111–120 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally. It should be illegal for Edge, Chrome and other browsers to take any measures, such as a little warning, in an attempt protect users from malware. I see no way that getting the government involved in this could go badly.
?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying they detected malware already does that. Being slightly more specific shouldn't be a problem.
Sure, maybe not display it in the publicly visible warnings, but if the admins of a domain email you from the same domain as the flagged site, then maybe providing more detail at that point is an acceptable method of fixing the issue. Saying "we know you are compromised and know exactly where, but we're not going to tell" is very childish. Now, if they said for a nomial fee, we'd be happy to share the results of our…
Similar thing happen to me. My OneDrive links that I share with clients end in their email spam folder. It took mi few weeks before I realized that few clients was still waiting for my work, because they did not have it in inbox. I know that it is problem of email providers, but still I would like to leave OneDrive, but I cannot find alternative that is in similar price range as OneDrive (about 2 USD/month for 1TB).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should they then not just reply with "You're on the list because of the malware payload at "?
No, because they would cause the following scenario: Malicious attacker looks for exactly what Microsoft detected, and fixes each specific detection while keep operating the undetected ones. The end result would be operational malicious site, without being detected.
People talking about is it a false flag, real flag... Post your SaaS URL and you'll get a free security assessment from a dozen hners.
That's undoubtedly true, but you'll also get a lot of assholes and script kiddies hoping to pwn your site for lulz, and they often don't care who gets hurt along the way. By posting you've just given them an easy legal defense. If it were me, I wouldn't do it. Not worth the risk. I would however, probably be willing to DM people individually after doing a small amount of due diligence on their comment history. I gues…
Yes... "Free security assessment" was a euphemism I'm afraid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is irrelevant to my post. Would removing all transparency from it help, or make it worse? Are there better-regarded ones that don't reveal anything whatsoever to the accused and convicted, because that'd make it so hard to stop criminals that everything would fall apart? [EDIT] My point is simply that somehow we manage in basically every other space to let those accused of wrongdoing know what we think they did…
There is no indication that the original poster did any type of security review to make sure that the block was justified. Let’s start there. It’s not just the internet. No company disclosed their fraud detection techniques.
But it doesn't matter. MS is the one telling to the entire world that his software is not reliable. They don't get to tell it all over the world without bringing some evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is irrelevant to my post. Would removing all transparency from it help, or make it worse? Are there better-regarded ones that don't reveal anything whatsoever to the accused and convicted, because that'd make it so hard to stop criminals that everything would fall apart? [EDIT] My point is simply that somehow we manage in basically every other space to let those accused of wrongdoing know what we think they did…
There is no indication that the original poster did any type of security review to make sure that the block was justified. Let’s start there. It’s not just the internet. No company disclosed their fraud detection techniques.
"We're using our enormous market power to wreck your company and won't even tell you roughly the kind of thing we think is wrong" is so unacceptable it ought to draw an application of some kind of corporate death-penalty, if it's a pattern of behavior and not just a rare accident that goes against official policy. Certainly it's, all on its own, a strong argument that there shouldn't be companies this powerful in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another anti-trust suit perhaps.
Yes that worked out well last time. Microsoft was broken up and they were forced to unbundled their browser from Windows. Also, politicians never go after companies for biased reasons and we can count on the government with more power not to abuse it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If MS have found a compromise they should share it. Making the allegation but not disclosing any reason is just slander.
That's not actually slander/libel. Truth is an absolute defence, and that does not require you to disclose details up front. You'd only need to demonstrate truth to defend yourself if sued. In this case I also expect it's all very carefully worded ("Be careful! This site might be trying to harm your computer") to be legal even in cases when they accidentally (and inevitably) miscategorize a site.
Depends on jurisdiction, although I am presuming OP is from the USA due to their spelling.