Reports are emerging that an article at the Guardian titled "Cybercrime: is it out of control?" exposes readers to malware (archived).

On there article's page there is a syndication link which loads in the background¹ and pushes users into a page hosting the Angler exploit kit. In the past the Guardian has been known for presenting nonsense as recommended courses of action for computer security problems. Further the Guardian and their former agent Glen Greenwald collaborated to keep interesting Snowden documents from reaching the public.²

The simple truth is that legacy fiat outlets have been reduced to servicing advertisers over readers, and this means servicing the highest bidding advertisers. So while you see the Guardian serving car insurers and others with big visual ads, they are also serving the less visible "advertisers" who don't care to be seen. They just want invisibly load you up with malware through that syndication link you never saw much less actively made any decision about.

It is exceedingly likely the people responsible for generating revenue at the Guardian were thrilled at the probable nickel they made off each visitor that loaded the invisible, poisoned syndication link and was hit with malware.³ Everything points to the Guardian being complicit with and materially supporting cybercrime against their readership.

1. Loading all manner of surprises is normal on news websites not named Qntra.  ↩

2. On this point the Poitras documentary "CitizenFour" is revealing in two ways. First, Greenwald's general manner of behaving like a paranoid rat not around things that suggest being uncovered by law enforcement in Hong Kong, but of being discovered as a stooge by his interview subject and fellow journalists. Second, the mention of the later non-Snowden leaker with more interesting things to share who managed to vanish after contacting Greenwald.  ↩

3. Anytime you encounter a web page which refuses to display its content without javascript or tries to shame you with a message like "It's [year] you really should be running a browser with javascript already" there are only two possible causes. The first is that they desire to serve "advertisers" including malware artists if it pays. The second is ego masturbation on the part of the designer. Neither cause should be entertained.  ↩