Live data from Hacker News

Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

gomox.medium.com

291–300 of 558 posts

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#291

“Don't host any customer generated data in your main domains. ” This is extremely important for multiple reasons. One reason is the blacklisting as mentioned in the article, the other reason is security: browser typically implement security policies around domains as well, such as cookie scoping and whatnot. Putting all user generated content under a completely separate domain avoids a whole category of potential iss…

How do you do this in practice though? Let's say my marketing site is at turtlepics.com and then the pics, captions, feeds, etc are served off of turtlepicscontent.com. So I can serve my app off of turtlepics.com, that's fine. But it can't load any content directly. I'd have to have a separate https://turtlepicscontent.com/feeds/erik "> or whatever that loads a user's feed. But that needs to be authenticated too, so…

You don't necessarily need to authenticate users on that domain with a cookie. An HMAC token would be ideal, because you don't have to maintain state.

Don't hardcore the content domain. In case the content domain gets flagged, it should be easy to change to a new domain.

The assets themselves (such as images, scripts, etc) can have any browser cache expiration time. HTML documents cache duration will matter, and once that has elapsed, browsers should start to use the new content domain.

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#292
post #276
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't Dropbox blacklisted? Too big?

Dropbox actually provides an unique domain for each and every user - and separates the UGC from the web front code and Dropbox own assets that way - that's where the files you preview/download are actually coming from. I have no doubt a fair number of those is blacklisted.

unique TLD? that should be very costly?

or does GSB not ban the entire TLD when a subdomain has malicious content?

Would be great if our overlords at least publish the overzealous rules we need to abide by.

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#293
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't think that's how it would play out. 1. Google bans parler.com on Jan. 8th by adding it as an "unsafe URL" to their blacklist. 2. Mozilla issues statement: "While we don't believe it was prudent to use the Safe Browsing blacklist for this purpose, given recent events, we will not be unblocking parler.com, and do not currently deem it necessary to maintain a separate safe browsing list." 3. Something simila…

I can't tell if this is true or not - was parler.com actually blocked with this mechanism?

No, they were taken down by their cloud provider and by the two mobile app stores. My story was hypothetical, though disturbingly the companies involved don't entirely change when you talk about a take down from a different layer.

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#294

Doesn't Safe Browsing require every URL you visit to be sent to G$$gle first? I know Chrome users "have nothing to hide", but this looks like complete surrender.

why would it?

chrome can just load $black_list from time to time and just perform local check

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#295
post #161
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO, it sounds like it worked. The things you changed sound like it's made your site more secure. In the future, Googles hammer can be a bit more precise since you've segregated data. And you don't know what triggered it. It's possible that one of your clients was compromised or one of their customers was trying to use the system to distribute malware.

It's only more secure from Google's blacklist hammer. No significant security is introduced by splitting our company's properties into a myriad of separate domains. This type of incident can be a deadly blow to a B2B SaaS company since you are essentially taking out an uptime sensitive service that a lot of times has downtime penalties written down in a contract. Whether this is downtime will depend on how exactly th…

To add to this - by splitting and moving domains you've hurt your search rank, eliminated the chance to share cookies (auth, eg) between these domains, and are now subject to new cross-domain security dings in other tooling. Lose-lose.

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#296
post #292
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropbox actually provides an unique domain for each and every user - and separates the UGC from the web front code and Dropbox own assets that way - that's where the files you preview/download are actually coming from. I have no doubt a fair number of those is blacklisted.

unique TLD? that should be very costly? or does GSB not ban the entire TLD when a subdomain has malicious content? Would be great if our overlords at least publish the overzealous rules we need to abide by.

Dropbox DL and Preview urls take a form of https://uc[26 character hex string].dl.dropboxusercontent.com/... and https://uc[26 character hex string].preview.dropboxusercontent.com/... - it does not have to be a separate TLD to avoid being blocked, but it has to be differentiated.

This is the same reason why the block of the TFA company did not cause an outage of everyone using CloudFront - GSB does not block full TLDs if it can be shown content is distinct. Same for anyone using S3, Azure equivalents and so on.

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#297
post #234

After years of seeing developments like this, getting worse and worse, it fills me with rage to think about how clearly nobody in power at Google cares. I naively used to think, "they probably don't realize what's happening and will fix it." I always try to give benefit of the doubt, especially having been on the other side so many times and seeing how 9 times out of 10 it's not malice, just incompetence, apathy, or…

Google Safe Search is only half the story. Another huge problem is Google's opaque and rash decisions about what sites throw up warnings in Chrome. I once created a location-based file-transfer service called quack.space [0] very similar to Snapdrop, except several years before they existed. Unfortunately the idiot algorithms at Chrome blocked it, throwing up a big message that the site might contain malware. That wa…

[deleted]

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#298

Most of Google's "safety" features are somewhat evil in some way. I don't want any of them, but some of them can't be disabled (like the one that can lock you out of your account even if you have the correct password).

Which one is that.

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#299
post #244

I can confirm everything that was said in that article. I run a free dynamic dns service (freemyip.com) and every time someone creates a subdomain that later hosts some questionable material, Google will immediately block my whole domain. Their response time for clearing these up varies from a few hours to two weeks. It feels completely random. I once had a malicious subdomain that I removed within two hours, yet the…

Have you considered requesting that your domain be added to the public suffix list? https://publicsuffix.org/ If subdomains of your domain should be treated as independent sites, the public suffix list is (sadly) how you communicate that to browsers. (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)

Fascinating. I had never heard of this, and cloudfront.net is in there, which might provide a clue as to why Google only blacklisted our subdomain and not the whole thing (imagine that!).

Is there any downside to being on this list?

Re: Google Safe Browsing can kill a startup

#300

Being completely blacklisted is very bad, but u know at least that something needs fixing. Imagine if google partially punishes u and downrank you in the search for no reason. This is harder to figure out. It took us several months to discover such a problem until finally we registered to google websmaster tool.

What are you talking about? The article said that they didn't change anything, because they found nothing wrong with the site. The ban from google was totally random without any explanation. And it went away without any changes or explanations about what was wrong.
Post reply on HN