Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

immich.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 713 posts

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#81

Post by foobarian »

no_wizard wrote: post #48
CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's somewhat tribal webdev knowledge that if you host user generated content you need to be on the PSL otherwise you'll eventually end up where Immich is now. I'm not sure how people not already having hit this very issue before is supposed to know about it beforehand though, one of those things that you don't really come across until you're hit by it.

I’ve been doing this for at least 15 years and it’s the first I heard of this. Fun learning new things so often but I never once heard of the public suffix list. That said, I do know the other best practices mentioned elsewhere

First rule of the public suffix list...

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#82

Post by crazygringo »

jdsully wrote: post #54

The one thing I never understood about these warnings is how they don't run afoul of libel laws. They are directly calling you a scammer and "attacker". The same for Microsoft with their unknown executables. They used to be more generic saying "We don't know if its safe" but now they are quite assertive at stating you are indeed an attacker.

> They are directly calling you a scammer and "attacker".

No they're not. The word "scammer" does not appear. They're saying attackers on the site and they use the word "might".

This includes third-party hackers who have compromised the site.

They never say the owner of the site is the attacker.

I'm quite sure their lawyers have vetted the language very carefully.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#83

Post by o11c »

jstrong wrote: post #42

google: we make going to the DMV look delightful by comparison!

Honestly, where do people live that the DMV (or equivalent - in some states it is split or otherwise named) is a pain? Every time I've ever been it has been "show up, take a number, wait 5 minutes, get served" - and that's assuming website self-service doesn't suffice.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#84

Post by strken »

tym0 wrote: post #33
strken wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it says, bulk inserts with large datasets can fail. Inserting a few thousand rows into a table with 30 columns will hit the limit. You might run into this if you were synchronising data between systems or running big batch jobs. Sqlite used to have a limit of 999 query parameters, which was much easier to hit. It's now a roomy 32k.

Right, for postgres I would use unnest for inserting a non-static amount of rows.

In the past I've used batches of data, inserted into a separate table with all the constraints turned off and using UNNEST, and then inserted into the final table once it was done. We ended up both batching the data and using UNNEST because it was faster but it still let us resume midway through.

We probably should have been partitioning the data instead of inserting it twice, but I never got around to fixing that.

COPY is likely a better option if you have access to the host, or provider-specific extensions like aws_s3 if you have those. I'm sure a data engineer would be able to suggest a better ETL architecture than "shove everything into postgres", too.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#85

Post by david_van_loon »

I'm fighting this right now on my own domain. Google marked my family Immich instance as dangerous, essentially blocking access from Chrome to all services hosted on the same domain.

I know that I can bypass the warning, but the photo album I sent to my mother-in-law is now effectively inaccessible.

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#87

Post by sefrost »

gmueckl wrote: post #76
lukan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The engineering equivalent of a car made of duct tape" Kind of. But do you have a better proposition?

A part of the issue is IMO that browsers have become ridiculously bloated everything-programs. You could take about 90% of that out and into dedicated tools and end up with something vastly saner and safer and not a lot less capable for all practical purposes. Instead, we collectively are OK with frosting this atrocious layer cake that is today's web with multiple flavors of security measures of sometimes questionabl…

You are right from a technical point, I think, but in reality - how would one begin to make that change?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#88

Post by david_van_loon »

donmcronald wrote: post #2

I tried to submit this, but the direct link here is probably better than the Reddit thread I linked to: https://old.reddit.com/r/immich/comments/1oby8fq/immich_is_a... I had my personal domain I use for self-hosting flagged. I've had the domain for 25 years and it's never had a hint of spam, phishing, or even unintentional issues like compromised sites / services. It's impossible to know what Google's black box is do…

I'm in a similar boat. Google's false flag is causing issues for my family members who use Chrome, even for internal services that aren't publicly exposed, just because they're on related subdomains.

It's scary how much control Google has over which content people can access on the web - or even on their local network!

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#89

Post by Zak »

gruez wrote: post #74
NetMageSCW wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please point me to where GoDaddy or any other hosting site mentions public suffix, or where Apple or Google or Mozilla have a listing hosting best practices that include avoiding false positives by Safe Browsing…

>GoDaddy or any other hosting site mentions public suffix They don't need to mention it because they handle it on behalf of the client. Them recommending best practices like using separate domains makes as much sense as them recommending what TLS configs to use. >or where Apple or Google or Mozilla have a listing hosting best practices that include avoiding false positives by Safe Browsing… Since were those sites the…

The underlying question is how are people supposed to know about this before they have a big problem?

Re: Google flags Immich sites as dangerous

#90

Post by russelg »

ggm wrote: post #77
russelg wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a coincidence, Immich was started as a personal replacement for Google Photos.

The coincidence here would be google flagging it as malware, not the origin story of the look and feel.

Oh my bad, I severely misinterpreted your comment.
Post reply on HN