101–110 of 558 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other browsers? Almost all users of SB are using Chrome.
Firefox and Safari. I know, Chrome is huge these days and it's a problem, but it's not like anything can be done about Chrome.
posted on medium which decided to paywall after years of being publicly available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think another take away from this article is “don’t allow users to upload malicious files to your domain” I disagree, at which point did we all accept Google's role as defacto regulator and arbiter of the Internet? Why should we tacitly accept the constraints they deem as appropriate and modify the way we build the web? In other words, those are our domains, our apps, our systems and we'll do as we please; that i…
Sorry, but you don't get to tell me I am obligated to browse your site without being notified if you have malware.
What if someone made a site that inspected malware and went in depth on how it worked and allowed you to download the malware to inspect yourself so you desire. Google would flag this site as bad and blacklist it, but in reality it's a research site.
Of particular note: " Don't host any customer generated data in your main domains. A lot of the cases of blacklisting that I found while researching this issue were caused by SaaS customers unknowingly uploading malicious files onto servers. Those files are harmless to the systems themselves, but their very existence can cause the whole domain to be blacklisted. Anything that your users upload onto your apps should b…
Pardon my ignorance as I have few years of web dev experience. What exactly does it mean to store data on a domain? Does he mean serve data via a domain URL? And if so, how does Google have discovery of that data?
Theories:
* Obtained from users of Google Chrome that load specific URLs in their browsers
* Obtained from scanning GMail emails that contain links to URLs
* Obtained from third parties that report these URLs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think another take away from this article is “don’t allow users to upload malicious files to your domain” I disagree, at which point did we all accept Google's role as defacto regulator and arbiter of the Internet? Why should we tacitly accept the constraints they deem as appropriate and modify the way we build the web? In other words, those are our domains, our apps, our systems and we'll do as we please; that i…
Sorry, but you don't get to tell me I am obligated to browse your site without being notified if you have malware.
If you enter at site that hosts articles on malware and it allows you to download the malware assets to play with for yourself, you should be a fool for not understanding that the site hosts malware and is not adversarial.
After years of seeing developments like this, getting worse and worse, it fills me with rage to think about how clearly nobody in power at Google cares. I 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…
"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" and all that, but after the events and the almost perfectly orchestrated behavior we've seen in the past and last couple of weeks it's becoming increasingly difficult, at least to me, to not attribute this to malice. Probably deliberate negligence is a better term. They know their systems can make mistakes, of course they do, and yet they bui…
I have no doubt they'd use similar "oops" for crushing a new competitor in the ad space. Or perhaps quashing a nascent unionizing effort. It's all tinfoil of course because we don't have any public oversight bodies with enough power to look into it.
[1] https://www.techspot.com/news/79672-google-accused-sabotagin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but you don't get to tell me I am obligated to browse your site without being notified if you have malware.
Assuming that this site "serving malware" isn't doing it purposely. What if someone made a site that inspected malware and went in depth on how it worked and allowed you to download the malware to inspect yourself so you desire. Google would flag this site as bad and blacklist it, but in reality it's a research site.
Our company [0] was also hit by this too. We receive email for our customers and a portion of that is spam (given the nature of email). Google decided out of the blue to mark our attachment S3 bucket as dangerous, because of one malicious file. What's most interesting is that the bucket is private, so the only way they could identify that there is something malicious at a URL is if someone downloads it using Chrome.…
Doesn't Chrome upload everything downloaded to VirusTotal (a Google product)?