111–120 of 197 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't ignoring ads easier (so 0. Use an adblocker)? How often would a scam rank higher than the legitimate domain? Maybe also 4. use a package manager?
Ads always appear at the top so scams always rank higher than legitimate domains.
> (so 0. Use an adblocker)
Also it's easier to ignore them than manually entering urls with a typo leading you to some other unsafe domain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That would make Google responsible for the work of police - you're saying that Google should be actively trying to identify "criminals" (by whatever definitnion of whatever state in US or even their legal departmeny - quotes deliberate) and prevent them from being able to do business in modern web world. Google is a company that nets 60 billion $ a year in profits. They can afford hiring a few thousand people to ma…
Your math is off, without more data. What do you think the number of different ads being displayed is, given how much each ad costs? Estimates suggest it's about 30 billion ad impressions per day to earn that. If each distinct ad gets 1000 impressions, that's 10 billion ads to review per year. Let's be super generous, and assume it's 10k impressions, leaving us with 1 billion ads to review. Let's further assume it's…
And if it leads to less, but higher quality ads in the end, even better.
[1] https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why East European are suspicious? Little xenophobic?
It's not xenophobic, it's just realistic. If you tried to run a fake, malware-laden website in a Western country you would eventually be shut down and prosecuted. These scams mostly fester in nations with weaker institutions, not just Eastern Europe but also China and India. Their authorities are simply not interested in preventing this kind of unlawful activity.
International cooperation for mutual profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That would make Google responsible for the work of police - you're saying that Google should be actively trying to identify "criminals" (by whatever definitnion of whatever state in US or even their legal departmeny - quotes deliberate) and prevent them from being able to do business in modern web world. Google is a company that nets 60 billion $ a year in profits. They can afford hiring a few thousand people to ma…
Your math is off, without more data. What do you think the number of different ads being displayed is, given how much each ad costs? Estimates suggest it's about 30 billion ad impressions per day to earn that. If each distinct ad gets 1000 impressions, that's 10 billion ads to review per year. Let's be super generous, and assume it's 10k impressions, leaving us with 1 billion ads to review. Let's further assume it's…
If Google cannot handle legit business then it should manage their resources better.
Advertising malware is not legit business.
"We are so profitable and big" is not excuse for it.
It is reason why they earn so much money, they do not care if criminals advertise malware.
Now banks must spend awful lot of money to fight money laundering. Maybe it is time to force Google to take some responsibility.
>A closer link at the link, however, shows that the site is not the genuine one. In fact, ķeepass[.]info —at least when it appears in the address bar—is just an encoded way of denoting xn--eepass-vbb[.]info, which it turns out, is pushing a malware family tracked as FakeBat. Combining the ad on Google with a website with an almost identical URL creates a near perfect storm of deception. “Users are first deceived via…
The first "punycode attacks" were using letters that were completely indistinguishable from the "real" ones (e.g. by using Cyrillic letters). I guess the assumption is that the user would be able to identify any letters with diacritics (even if they're indistinguishable from specks of dust on your screen) and avoid them - after all, you wouldn't go to "göogle.com" either?
A safer approach would be to only ever show a user the characters they expect to see (and are familiar with), e.g. based on their language setting. Assuming that every language has a finite list of characters used in its written form such a whitelist approach should be possible and much better than playing whack-a-mole with a blacklist for "potentially confusable" characters.
While Google is waging war against adblockers on YouTube they are once again showing they absolutely cannot be trusted with the responsibility of showing safe ads. That, and them showing war videos in ads to little kids.
Im constantly reporting ads that are inappropriate, scams, or flat out illegal, usually they are back within a week or two, if they even get removed at all. My favorites are the dumb-brick phone charger that "magic defrags your phone", and the micro-ghost pistol.
I consider myself a security-conscious person and I'm not sure I would've spotted this. Another reason to use uBo with zero regrets.
uBlock Origin is cool and all, but what does it have to do with IDN lookalike attacks? It certainly did not block this one for me.
OF COURSE they were verified by Google. Google verifies identity by accepting money. Give them money, and you're verified.
"Google representatives didn’t immediately respond to an email" Are there real humans at Google who actually answer email? I haven't seen a response from Google in more than a decade. It makes me wonder if all the phishing and spam I'm reporting even does anything.
Honestly, it's time for the world to move on from Google. They haven't been safe to use as a search engine for more than two years.
After clients had been sent to phishing sites by Google's ads, I decided to block these domains on all the networks I administer:
googlesyndication.com
googleadservices.com
googletagservices.com
googletagmanager.com
google-analytics.comEarlier quoted context omitted.
Your math is off, without more data. What do you think the number of different ads being displayed is, given how much each ad costs? Estimates suggest it's about 30 billion ad impressions per day to earn that. If each distinct ad gets 1000 impressions, that's 10 billion ads to review per year. Let's be super generous, and assume it's 10k impressions, leaving us with 1 billion ads to review. Let's further assume it's…
Strange explanation. If Google cannot handle legit business then it should manage their resources better. Advertising malware is not legit business. "We are so profitable and big" is not excuse for it. It is reason why they earn so much money, they do not care if criminals advertise malware. Now banks must spend awful lot of money to fight money laundering. Maybe it is time to force Google to take some responsibility…
Sure. I"m pointing out this simple sort of "they can easily afford to do x" is usually nonsense.
I haven't commented at all on what the result should be (not allowed to do it or whatever), simply that the math that it would be simple to fix is wrong.
If we are going to argue about things in a useful way, we should avoid random assertions without data that don't really advance the argument, especially when they are trivially wrong?