You're more likely to get an infection from a religious site than one serving up adult material.
Symantec reports that religious websites are more likely to infect computers with a virus than sites serving up naughty adult material. Why? Because the latter has likely invested money into securing their sites against hacks and infections. After all, it would be bad for business if a customer looking for adult material contracted a virtual disease before the virtual action even started.
"It is interesting to note that Web sites hosting adult/pornographic content are not in the top five, but ranked tenth," the report states on page 33. "Moreover, religious and ideological sites were found to have triple the average number of threats per infected site than adult/pornographic sites. We hypothesize that this is because pornographic website owners already make money from the internet and, as a result, have a vested interest in keeping their sites malware-free – it’s not good for repeat business."
As expected, the top five most-infected sites are blogs and web communications (19.8-percent), hosting and personal hosted sites (15.6-percent), business and economy (10-percent), shopping (7.7-percent), and finally education and reference (6.9-percent). The average number of malicious web sites identified per day in 2011 was 9,314, up from 6,051 in 2010. 61-percent of the websites found to be infected were actually "regular" web sites that have been compromised rather than sites intentionally created to serve up malware. That should say a lot about the level of security implemented within these "regular" sites.
"Drive-by attacks continue to be a challenge for consumers and businesses," the report reads. "They are responsible for hundreds of millions of attempted infections every year. Attackers keep changing their technique and they have become very sophisticated. Badly-spelled, implausible email has been replaced by techniques such as ‘clickjacking’ or ‘likejacking’ where a user visits a website to watch a tempting video and the attackers use that click to post a comment to all the user’s friends on Facebook, thereby enticing them to click on the same malicious link."
Symantec's top 10 most dangerous websites in 2011 saw pornography at the bottom (2.4-percent) of the list, followed by health & medicine in the 9th position (2.7-percent), automotive in the 8th position (3.8-percent), entertainment & music in the 7th position (3.8-percent), and (gasp) technology, computer & internet in the 6th position (6.9-percent).
To read the full 52-page report, download Symantec's Internet Security Threat Report (Vol. 17, April 2012) in PDF format here. Sadly, based on the findings, it seems that Web surfers are more apt to dump money into adult material than in the collection plate on Sunday morning.
Actually, what you've describe is being Agnostic, which is also a form of religion. Atheism is not a form of religion, in fact it is the opposite. It's just the fundamentalists that like to say atheists "believe" in something, because one of the most common targets in religion for atheists to attack as illogical is belief itself.
If atheists "believe" in the Biblical sense, then everyone must also "believe" that there is no magical purple monster that lives in the left shoes of nine year old German girls. You must "believe" that there is no discotheque hidden in the asteroid belt serving up 70s dance music for interstellar travelers. Indeed, everything capable of thought must hold an infinite number of "beliefs" that are nothing more than a list of impossibilities. How meaningless is it to point out one of these infinite number of beliefs?
Atheists no more "believe" in the lack of God (in the Biblical sense of the word) than they "believe" the Earth is the third planet from the sun. Things are simply true or not true. To an atheist, science represents the search for truth (it's kind of the whole point of science), while religion represents ancient explanations for natural phenomena that only made sense thousands of years ago before we knew any better.
Belief and faith are not part of an atheist's world, and it is this very absence that is the key to understanding them. An atheist has made the ultimate commitment to accepting truth and reality. Do you think an atheist likes the idea that death is the ultimate end and that there is nothing after?
Of course people like the idea of heaven, eternal life in paradise and seeing all your lost loved ones again. Could you think of anything better? To what lengths would you go to believe that your lifetime of goodness will be rewarded with the best thing possible, and evil men will be punished instead of receiving the same gift. It's an intoxicating idea that's very difficult to let go of, and the knowledge of what must surely replace it can be very difficult to come to terms with.
As Stephen Hawking once said:
Also it is kinda sad that a porno site would be more secured then your nice religion site though the ppl who usually set up the religion sites are the priests and/or pastor equivalent of that religion and do not know much if anything about web site security thus prime targets for malware and hackers.
AMEN to that! so am I.
Actually, what you've describe is being Agnostic, which is also a form of religion. Atheism is not a form of religion, in fact it is the opposite. It's just the fundamentalists that like to say atheists "believe" in something, because one of the most common targets in religion for atheists to attack as illogical is belief itself.
If atheists "believe" in the Biblical sense, then everyone must also "believe" that there is no magical purple monster that lives in the left shoes of nine year old German girls. You must "believe" that there is no discotheque hidden in the asteroid belt serving up 70s dance music for interstellar travelers. Indeed, everything capable of thought must hold an infinite number of "beliefs" that are nothing more than a list of impossibilities. How meaningless is it to point out one of these infinite number of beliefs?
Atheists no more "believe" in the lack of God (in the Biblical sense of the word) than they "believe" the Earth is the third planet from the sun. Things are simply true or not true. To an atheist, science represents the search for truth (it's kind of the whole point of science), while religion represents ancient explanations for natural phenomena that only made sense thousands of years ago before we knew any better.
Belief and faith are not part of an atheist's world, and it is this very absence that is the key to understanding them. An atheist has made the ultimate commitment to accepting truth and reality. Do you think an atheist likes the idea that death is the ultimate end and that there is nothing after?
Of course people like the idea of heaven, eternal life in paradise and seeing all your lost loved ones again. Could you think of anything better? To what lengths would you go to believe that your lifetime of goodness will be rewarded with the best thing possible, and evil men will be punished instead of receiving the same gift. It's an intoxicating idea that's very difficult to let go of, and the knowledge of what must surely replace it can be very difficult to come to terms with.
As Stephen Hawking once said:
You feel for me? So, I can't make a joke anymore either just because the first one involves Atheism? At least 12 people liked mine. Assuming that you thumbed it down, that's at least thirteen.
The rest of the world couldn't care less if you hate religion or a cheese sandwich - why do people feel the need to tell us what they "are" instead of commenting on the actual article.
Many religious sites are attacked on purpose (by people like you), or are underfunded and therefore can't actually find someone to help them build a decent site which would otherwise not be flooded with malware. Nobody mentions that a few of these sites are actually designed to help people not hurt them.
It's funny how so many people "hate" religion yet as soon as they have kids they try to raise them using values instilled by RELIGION be it Christianity, Buddhism or similar.
Actually, REPUTABLE adult sites almost never have malware on them, even on the ads because the site owners monitor them for that stuff.
Now, porn linking sites that can be reputable or not, they have a history of linking to virus infested stuff and/or those damned porn codec packs.
Isn't that agnosticism?
If that was a joke then it wasn't funny or it went over my head and that doesn't really happen much.