Symantec: Religious Sites "Riskier Than research For Viruses"

[dorkdotdan]

"According to Symantec's annual Internet Security Threat Report, religious and ideological websites have far more security threats per infected site than adult/researchographic sites. Why is that? Symantec's theory: 'We hypothesize that this is because researchographic Web site owners already make money from the Internet and, as a result, have a vested interested in keeping their sites malware-free — it's not good for repeat business,'"

Welp guise, Time to breathe easy.

The Slashdot Article

[Ad Bot]

[Aphtonites]

Am I the only one who's not suprised?
There's money to make off research, but not for religion, and many people do whatever their religion tells them to (For instance the Jamestown incident) so religious sites are better for putting malware on.

[DontCare4Free]

Am I the only one who's not suprised?
There's money to make off research, but not for religion, and many people do whatever their religion tells them to (For instance the Jamestown incident) so religious sites are better for putting malware on.

Tithes. But otherwise, agree.

[Sheath]

Religion is lifestyle thing as we all know, and its huge globally. Makes sense to target and exploit an audience of trusting and slightly naive people.