Live data from Hacker News

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

181–190 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#181
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....

In the past, browsers used an algorithm which only denied setting wide-ranging cookies for top-level domains with no dots (e.g. com or org). However, this did not work for top-level domains where only third-level registrations are allowed (e.g. co.uk). In these cases, websites could set a cookie for .co.uk which would be passed onto every website registered under co.uk. Since there was and remains no algorithmic meth…

> God I hate the web

This is mostly a browser security mistake but also partly a product of ICANN policy & the design of the domain system, so it's not just the web.

Also, the list isn't really that long, compared to, say, certificate transparency logs; now that's a truly mad solution.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#182
post #171
post #159

Us nerds *really* need to come together in creating a publicly owned browser (non chromium) Surely among us devs, as we realize app stores increasingly hostile, that the open web is worth fighting for, and that we have the numbers to build solutions?

Uh… we are. Servo and Ladybird. It’s a shit tonne of work.

> It’s a shit tonne of work.

[Sam didn't like that.]

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#183

Looking forward to Louis Rossmann's reaction. Wouldn't be surprised if this leads to a lawsuit over monopolistic behavior - this is clearly abusing their dominant position in the browser space to eliminate competitors in photos sharing.

Who is that and why is his reaction relevant?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so its skill issue ??? or just google being bad????

I will go with Google being bad / evil for 500. Google 90s to 2010 is nothings like Google 2025. There is a reason they removed "Don't be evil" ... being evil and authoritarian makes more money. Looking at you Manifest V2 ... pour one out for your homies.

Don't get me wrong, Google is bad/evil in many ways, but the public suffix list exists to solve a real risk to users. Google is flagging this for a legit reason in this particular case.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#185
post #178

If there are any googlers here, I'd like to report an even more dangerous website. As much as 30-50% of the traffic to it relates to malware or scams, and it has gone unpunished for a very long time. The address appears to be adsense.google.com.

sites.google.com

The same outfit is runimg a domain called blogger.

Reminds me of MS blocking a website of mine for dangerous script. The offending thing i did was use document.write to put copyright 2025 (with the current year) at the end of static pages.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#186

Be sure to see the team's whole list of Cursed Knowledge. https://immich.app/cursed-knowledge

> JavaScript date objects are 1 indexed for years and days, but 0 indexed for months. I don't disagree that months should be 1-indexed, but I would not make that assumption solely based on days/years being 1-indexed, since 0-indexing those would be psychotic.

Why so? Months in written form also start with 1, same as days/years, so it would make sense to match all of them.

For example, the first day of the first month of the first year is 1.1.1 AD (at least for Gregorian calendar), so we could just go with 0-indexed 0.0.0 AD.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#188
post #169

Safe Browsing collects a lot of data, such as hashes of URLs (URLs can be easily decoded by comparison) and probably other interactions with web like downloads. But how effective is it in malware detection? The benefits seem to me dubious. It looks like a feature offered to collect browsing data, useful to maybe 1% in special situations.

100% agreed. Adblock does this better and doesn’t randomly block image sharing websites

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#189

This may not be a huge issue depending on mitigating controls but are they saying that anyone can submit a PR (containing anything) to Immich, tag the pr with `preview` and have the contents of that PR hosted on https://pr- .preview.internal.immich.cloud? Doesn't that effectively let anyone host anything there?

So basically like https://docs.google.com/ ?
Post reply on HN