Google often marks my homelab domains as dangerous which all point to an A record that is in the private IP space, completely inaccessible to the internet. Makes precisely zero sense.
[deleted]
Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
561–570 of 713 posts
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even WebRTC is a bit of a stretch You remove that, and videoconferencing (for business or person to person) has to rely on downloading an app, meaning whoever is behind the website has to release for 10-15 OSes now. Some already do, but not everyone has that budget so now there's a massive moat around it. > But do we need e.g serial port or raw USB access straight from a random website Being able to flash an IoT (e…
I'll flip that around on you: why oh why do we need to browsers to carry these security holes in them? The Stadia flasher is a good example: how do I know that a website doesn't contain a device flasher that will turn one of my connected devices into a malicious actor that will attempt to take over whatever machine it's plugged into?
You know because there is an explicit permission box that pops out and asks if you want to give this website access to a device, and asks you to select that device.
Same as your camera/microphone/location.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
Force interoperability. In 2009 I could run Pidgin and load messages from AIM, FB Messages, Yahoo... Where did that go? I suspect the EU will be the first region to push the big tech companies on this.
> 2009 I could run Pidgin and load messages from AIM, FB Messages, Yahoo... Where did that go? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcY3W5WgNU But seriously; the internet is now overrun with AI Slop, Spam, and automated traffic. To try to do something about it requires curation , somebody needs to decide what is junk , which is completely antithetical to open protocols. This problem is structurally unsolvable, there is n…
Why should curation be centralized? We do not need a "decentralized dictatorship" (what would that even be? that's antithetical) and we certainly do not need a centralized one. It seems crazy that your solutions to AI, spam, and "automated traffic" (I don't know what that is, I assume web crawlers and such) is that the police control every single transaction.
First off, we can simply let the user, or client software, choose. Why should we let centralized servers do that by default?
At scale, DNS is somewhat centralized but authorities are disconnected from internet providers and web browsers. They're the best actors to regulate this.
For mail, couldn't we come up with a mail-DNS, that authenticates senders? There could be different limits based on whether you are an individual or a company, and whether you're sending 10'000 emails or just 100.
Regardless of whether these are good solutions -- why jump to extreme ones? "TINA" is not a helpful argument, it's a slogan.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#564If 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 another comment in this thread, it was confirmed that these PR host names are only generated from branches internal to Immich or labels applied by maintainers, and that this does not automatically happen for arbitrary PRs submitted by external parties. So this isn’t the use case for the public suffix list - it is in no way public or externally user-generated.
What would you recommend for this actual use case? Even splitting it off to a separate domain name as they’re planning merely reduces the blast radius of Google’s false positive, but does not eliminate it.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 footg…
> I don't see how this is whole situation is the problem of any Linux tooling
Well, bash could also handle crlf nicely. There's no gain from interpreting cr as a non-space character.
(The same is valid for every language out there and all the spacey things, like zero-width space, non-breaking space, and vertical tabs.)
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#566Be sure to see the team's whole list of Cursed Knowledge. https://immich.app/cursed-knowledge
Some of these seem less cursed, and more just security design? > Some phones will silently strip GPS data from images when apps without location permission try to access them. That strikes me as the right thing to do?
IMO, the problem is that it fails silently.
Every kind of permission should fail the same way, informing the user about the failure, and asking if the user wants to give the permission, deny the access, or use dummy values. If there's more than one permission needed for an operation, you should be able to deny them all, or use any combination of allowing or using dummy values.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#567If 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....
There is no law appointing that organization as a world wide authority on tainted/non tainted sites. The fact it's used by one or more browsers in that way is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Because they, the browsers, are pointing a finger to someone else and accusing them of criminal behavior. That is what a normal user understands this warning as. Turns out they are wrong. And in being wrong they may well have harmed…
I love all the theoretical objections to something that has been in use for nearly 20 years.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true that putting locks on your front door will reduce the chance of your house getting robbed, but if you do get robbed, the fact that your front door wasn't locked does not in any way absolve the thief for his conduct. Similarly, if an organization deploys a public system that engages in libel and tortious interference, the fact that jumping through technical hoops might make it less likely to be affected by t…
> mitigating false positives First & foremost I really need to emphasise that, despite the misleading article title, this was not a false positive. Google flagged this domain for legitimate reasons. I think there's likely a conversation to be had about messaging - Chrome's warning page seems a little scarier than it should be, Firefox's is more measured in its messaging. But in terms of the API service Google are pro…
Do you know the legitimate reasons?
Because the article seems to only ever get an excuse from Google that is easy to dismiss because most sites do something similar.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#569This happened to me, I hosted a Wordpress site and it got 0'day'd (this was probably 8 years ago). Google spotted the list of insane pornographic URLs and banned it. You might want to verify nothing is compromised.
Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sympathy for the devil, people keep using Google's browser because the safe search guards catch more bad actors than they false positive good actors.
> the safe search guards catch more bad actors than they false positive good actors.
Well, if the legal system used the same "Guilty until proven innocent" model, we would definitely "catch more bad actors than false positive good actors".
That's a tricky one, isn't it.