diff --git a/Dynamic-filtering:-Examples-of-usefulness-of-blocking-3rd-party-iframe-tags.md b/Dynamic-filtering:-Examples-of-usefulness-of-blocking-3rd-party-iframe-tags.md
index b3ffe3b..9e929db 100644
--- a/Dynamic-filtering:-Examples-of-usefulness-of-blocking-3rd-party-iframe-tags.md
+++ b/Dynamic-filtering:-Examples-of-usefulness-of-blocking-3rd-party-iframe-tags.md
@@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
 <p align="center"><img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/img/dynamic-filtering-7.png" /><br><sup>3rd-party &lt;iframe&gt; tags blocked by default for all sites.</sup></p>
 
 ### Example 1
+
+URL: <http://www.riskiq.com/resources/blog/jquerycom-malware-attack-puts-privileged-enterprise-it-accounts-risk>
+
+`iframe` are very often used by malware code on compromised web sites. The most recent example of this is [jquery.com](http://blog.jquery.com/2014/09/24/update-on-jquery-com-compromises/).
+
+The web site was compromised, and users of the site were served tainted web pages, which were causing a user's browser to download exploit kit from some remote servers. This was done 1st through a malicious 3rd-party script, which purpose was to dynamically create and embed a 3rd-party-sourced `<iframe>` on the page.
+
+Using 3rd-party-sourced `<iframe>` to inject exploit on a user's computer is quite a common technique. Simply blocking 3rd-party `<iframe>` foils to such exploit.
+
+In the above case, blocking 3rd-party scripts would have been even better, as the malicious code would have been prevented from creating the malicious `<iframe>` in the first place. But for users with low tolerance to site breakage, blocking 3rd-party `<iframe>` by default (i.e. on all sites by default) is really the best solution.
+
+Ultimately, if a site breaks because it really does need legitimate 3rd-party `<iframe>`, than un-blocking for that specific site is only one click away.
\ No newline at end of file