61–70 of 85 posts
I work at Google but not on this product.. so I escalated your issue to the team that works on the anti-phishing classifier. They're looking into it now, and put you on a temporary whitelist in the mean time (should take effect within 30 mins).
I opened http://dev1.codelathe.com/ui/core/index.html (URL in your screenshot) in Chrome (latest) but I'm not getting any phishing warning.
I work at Google but not on this product.. so I escalated your issue to the team that works on the anti-phishing classifier. They're looking into it now, and put you on a temporary whitelist in the mean time (should take effect within 30 mins).
I work at Google but not on this product.. so I escalated your issue to the team that works on the anti-phishing classifier. They're looking into it now, and put you on a temporary whitelist in the mean time (should take effect within 30 mins).
Just one more thing. Since our product is self-hosted by our customers under their own domain, white listing just our development domain is unlikely to help our cause.
I opened http://dev1.codelathe.com/ui/core/index.html (URL in your screenshot) in Chrome (latest) but I'm not getting any phishing warning.
I work at Google but not on this product.. so I escalated your issue to the team that works on the anti-phishing classifier. They're looking into it now, and put you on a temporary whitelist in the mean time (should take effect within 30 mins).
It would be nice if the antiphishing filter also gave some good way for web developers to figure out why this happened and what to do to correct this.
I opened http://dev1.codelathe.com/ui/core/index.html (URL in your screenshot) in Chrome (latest) but I'm not getting any phishing warning.
No warning on OS X with Chrome 27.0.1453.116
[5760:1799:0701/150256:VERBOSE2:phishing_classifier_delegate.cc(211)] Phishy verdict = 1 score = 0.548927
[5751:1799:0701/150256:VERBOSE2:client_side_detection_host.cc(447)] Feature extraction done (success:1) for URL: http://dev1.codelathe.com/ui/core/index.html. Start sending client phishing request.
[5751:1799:0701/150256:VERBOSE2:client_side_detection_host.cc(415)] Received server phishing verdict for URL:http://dev1.codelathe.com/ui/core/index.html is_phishing:0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just one more thing. Since our product is self-hosted by our customers under their own domain, white listing just our development domain is unlikely to help our cause.
In fact, whitelisting would tend to hurt your debugging efforts.
Trace showing server overriding the "Phishyness" verdict of the client
[5760:1799:0701/150256:VERBOSE2:phishing_classifier_delegate.cc(211)] Phishy verdict = 1 score = 0.548927
[5751:1799:0701/150256:VERBOSE2:client_side_detection_host.cc(447)] Feature extraction done (success:1) for URL: http://dev1.codelathe.com/ui/core/index.html. Start sending client phishing request.
[5751:1799:0701/150256:VERBOSE2:client_side_detection_host.cc(415)] Received server phishing verdict for URL:http://dev1.codelathe.com/ui/core/index.html is_phishing:0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the output snippet. Basically some "algorithm" thinks it has found phishyness with some score above 0.5 and flags it. No clue as to what caused it (We know that it can be triggered by simply changing the name of the "Login" button to "Connexion"!! Must be nice to dream up some "algorithm" and push it out.. sigh [5570:1799:0701/133949:VERBOSE1:client_side_detection_host.cc(221)] Instruct renderer to start phis…
Thanks for the really useful tip to look into Chrome's debug log. First of all we see that this so called phishing detection filter's code is found at http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/renderer/safe_b... Second, this code and the logic it employs is really bull . The world wide web is not a kiddie playground especially for a browser, and especially for a plugin whose's job is to detect phishing. The way Ch…
I'd take bets that those criteria show a correlation to phishy sites. Especially if you combine those metrics together.
Is it perfect? No. Does it produce false positives? Yes. Is it beneficial on average? I think so.
PS: Since you have found the relevant file in the open source project (or 'kiddie playground' - as you like to call it), why don't you supply a superior implementation with less "foolish" measures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the output snippet. Basically some "algorithm" thinks it has found phishyness with some score above 0.5 and flags it. No clue as to what caused it (We know that it can be triggered by simply changing the name of the "Login" button to "Connexion"!! Must be nice to dream up some "algorithm" and push it out.. sigh [5570:1799:0701/133949:VERBOSE1:client_side_detection_host.cc(221)] Instruct renderer to start phis…
Thanks for the really useful tip to look into Chrome's debug log. First of all we see that this so called phishing detection filter's code is found at http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/renderer/safe_b... Second, this code and the logic it employs is really bull . The world wide web is not a kiddie playground especially for a browser, and especially for a plugin whose's job is to detect phishing. The way Ch…
Yes. Lets apply this everywhere. Lets electrocute folks based on "heuristics" because there are no other way to find out "bad guys".
It is nice to act as an arbiter and spout philosophy isn't it?
If you really do think that there is no other better way then I guess there is no more point arguing about this.