on a PC that is dysfunctional doesn't
propogate spam. The spam bot wants to be on a PC that is connected the web and works
properly suchg that it popogates the spam the malcious actor intended.

Phoenix Exploit Kit.
http://www.m86security.com/labs/traceitem.asp?article=1427
http://malwaredisasters.blogspot.com/2010/08/phoenix-exploits-kit-and-pay-per.html

 

[Edward Diener]

From: "Edward Diener"<[email protected]> snipped...

You stated ...
"I also continue to believe that malware will not generally be able to infect someone's
computer by just surfing web sites as opposed to downoading/executing programs or opening
e-mail attachments etc."

That's wrong. "Default" brought up the exploitation/vulnerability vector and it is a very
important concept because it is so easy to get infected if you visit a malicious web site
(or compomnised web site) that uses exploitation code that specifically tragets a
vulnerability on your system. Often they will use a laundry list of exploits such as in
the Phoenix Exploit Kit. The code will try a battery of didfferent exploits based upon
software on yoiur PC and if your PC has an exploitable software then you will be infected.
It will be subtle and won't give you and inkling that you became infected. Like I
mentioned earlier, it is to the advantage of the malware to have a functional computer to
perform its payload. For example a spam bot on a PC that is dysfunctional doesn't
propogate spam. The spam bot wants to be on a PC that is connected the web and works
properly suchg that it popogates the spam the malcious actor intended.

Phoenix Exploit Kit.
http://www.m86security.com/labs/traceitem.asp?article=1427
http://malwaredisasters.blogspot.com/2010/08/phoenix-exploits-kit-and-pay-per.html

OK, that is an eye-opener. What is hard to understand is that, aside
from a browser vulnerability, how can a web page affect other software
on the client system ? After all the browsers are all programmed not to
allow scripting which has writable access to the client's file system
Without writable access, I can not understand how malware on a web page
can exploit a vulnerability.

 

[Edward Diener]

Edward Diener wrote:
[...]

I think you are nitpicking but "malware" is fine with me also.

It's better. For a thing to be a virus, it *must* not kill its host too
soon. Other malware might have just that intention and no other.

[...]

I also continue to believe that malware will not generally be able to
infect someone's computer by just surfing web sites as opposed to
downoading/executing programs or opening e-mail attachments etc.

There, you may be mistaken. Generally, these malware program's servers
use exploits of various software vulnerabilities to automate
drive-by-download and execution of the offered malware.

I can understand taking advantage of a browser's vulnerability, but I
can not understand how malware can infect a client system otherwise
unless, of course, the end-user helps it too by foolishly opening or
executing the files some web site offers.

IE probably has yet *another* unpatched vulnerability. That doesn't mean
other browsers don't also. It's not the malware (say, a keylogger), it's
the way it is served (say, an exploit of a browser which is *also*
malware).

Unless one is going outside the realm of the very popular browsers, ie.
IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, it is hard to imagine using a browser which
is itself malware. Of course it is possible if some site says "here's a
neat new browser for you, download it and try it out" and the end-user
does so, but that it like trying out anything on a web site if you do
not know that the web site is absolutely to be trusted.

 

[Edward Diener]

Edward Diener wrote:
[...]

I understand about scripts being downloaded and running on the client
side and I understand that if Javascript does something on the client
side as it runs it can theoretically change something on the client
computer. But as a programmer myself I have never heard or seen of any
ability which Javascript has to actually access the client computer's
hardware or file system. While some Javascript release in a browser
could have a bug in it which allowed such intrusion I would strongly
imagine that this would have been fixed and that every browser one uses,
if one keeps the browser up-to-date, will pick up such a fix. Of course
my friend could have been using an old version of a browser running some
early version of Javascript which allowed a hacker to subvert his
system. But my gut feeling is that Javascript has been gone over by so
many people down through the years to stop such an intrusion that is it
unlikely that some virus occurred from running it on the client side.
However, I am willing to listen to those who tell me otherwise.

It only takes minutes for your browser version to become *old* in this
sense.

Agreed. But the major browsers all must have a pretty good security team
involved with their development so that any possible exploits are
carefully examined with each release.

Javascript should be "well behaved" by now, but can be used maliciously.
I'm only mentioning misbehaving software.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2488013.mspx

Good link. Thanks !

I am aware that there are web sites out there which may have malware
trying to infect an end-user's computer through a browser vulnerability,
else one would not see updates from the major browsers to close possible
security holes. I admit I am probably naive in not realizing the effort
that can be made by such sites to exploit such vulnerabilities.

I guess I was skeptical that this happened to my friend because,
although I do not know the exact web site he went to which Webroot
warned him against, I was told by him that other people he knew said
they had surfed that sight without problems of their own. I also react
pretty quickly on my own if I ever see a web site that suggests it is
trying to convince me that something is wrong with my computer with
ridiculous displays of so-called scans of my files and other attempts to
scare me.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Edward Diener:

I also continue to believe that malware will not generally be able to
infect someone's computer by just surfing web sites as opposed to
downoading/executing programs or opening e-mail attachments etc.

Maybe this is stretching the def of "Malware", but I once came
*that* close to losing my job by foolishly clicking a link that
somebody sent me.

The link somehow created a loop between my PC and the offending
site - plastering picture-after-picture on my monitor and sending
"Look everybody, I'm watching.... porn..." to my speakers.

Luckily my speaker volume was way down and I had the sense to
yank the power cord as soon as I realized what was happening.

But if the wrong person had been walking past my station,
security would have been marching me out on to the street.

 

[Edward Diener]

Per Edward Diener:

Maybe this is stretching the def of "Malware", but I once came
*that* close to losing my job by foolishly clicking a link that
somebody sent me.

The link somehow created a loop between my PC and the offending
site - plastering picture-after-picture on my monitor and sending
"Look everybody, I'm watching.... porn..." to my speakers.

Luckily my speaker volume was way down and I had the sense to
yank the power cord as soon as I realized what was happening.

But if the wrong person had been walking past my station,
security would have been marching me out on to the street.

If security is marching you out on the street for that, you worked for
the wrong company IMO. Any idiot can set up a website which plays
something loud and displays images on your screen which might offend
other people, but that is no reason why you should suffer from it just
because you accidentally surf such a site.

 

[RayLopez99]

From: "RayLopez99" <[email protected]>

| On Jan 2, 7:01 pm, "David H. Lipman" <[email protected]>



| ???Probably a coincidence??? Probably not Dave.  I used Webroot for a
| long time and it has saved me from harm when surfing free porn.  I
| stopped using it (Comodo is now loaded, as my Webroot subscription ran
| out) which does not give you the "option" of entering (it just blocks
| it), so yes, if this guy overrode Webroot's block he could have
| problems.

Until there is further information I will call it a coincidence as Webroot warning him
about entering a web site does not provide enough information.
What warning was this ?
We don't have facts about said warning and it contents.

He also indicated that the laptop had been taken to Best Buy about 2 weeks prior.

OK, I guess you were right, after reading the followups on this
thread. It was a coincidence.

RL