Live data from Hacker News

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

381–390 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#381

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.

Yes, the irony of Google warning for other sites as malware, is not lost on me.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#383
post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that all those forks are beholden to Mozilla's corporate interests the same way the chromium derivatives are beholden to Google's corporate interests. What we need is one of the newer independent engines to mature - libweb, servo or blitz.

How are they beholden? In the sense that it's hard to provide engine updates without the funding of goog? edit: also, by "libweb", did you mean "ladybird"?

You can read this as, "I want Mozilla to spend millions developing a competitive Chrome alternative, but I want it for free and aligned with all my personal nitpicks".

Typical freeloader behaviour, moans about free software politics but won't contribute anything themselves.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#385
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since there was and remains no algorithmic method of finding the highest level at which a domain may be registered for a particular top-level domain A centralized list like this not just for domains as a whole (e.g. co.uk) but also specific sites (e.g. s3-object-lambda.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com) is both kind of crazy in that the list will bloat a lot over the years, as well as a security risk for any platform that ne…

> any platform that needs this functionality but would prefer not to leak any details publicly. I’m not sure how you’d have this - it’s for the public facing side of user hosted content, surely that must be public? > We already have the concept of a .well-known directory that you can use, when talking to a specific site. But the point is to help identify dangerous sites, by definition you can’t just let the sites mar…

It's actually exactly the same concept that come to mind for me. `SomeUser.geocities.com` is "tainted", along with `*.geocities.com`, so `geocities.com/.wellknown/i-am-tainted` is actually reasonable.

Although technically it might be better as `.wellknown/taint-regex` (now we have three problems), like `TAINT "*.sites.myhost.com" ; "myhost.com/uploads/*" ; ...`

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#386

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

I love Immich & greatly appreciate the amazing work the team put into maintaining it, but between the OP & this "Cursed Knowledge" page, the apparent team culture of shouting from the rooftops complaints that expose their own ignorance about technology is a little concerning to be honest. I've now read the entire Cursed Knowledge list & - while I found some of them to be invaluable insights & absolutely love the idea…

> Carriage returns in bash scripts are cursed

Also the full story here seemed to be

1. Person installs git on Windows with autocrlf enabled, automatically converting all LF to CRLF (very cursed in itself in my opinion).

2. Does their thing with git on the Windows' side (clone, checkout, whatever).

3. Then runs the checked out (and now broken due to autocrlf) code on Linux instead of Windows via WSL.

The biggest footgun here is autocrlf but I don't see how this is whole situation is the problem of any Linux tooling.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#387
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…

What we need is a web made in a similar way to the wicker-bodied cars of yesteryear

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#388
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you knew how the Mozilla corporation was governed, then you would not think that Firefox should be on the list.

How is it governed?

Funded to the tune of a half billion dollars a year by Google to pretend there's no monopoly, and multiple announcements of them trying to reimagine themselves as an ad-company. They're the best of a bad bunch but they are definitely still part of a bad bunch

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#390

Happened to me last week. One morning we wake up and the whole company website does not work. Not advice with some time to fix any possible problem, just blocked. We gave very bad image to our clients and users, and had to give explanations of a false positive from google detection. The culprit, according to google search console, was a double redirect on our web email domain (/ -> inbox -> login). After just moving…

I'm beginning to seriously think we need a new internet, another protocol, other browsers just to break up the insane monopolies that has been formed, because the way things are going soon all discourse will be censored, and competitors will be blocked soon. We need something that's good for small and medium businesses again, local news and get an actual marketplace going - you know what the internet actually promise…

You make it seem like the problem is of technical nature (instead of regulatory or other). Would you mind explaining why?

Technical alternatives already exist, see for example GNUnet.

Post reply on HN