Malvertising: Is this the beginning of the end?

TAG Malware Scanning Guidelines

Decoding TAG malware scanning guidelines for tactical use 

Note: View webinar at https://www.themediatrust.com/videos.php 

The advertising industry’s crackdown on malvertising has begun. TAG’s recently-released malware scanning guidelines clearly state that every player in the digital advertising ecosystem has a role in deterring, detecting and removing malware.

However, these guidelines need to be translated into action plans. As with many cross-industry initiatives, the TAG guidelines serve several different groups across the digital ecosystem while also introducing security concepts to advertising/marketing professionals. The use of words such as: interdict, cloaking, checksum, and eval(), may baffle many ad ops professionals just like defining “creative” as a payload may baffle security teams.

The good news is that The Media Trust’s existing malware clients are already 100% compliant with the guidelines. Other ad ops teams at agencies, ad tech providers, and publishers, will need to translate the best practices into tactical actions in order to bring their operations into compliance.

What is clear: Scanning is in your future

Every entity that touches or contributes code to the serving of an ad plays a role in malware deterrence – this much is clear. Agencies, ad tech providers and publishers alike are, therefore, expected to proactively and repeatedly review their ads for malware.

Specifically, the guidelines state that:

  1.    Ads and their associated landing pages must be scanned for malware
  2.    Scanning should be performed before an ad is viewed by the end consumer
  3.    If initial scanning detects malware, then the ad must be rescanned until malware-free

Read between the lines: Reap what you sow

The complexities of the digital ecosystem make it almost impossible to explicitly state what each player in the advertising ecosystem should do. Typically, the amount of scanning required is directly proportional to the risk of serving a malware-infected ad or directing to a malware-infected landing page. While there are some directional tips, the guidelines also present a few abstract recommendations:

  • Scanning frequency

Ad formats, demand types, consumer reach and access to an ad as it traverses from advertiser to publisher, affect the frequency of recommended scanning.

For instance, a publisher with a campaign using hosted, static ads, targeting a small number of impressions does not have as robust a scanning requirement as a publisher running campaigns with rich media served programmatically. And, an ad contaminated by malware needs to be scanned more frequently than one that doesn’t set off alarm bells during the initial scan. And, an ad that changes mid-flight—modifying targeting, increasing number of impressions, introducing rich media—requires additional scanning.

  • Proof of scanning

Claiming an ad is scanned is not sufficient. As a best practice, all parties should document proof of scanning and this proof should contain creative id, tag specifications, date of initial and subsequent scans and scanning results. In addition, each party in the advertising value chain should establish a point of contact for reporting malware and communicate it to their upstream and downstream partners. 

  • Know your partner

A critical factor that informs rescanning cadence is the provider’s confidence in their upstream partner(s). Long-standing relationships with reputable, responsive partner(s) infers a reduced likelihood of malicious activity, as opposed to a newly-formed partnership with a one-man shop based in a foreign country. And, the provider should also track and document if their partner adheres to the scanning guidelines, too.

Look ahead: This is just the beginning

The guidelines clearly set the stage for optimizing ad quality and its resulting effect on the user experience, with an emphasis on security. A 100% malware-free advertising experience can’t be guaranteed, but everyone agrees it can be greatly improved. Future steps will undoubtedly address data privacy, ad behavior and more.

While these guidelines provide the impetus to tackle malvertising, it’s a safe bet that industry leaders will push to make them standard a la TAG Certified Against Fraud and Certified Against Piracy programs. And, in order to standardize, a certification and evaluation or audit process will be needed.  

Stay tuned.

Learn more
The Media Trust hosted three informative webinars presenting specific direction to publishers, ad tech providers and agency/buyers. To view, visit https://www.themediatrust.com/videos.php

To mock or not to mock?

Avoiding fraudulent advertising campaign verification is critical for publishers

ad-mockup

That is the question frequently asked by media publishers trying to meet advertiser demands related to digital campaign success. The industry’s intense focus on viewability and transparency issues associated with ad fraud hijacks the limelight from another vital area of interest for advertisers: Are campaigns actually running as contracted?

What the advertiser wants, the advertiser gets

To justify the millions (and millions!) of dollars spent promoting products, advertisers rightfully demand proof that their campaigns execute as promised.

From expected ad rendering on the page to accurate targeting by geography and behavior profiles, advertisers want to know that the right ad has been served in the right way in the right location on the right page to the right demographic. In fact, when considering the average spend of a large-scale national campaign flight, many advertisers will assert they deserve to know their campaign is performing as promised.

Authenticated ad inventory yields benefits

The advertising ecosystem is a dynamic environment processing millions of ads covering billions in spend at any one time. Considering that 5% of display and mobile ads are served incorrectly at launch and countless more break during flight, publishers need to actively monitor and protect their ad-generated revenue channels.[i]

Authenticated ad inventory helps publishers secure ad revenue by avoiding pre-planned delivery overages to compensate for anticipated discrepancies. In addition, it also reduces the frequency of misfiring campaigns, thus minimizing instances of “make good” campaigns.

Ad verification is more than good looks

Reputable publishers recognize the value of their high-quality inventory and demonstrate it by providing proof of ad delivery according to established terms. This is a complicated prospect in an age of large-scale campaigns incorporating ads of varying formats (i.e., HTML5, pre/mid/post-roll video, native, etc.) through multiple platforms (i.e., display, tablet, smartphone, gaming consoles, etc.) across increasingly granular targeting segments.

A Photoshopped “mock-up” or full-page capture of the ad on a screen is a start, but it isn’t enough. Presenting a “mock-up” of how an ad should look could be considered fraudulent as it’s not a true representation of how an ad performs across all formats, devices and geographies. In fact, several industries (Tier 2 automotive, pharmaceutical, etc.) and countries (especially those in Latin America) regulate advertising-based billing processes and require third-party verified screenshots upon invoice presentation.

Beyond the visual of “how” an ad looks on a device, publishers must prove that each ad is delivered as contracted with the advertiser. Continuous monitoring of campaigns at launch and throughout flight will quickly detect errors associated with targeting, creative and device-specific issues that impede optimal campaign execution.

Authentication of possibly hundreds of ad combinations—by size, format, device and geography—is used by publishers to substantiate inventory value and by advertisers to audit and measure campaign ROI.

Consider this

To verify accurate ad placement, execution and targeting, a publisher must consider these five factors:

1.    Legitimacy: Screenshots of ads in a live environment truthfully demonstrate that an ad is delivered to the right target. A “mock-up” or “test page” may display how an ad appears on a site, but in reality it provides a false sense of security for how the ad is actually executing. It also infers that the ad will render the same across all devices, OS, formats and geographies.

2.    Accuracy: Mock-ups can’t prove ad placement as many ad units only occur behind paywalls or require an IP address in order to serve the correct messaging to the individual user.

3.    Automation: Imagine scaling the manual process of verifying ads across the overwhelming number of devices, browsers, user profiles, formats, sizes and geo-locations. Without automation, the task is almost impossible. Leverage technology to streamline the process.

4.    Costs: Carefully consider the total cost of ownership when deciding between an in-house or outsourced process. While in-house resources are easier to control, it is difficult to secure funding and keep the staff engaged. On the flip side, outsourcing requires integration, training, probable coordination with targeting vendors, and continuous oversight which could ultimately be more costly than anticipated—not to mention the complications of managing a remote team, in a case of choosing a non-local entity if a non-native entity is selected.

5.    Quality Assurance: Reliance on mock-up designs to certify campaign execution will not catch errors that occur at launch or throughout the campaign flight.

Ad verification is a complex, yet critical endeavor for publishers looking to highlight inventory value. Don’t mock it.

 

[i] The Media Trust analysis of millions of ad campaigns verified over the course of 10 years.

Ecommerce can be bad for your financial health

Compromised Landing Pages

Compromised landing page allows unauthorized collection of credit card information. 

A holiday weekend will prove more memorial for some visitors to several ecommerce sites. Customers wishing to purchase athletic gear or sign up for a competition risked having their credit card information collected by an unauthorized third party.

Detecting the infection

In the United States, Memorial Day signals the start of summer and the three-day holiday weekend kicks off with numerous large-scale promotions and sales campaigns pitching outdoor-related goods and services. Consequently, the digital advertising ecosystem usually experiences a jump in campaigns to drive traffic to ecommerce sites—a ripe opportunity to leverage.

The Media Trust team detected extraneous JavaScript code executing on the payment landing page for several medium-sized, sports-oriented ecommerce websites.

First detected in the early afternoon of Saturday, May 28, legitimate advertising creative directed users to legitimate ecommerce sites which happened to be compromised. The “angular” domain (angular.club) injected superfluous JavaScript throughout the sites to collect information input by a user, such as race registration or financial details associated with a purchase.

Memorial Day Sales

Diagnosing the financial headache

The angular domain injected UTF-8 encoded script throughout the entire ecommerce site and obfuscated itself by adopting the name of the site into its script, i.e., angular.club/js/site-name.js. Searching on the root domain “angular.club” redirects to “AngularJS.org”, a valid Google JavaScript framework and another attempt at misdirection to hide the true intention.

It’s likely the bad actor penetrated the content management system (CMS) or website theme template in order to ensure the code executed on all pages, especially the payment landing page.

Compromised JavaScript

Example of JavaScript

This code collects a range of financial and personally identifiable information (PII) including billing name, address, email, telephone number, credit card number, expiration date, and CVV.

The information is then sent to another server unassociated with the ecommerce site owner. The host of the angular domain and the web service that collects the credit card information are owned by the same entity, whose host server is in Germany and registered to someone in Florida.

Per The Media Trust team, there is no valid coding reason for this JavaScript to be on the website. The script’s sole purpose is to inject a block of code into the web page to collect credit card information and send it to another server where it can be used for future use—purchase online goods, sold on the dark web, used to buy domains to launch additional attacks, etc.

Assessing the health of the ecommerce site

The ecommerce site operators removed the code from there sites late on Tuesday, May 31. Frankly, the damage was already done.

During a strong promotional period, several small- to medium- sized ecommerce sites did not realize their expected traffic. Due to the malicious nature of the landing page associated with these campaigns, The Media Trust alerted our ad tech clients to block the serving of the ads. In one instance, seven different creative supporting more than 200 ad impressions did not execute. In addition, one of the campaigns promoted an event with an expiration date of Wednesday, June 1.

Prescribing the cure

The Internet can be a scary place, full of bad actors looking to make a quick buck by preying on the good nature of others—consumers and website properties alike. Holiday periods are when the online ecosystem experiences a surge in attacks, and no business or organization is immune.

The lesson learned is that brand and corporate websites are just as vulnerable to attack as ad content. And, ecommerce is especially vulnerable due to the direct impact to revenue.

The best defense is to be on constant alert, a security posture that is difficult for most to assume. That’s why many firms leave it up to the experts to continually scan their online and mobile ecosystem. Continuous website monitoring will alert you to an anomalous or unexpected behavior of third-party vendors and first-party, website operator code. Upon detection, these issues can be immediately resolved thereby keeping your ecommerce operation alive and kicking.