Like many of us, I run the best anti-malware utilities and try to stay on the the cutting edge for new products and ideas. This article gave me pause. I could be cynical and say that, since this info came from Google, they have their own (hidden) self-interest axe to grind. Bull! Once one puts aside the I hate the Internet giants paranoia, this article is worth considering. If for no other reason than malware can be inadvertantly cross-pollinated by those who innocently share links (not knowing what they spread). From the Register. . . At least one in 10 web pages are booby-trapped with malware, according to Google. A five-strong Google research team found that 450,000 pages, out of a sample of 4.5 million pages, contained scripts to install malicious code, such as Trojans and spyware on vulnerable PCs, the BBC reports. This is a conservative estimate - another 700,000 pages given the once-over were thought to be suspicious by Google. FULL STORY

Good information even though the statistic is hugely exaggerated.......LOL

Thanks for the info, IronMan. Sabertooth, you say the statistic is hugely exaggerated. How did you determine that? Using what data?

IronMan, I can't agree with that article more. So many people are insanely jealous of "I hate the Internet giants paranoia" Bill Gates is a big target and as far as I'm concerned, he has EARNED his way to the top. Malware is really rampant on websites to say the least. I have an interesting scenario where I am using Deep-freeze personal on my laptop and I don't use any firewall or AV whatsoever on my wireless connection (keeps my laptop running faster LOL)and surf wherever I want. When I'm done collecting my e-mail, all I do is reboot and I'm right back to where I started! Works great. If I have any suspicious things to check out, I use the laptop...it's been real handy. Other than that my 2 regular PC's are readily armed with the basic protections and hopefully I can keep them virus and spyware clean. Hopefully my advice will help you...Please post back with your results....thanks

"Thanks for the info, IronMan. Sabertooth, you say the statistic is hugely exaggerated. How did you determine that? Using what data?" Read all the material in full & you'd realize the sites surveyed are not actually random so to speak. The sampling was conducted within a controlled set of errant sites. An example would be going to a hypothetical holding cell in a specific state pen on a weekend sampling & determining that 1 in 10 of the people in that state have prior felony convictions.