Some information on 2345dotcom:

Top Chinese directory website 2345.com acquired

This is an established and reputable Directory website that is quite popular in China and probably across Asia. The fact that it's Chinese doesn't particularly suggest that it's any more subject to hosting malware than any of the similar sites that perform Directory Services elsewhere. I see no reason why a link that takes you to that site should be considered malicious. I do find it a bit puzzling that it should appear at mudcat, although there are possibly legitimate reasons why it might.

If one digs a little, it will be found that a major Chinese investor in Google mostly owns an associated company that is a "part holder" of this business. While that does not establish a Google interest or participation in the 2345 operations, it suggests that there may be some connection.

It may be noted further that multiple sites with names very similar to 2345.com DO SHOW WARNINGS from my "Norton Safe Search" (2345-com.com, 2345.com.com, etc). Anyone who wants to make direct examinations of the site should be very careful about spelling it "just right."

And on the <iframe> tag:

The <iframe> html tag is claimed by some to be a "legitimate" html feature, but it appeared after finalizing of the last HTML Standard to be officially "set in concrete."

So far as I can tell, the <iframe> tag does not appear in the HTML5 Proposed Standard that is now "distributed for review" (for the second time) and may be adopted in some final form sometime about two years from now. I've had some difficulty finding a complete copy of the "Second Revised Final Proposed HTML5" that's currently in review, so I can't be positive of what's in it.

The <iframe> tag may appear in some of the many versions of the HTML6 Hallucination that many web designers seem to be using. It appears that only those who are members of the Working Group have simple access to what's being proposed.

ALL OF THE BITS AND PIECES people are discussing here have at least the vague aura of "legitimacy," and while nobody really seems to know what's going on most of the "funny stuff" can be "explained" by anyone with sufficient psychotropic stimulation in ways that strongly suggest there's no malware evident in any of them.

Note that, as always, the appearance of only "legal" codes does not mean that a target the code takes you to cannot be malicious.

While there have been serious attempts to "standardize" html, many web designers have been using "new html" of various kinds, and the multiplicity of browsers have variously implemented some of the "latest things," even when the newer methods have little credibility among the general population of users. Differences in how a particular browser responds to a web site can be largely attributed to the extent to which "experimental" capabilities have been added in your browser, and in some cases, where you can choose to add "gadgets" to the browser, performance may vary with what add-ons you run.

The rush to cash in on the latest fadware has led to new operating systems that come in a number of different versions and flavors, with lots of gadgets having "unproven" reliability and security. Conservative advisors consider (some versions of) Android "unacceptably buggy" and others find varying numbers of vulnerabilites among others. Consistent and safe performance cannot be expected without some attention to the known weaknesses of the new OS types, and the device manufacturers who pump them out have paid less than admirable attention to patches and plugs for the unpredictable.

Bottom line: FUBAR – but while the traditional interpretation is that a FUBAR is a SNAFU that's received Management Attention in this case the offending influence (esp. for the new devices) more likely is Marketing Attention (Get the bucks before they catch on?).

John