181–190 of 558 posts
- Establish a Twitter account for anything dev ops related.
Don't assume you'll have the ability to communicate via your internal infrastructure. It also helps customers to know there is a 3rd party medium for staying informed and getting in touch.
Knowing that such things exist, while minor, is good marketing fodder as well. It walks the comms are important talk.
How sites end up on the block list-
-they host malware, either intentionally or because they were hacked.
-they host a phishing site, either intentionally or because they were hacked.
Protecting users is a monumentally more critical task than your concerns.
And this system is incredibly valuable. When I get a text to a phishing site, I immediately report it to the safe browsing list. I also notify the nameserver, the hosting agent, and if applicable the SSL cert provider. Bit.ly if in the chain, though they never do anything [fun fact, even -- phishers and malware authors love putting bit.ly in the chain because they're paying subscribers, and as domains are taken down they can just change the destination. Bit.ly exists on the backs of scumbags, and itself should be on the safe browsing exclusion list]
Usually the safe browsing list addition happens within an hour, saving many people from being exploited. The nameserver and host -- DAYS. Namecheap takes an eternity to do anything, even for outrageously blatant phishing sites. GoDaddy - an eternity. SSL providers seem to act quickly, but propagation delays makes that negligible.
EDIT: 11 days ago I reported the scn- prefixed netflix.com to all of the above. This is a blatant phishing site, and was mass texted to Canadians. It was blacklisted by safe browsing within an hour, likely saving a lot of people grief.
Namecheap, who I informed by their email and by their garbage ticket system, still host the nameserver and physical hosting for this site. 11 days later. Grossly negligent behavior, and there needs to be some window of responsiveness because these players are just grotesque at this point.
Literally open internet is a competition for Google. That is why the company has no problem to issue domain wide ban, without informing website owner, without any explanation and with showing a scary message to website users to make them go away.
Author of the blog post seems to believe it is an AI action. But what I can see his company was hit with some serious damage due to a company that, I assume, has some competing apps on its Google Play platform.
I can believe AI can be the cause, but it should be a court to decide if there is no collusion and who should pay for the damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
"Consciously malicious" is not a good rule of thumb standard to measure threats to yourself or your business; it only accounts for a tiny bit of all possible threats. GP isn't claiming that Google is consciously malicious, they are claiming that you should prepare as if they were. These are not the same thing. A lion may not be malicious when it's hunting you, it's just hungry; look out for it anyway. A drunk driver…
This is a monopoly.
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.…
> 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. I'm assuming they make this decision based on some database of checksums. Doesn't Chrome upload everything downloaded to VirusTotal (a Google product)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t install their browser.
Your users did decide to use it, though - and this particular feature is one of the reasons why that particular browser if popular. It was one of the major differentiators of the "better" browsers in the sad old IE days. For all you "use Firefox [etc], don't use Chrome" pundits: it also uses Google Safe Browsing [0], and for that matter so does Safari, which may compound it by using Tencent version instead if you hap…
From TFA:
> We quickly realized an Amazon Cloudfront CDN URL that we used to serve static assets (CSS, Javascript and other media) had been flagged and this was causing our entire application to fail for the customer instances that were using that particular CDN
> Around an hour later, and before we had finished moving customers out of that CDN, our site was cleared from the GSB database. I received an automated email confirming that the review had been successful around 2 hours after that fact. No clarification was given about what caused the problem in the first place.
Yes, yes, Google Safe Browsing can use its power to wipe you off the internet, and when it encounters a positive hit (false or true!) it does so quite broadly, but that is also exactly what is expected for a solution like that to work - and it will do it again if the same files are hosted under a new URL as soon as detects the problem again.
If their claim is false, then is it, in any jurisdiction, libelous? Maybe, legislation to bring consequences for false claims will help ensure algorithms, and the support teams that monitor them, do a better job. In an internet focused world, especially one with lock downs, wiping sites off of the internet with false claims is a heinously bad act.
Banking is heavily regulated , you are protected by hundreds if not thousands of laws.
For digital services ? Twitter and Google can legitimately suspend ALL your accounts because you liked a Trump video on YouTube or Tweeted something « Hateful » to Biden.
You can try to go court. You will loose 100% of the time. They are private businesses operating within their own terms, there is not « false » flag or wrong « ban »
They’re private businesses offering a free service, they can cease to offer that at any moment that they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Google is falsely claiming your malicious and its harming your business it seems like a pretty clear case of slander/tortuous interference.
I'm sure he could get a lawyer better than Google's.