Take away the greetz and the embarrassment and you're halfway to a snazzy landing page
Reference: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/lizard-squad-cl...
> hackers claiming to be similarly aligned with the Islamic State extremist group
This is either really dishonest or really stupid reporting. They're not actually aligning themselves with ISIS. They're just trolls trying to be edgy.
Whatever their actual alignment and/or edgy-troll status, they still claimed to be aligned with ISIS, just as the article says.
Which is to say, when the subject of an article claims something, you should probably not print it verbatim without thinking it through at least a little bit, and maybe determine the credibility of what's being said.
It is not the job of a journalist to regurgitate sources blindly.
Otherwise... hey journalists, I am literally the second coming of Jesus, you guys should interview me and tell people I'm the Son of God.
Right, and in that case the article would probably read "potatolicious, who claims to be the second coming of Jesus..." *
Their claim of alignment with ISIS is, in itself, a part of the story. They are reporting that the claims have been made, not that the claims are factually correct.
* This actually happened on British TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlSj_imnv7o
You seem to be asking journalists to say "he claims to be the son of god (but he isn't, obvs)" which is asking th journalists to provide information they don't have.
The article claims that the website was hacked by a group claiming to be aligned with the Islamic State.
> hey journalists, I am literally the second coming of Jesus, you guys should interview me and tell people I'm the Son of God.
Good journalism would be to report that you are claiming to be Jesus. Which is what happened here; they reported a claim of affiliation, not the affiliation as a fact. It would actually be bad journalism for the reporter to take a position on your divinity (or an unknown groups actual affiliation with IS).
Users can be advised to install an ad-blocking plugin for their web browser to protect themselves. Since Google serves adverts from domains other than google.com, users can continue to use the google.com domain for search while at the same time blocking the malware coming from ad networks.
Surely, if the second - linking to wsj isn't known to serve malware.
Further, if you do not have some trust in your browser to go to potentially compromising sites - you need to change browser or stop browsing.
But, you can also use the Web Archive and check every domain yourself within their waterfall chart: http://web.archive.org/web/20150126072317/http://www.malaysi...
Looks like a bunch of static assets delivered by: fonts.googleapis.com, fonts.gstatic.com, pbs.twimg.com, and www.youtube.com. Looks similar to what I saw post-defacement/pre-fix.
IMO it would be much more sensible to serve malware off of a page that _doesn't_ announce it has been hacked.
And if you're lucky the online reporters also have twitter/fb account info on their PCs. I guess this is how the various compromises of twitter accounts have been done.
It is the first time i am hearing such a definition.
[0]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/25/asia/malaysia-airlines-web...
"It's 'homepage' not 'browser window'... unless you're 80"
HSTS could easily stop a CDN from picking up a bad version during a DNS hijack.
