Skip to main content

Facebook: Browser bug, not Anonymous, behind sex and violence spam attack

 facebook-shutterstockFacebook says that the flood of images depicting graphic sex and violence that engulfed many of its users over the past 24 hours was the result of a “coordinated spam attack.” The success of the attack was due to a browser vulnerability, the company said. In addition, a Facebook official tells the BBC that hacktivist group Anonymous, who some have blamed for the attack, was not in any way responsible.

A Facebook spokesperson says the company has the wave of spam mostly under control. We have received confirmation from multiple readers who were affected that the disturbing images are no longer appearing in their News Feed. The company also says that no user data was compromised as a result of the attack.

“During this spam attack users were tricked into pasting and executing malicious JavaScript in their browser URL bar causing them to unknowingly share this offensive content. No user data or accounts were compromised during this attack,” a Facebook spokesperson told InformationWeek. “Our engineers have been working diligently on this self-XSS vulnerability in the browser.”

So far, Facebook has declined to give details about which browsers contained the vulnerability that led to the attack.

Prior to Facebook’s clarification on the matter, some speculated that loose-knit hacker collective Anonymous was behind the attack. Last month, high-profile members of the group denied that there was a concerted plan to take down the popular social network, after an Anonymous-branded video proclaimed as much.

While this appears to be the case, some Anonymous members have reportedly unleashed a different attack, known as the “Fawkes virus” (in reference to 17th century anti-governement terrorist Guy Fawkes, who serves as the group’s mascot).

This past weekend, Internet security company Bitdefender said it had discovered the Fawkes virus using its Safego social media anti-virus tool. George Petre, head of social media security research for Bitdefender told us yesterday via email that it did not believe Anonymous was connected to the spam attack because “Anonymous would use something more sophisticated.”

[Image via 1000 Words/Shutterstock.com]

Editors' Recommendations

Topics
Andrew Couts
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Features Editor for Digital Trends, Andrew Couts covers a wide swath of consumer technology topics, with particular focus on…
Bluesky barrels toward 1 million new sign-ups in a day
Bluesky social media app logo.

Social media app Bluesky has picked nearly a million new users just a day after exiting its invitation-only beta and opening to everyone.

In a post on its main rival -- X (formerly Twitter) -- Bluesky shared a chart showing a sudden boost in usage on the app, which can now be downloaded for free for iPhone and Android devices.

Read more
How to make a GIF from a YouTube video
woman sitting and using laptop

Sometimes, whether you're chatting with friends or posting on social media, words just aren't enough -- you need a GIF to fully convey your feelings. If there's a moment from a YouTube video that you want to snip into a GIF, the good news is that you don't need complex software to so it. There are now a bunch of ways to make a GIF from a YouTube video right in your browser.

If you want to use desktop software like Photoshop to make a GIF, then you'll need to download the YouTube video first before you can start making a GIF. However, if you don't want to go through that bother then there are several ways you can make a GIF right in your browser, without the need to download anything. That's ideal if you're working with a low-specced laptop or on a phone, as all the processing to make the GIF is done in the cloud rather than on your machine. With these options you can make quick and fun GIFs from YouTube videos in just a few minutes.
Use GIFs.com for great customization
Step 1: Find the YouTube video that you want to turn into a GIF (perhaps a NASA archive?) and copy its URL.

Read more
I paid Meta to ‘verify’ me — here’s what actually happened
An Instagram profile on an iPhone.

In the fall of 2023 I decided to do a little experiment in the height of the “blue check” hysteria. Twitter had shifted from verifying accounts based (more or less) on merit or importance and instead would let users pay for a blue checkmark. That obviously went (and still goes) badly. Meanwhile, Meta opened its own verification service earlier in the year, called Meta Verified.

Mostly aimed at “creators,” Meta Verified costs $15 a month and helps you “establish your account authenticity and help[s] your community know it’s the real us with a verified badge." It also gives you “proactive account protection” to help fight impersonation by (in part) requiring you to use two-factor authentication. You’ll also get direct account support “from a real person,” and exclusive features like stickers and stars.

Read more