Live data from Hacker News

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

11–20 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#12
A friend / client of mine used some kind of WordPress type of hosting service with a simple redirect. The host got on the bad sites list.

This also polluted their own domain, even when the redirect was removed, and had the odd side effect that Google would no longer accept email from them. We requested a review and passed it, but the email blacklist appears to be permanent. (I already checked and there are no spam problems with the domain.)

We registered a new domain. Google’s behaviour here incidentally just incentivises bulk registering throwaway domains, which doesn’t make anything any better.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#15

A friend / client of mine used some kind of WordPress type of hosting service with a simple redirect. The host got on the bad sites list. This also polluted their own domain, even when the redirect was removed, and had the odd side effect that Google would no longer accept email from them. We requested a review and passed it, but the email blacklist appears to be permanent. (I already checked and there are no spam pr…

Wow. That scares me. I've been using my own domain that got (wrongly) blacklisted this week for 25 years and can't imagine having email impacted.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#16
I think the other very interesting thing in the reddit thread[0] for this is that if you do well-known-domain.yourdomain.tld then you're likely to get whacked by this too. It makes sense I guess. Lots of people are probably clicking gmail.shady.info and getting phished.

0: https://old.reddit.com/r/immich/comments/1oby8fq/immich_is_a...

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#17
post #7

If you block those internal subdomains from search with robots.txt, does Google still whine?

I’ve heard anecdotes of people using an entirely internal domain like “plex.example.com” even if it’s never exposed to the public internet, google might flag it as impersonating plex. Google will sometimes block it based only on name, if they think the name is impersonating another service.

Its unclear exactly what conditions cause a site to get blocked by safe browsing. My nextcloud.something.tld domain has never been flagged, but I’ve seen support threads of other people having issues and the domain name is the best guess.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#18

[flagged]

As someone who doesn't like Google and absolutely thinks they need to be broken up, no probably not. Google's algorithms around security are so incompetent and useless that stupidity is far more likely than malice here.

Incompetently or "coincidentally" abusing your monopoly in a way that "happens" to suppress competitors (while whitelisting your own sites) probably won't fly in court. Unless you buy the judge of course.

Intent does not always matter to the law ... and if a C&D is sent, doesn't that imply that intent is subsequently present?

Defamation laws could also apply independently of monopoly laws.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#19
Regarding how Google safe browsing actually works under the hood, here is a good writeup from Chromium team:

https://blog.chromium.org/2021/07/m92-faster-and-more-effici...

Not sure if this is exactly the scenario from the discussed article but it's interesting to understand it nonetheless.

TL;DR the browser regularly downloads a dump of color profile fingerprints of known bad websites. Then when you load whatever website, it calculates the color profile fingerprint of it as well, and looks for matches.

(This could be outdated and there are probably many other signals.)

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#20
post #8

If you're going to host user content on subdomains, then you should probably have your site on the Public Suffix List https://publicsuffix.org/list/ . That should eventually make its way into various services so they know that a tainted subdomain doesn't taint the entire site....

Is that actually relevant when only images are user content?

Normally I see the PSL in context of e.g. cookies or user-supplied forms.

Post reply on HN