Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
11–20 of 558 posts
Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#12Maybe there should be a law that any business that has over ten billion dollars in annual revenues has to answer the phone when you call them and have a reasonable resolution process for complaints. If that ruins your business model, cool. Just spin off parts of the business until each one is back under ten billion in revenue and do whatever you want.
Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#13Why can't companies like google just have a warning and review period before taking actions like this?
Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#14Why can't companies like google just have a warning and review period before taking actions like this?
Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#15Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#16Why can't companies like google just have a warning and review period before taking actions like this?
I am waiting for the day when this happens to a large company. My company has more and more stuff on AWS. If Amazon cuts us off by accident the damage will quickly go into the billions.
Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#17Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#18Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#19I think another take away from this article is “don’t allow users to upload malicious files that you then host from your domain” This seems easier to do than jumping domains.
That is definitely a good idea, and I recommend it. But that should not be the main takeaway.
In our particular case, that was not found to be the problem (we think it was some sort of false positive), and there are valid reasons for users to do that anyway (upload a phishing email attachment onto an IT support ticket, for example).
Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup
#20I naively used to think, "they probably don't realize what's happening and will fix it." I always try to give benefit of the doubt, especially having been on the other side so many times and seeing how 9 times out of 10 it's not malice, just incompetence, apathy, or hard priority choices based on economic constraints (the latter not likely a problem Google has though).
At this point however, I still don't think it's outright malice, but the doubling down on these horrific practices (algorithmically and opaquely destroying people) is so egregious that it doesn't really matter. As far as I'm concerned, Google is to be considered a hostile actor. It's not possible to do business on the internet in any way without running into them, so "de-Googling" isn't an option. Instead, I am going to personally (and advise my clients as well) to:
Consider Google as a malicious actor/threat in the InfoSec threat modeling that you do. Actively have a mitigation strategy in place to minimize damage to your company should you become the target of their attack.
As with most security planning/analyzing/mitigation, you have to balance the concerns of the CIA Triad. You can't just refuse Google altogether these days, but do NOT treat them as a friend or ally of your business, because they are most assuredly NOT.
I'm also considering AWS and Digital Ocean more in the same vein, although that's off topic on this thread. (I use Linode now as their support is great and they don't just drop ban hammers and leave you scrambling to figure out what happened).
Edit: Just to clarify (based on confusion in comments below), I am not saying Google is acting with malice (I don't believe they are personally). I am just suggesting you treat it as such for purposes of threat modeling your business/application.