Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google.com partially dangerous

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#81

Post by ethbro »

anon1385 wrote: post #61
woogley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the other peer comments, this does not show up for me. I'm afraid there's a good chance you already have some malware (or at least a rogue extension) that is inserting ads into your pages.

I've been testing these kinds of searches every now and again for a few years now (and complaining about it on HN regularly). The malware ads are generally intermittent and won't show all of the time. That doesn't mean they don't exist. I can assure you that for many years Google has been serving ads that link to malware for search terms like "firefox". I've seen them across different machines, different browsers, di…

Curious thought experiment:

Wouldn't malicious actors always be able to profitably bid more than legitimate companies for AdWords?

Assumptions: - Illegitimate business models are more profitable than legitimate ones

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#83

Post by Chlorus »

zanny wrote: post #62
shawabawa3 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I tried to download chrome yesterday, and you STILL get www.downloadchromenow.com and other spam site adverts at the top of the results, which absolutely serve malware/spyware Until they sort out their ads it's true, it is a dangerous site

pacaur -Sy google-chrome Didn't get any malware links like that. Windows software installation model is horrifying.

Not as horrifying as someone installing a build script without reviewing it first...

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#84

Post by cowholio4 »

I think the big problem is that Google does a poor job cleaning up user generated content on their own properties. Google Groups, Google Drive, Feedburner, GoogleSites and Blogspot are continuously used to deliver phishing/malware. It also doesn't help that google sometimes hosts those on it's google.com domain or uses their google.com domain to redirect to those sites.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#85

Post by JoblessWonder »

JimWestergren wrote: post #39

Also 4331 URLs removed from Google index [1] because of DMCA requests sent to Google: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright... [1] http://domainstats.io/tools/dmca

Is that it? I find that searching for almost any movie includes a message at the bottom that at least one result has been removed due to a take down notice.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#86

Post by ocdtrekkie »

basch wrote: post #53
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should. Though if search engines were actually held liable for every malware link they place above real results, Google would no longer be a profitable business. Just the fake banks Google puts in search ads alone...

microsoft writes the operating system they are infecting. then people with older computers think their hardware is too slow and buy a new one. how can they not use vm's and heuristics to click all their ads and see if it infects their own operating system, before approving the ads, and then rechecking them every so many clicks?

Think about Google's conflict of interest: They ship most of the malware consumers get via malicious ads. And then they advertise about Chromebooks having no malware. Google doubly profits off shipping malware to consumers.

Microsoft, at least, has a good incentive to police their malware.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#88

Post by eximius »

ethbro wrote: post #81
anon1385 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been testing these kinds of searches every now and again for a few years now (and complaining about it on HN regularly). The malware ads are generally intermittent and won't show all of the time. That doesn't mean they don't exist. I can assure you that for many years Google has been serving ads that link to malware for search terms like "firefox". I've seen them across different machines, different browsers, di…

Curious thought experiment: Wouldn't malicious actors always be able to profitably bid more than legitimate companies for AdWords? Assumptions: - Illegitimate business models are more profitable than legitimate ones

That is a very big assumption that may hold for Browsers but not many other products. And even if illegitimate models are more efficient, a big business can afford a money sink for PR.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#89

Post by closed »

lrvick wrote: post #12

Related: The blog that announces their new security suite for Chrome, fails the security suite for Chrome. See screenshot https://twitter.com/lrvick/status/692282829619777537

Thanks to this comment, I've been tinkering with the security suite, and thought it would be worth noting that it can also flag a site as insecure due to your extensions. That doesn't look like the case here, but it's nice it flags them.

Re: Google.com partially dangerous

#90

Post by thewhitetulip »

thewhitetulip wrote: post #72

Google is at a very influential position these days, everything is Google, and Facebook is trying it's damnest to become like Google. Google, for the most parts, is the Internet, chrome, gmail, search engine, android, good lord even walking robots! We are lucky that they g+ failed miserably :D Otherwise we'd not have Internet, we'd have Google, nothing in the world beyond it. Nobody to check it's power, except maybe…

go ahead downvote, but that is the reality. You just don't know it.
Post reply on HN