What the..?!

Posts: 6987
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:43 am

Google Safe Browsing glitches

Post by Sami » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:17 pm

They just [url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/31/google-flags-whole-internet-as-malware/ t=_self]briefly labeled the entire web dangerous[/url]. I didn't see anything malicious on BitDefender's website either, but then again, I didn't browse the entire site.

Posts: 1097
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:40 am

Please stop

Post by wehaveitall » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:21 pm

Exactly. That's why its blocked, but its a false positive. We've established that. It's the same owner as its been since 2001, and a very legitimate owner.
Malicious software includes 17 scripting exploit(s), 3 trojan(s).
It's an antivirus. This sort of thing is why you cannot have multiple Antivirus programs on one computer. Antivirus programs remove things from your computer upon scanning, monitor your computer for incoming attacks, etc. and it's an easy mistake for a computer to think its dangerous.

It is asked that you not post in topics such as these unless it is an opinion, you have a question, or if you have experience in the area you are giving advice about.

A big thank you to all the WOT staff

Posts: 1097
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:40 am

Reply in Google Help Forum

Post by wehaveitall » Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:22 pm

They replied there saying this too, but BitDefender is the only thing blocked...

A big thank you to all the WOT staff

Posts: 1097
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:40 am


Post by wehaveitall » Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:56 am

It appears they fixed the problem, as it is no longer blocked.

A big thank you to all the WOT staff

Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:45 pm

Google messed up big time

Post by Spacequad » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:36 am

Have a look at this link and you tell me, did they mess up or what?

maybe this is a bigger problem then they realized or wanted to admit!


Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:20 pm

This just goes to show how

Post by AnonymousSpecial » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:24 pm

This just goes to show how much of an influence Google has on the internet. They are generally trusted so an inexperienced user may have run a mile when searching for a site such as Amazon, Currys, Play.com or any of the other reputable web shops.

In other news Google made an absolute killing in Adwords clicks which didn't show such warnings.

Posts: 21225
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 4:02 am

code is code...

Post by c۞g » Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:03 pm

code - all dialects {language} and all forms (syntax)

forget or misplace a semicolon and you're in debug mode.
same thing with forward slashes for URI's

I find this refreshing in the sense that even Google is not fallible - proves that the human touch is still required (though in Google's recent case it was more-likely a human that messed things up?)


Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:05 pm

How can anyone here determine a false positive?

Post by JustAMom » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:05 pm

wehaveitall ...

I realize I'm new here, but I find something difficult to understand. Does anyone here who was speculating on the validity of the warning on the site have any official connection to that site? If not, how could anyone here know at the beginning of this saga whether the website had been compromised or unintentionally linked to content that contributed to the warning? How could anyone know in advance of any type of official announcement that something is a "false postive?"

Well-known and" legitimate" websites (or their servers) are compromised all the time ... even those with experienced staff looking over things. The reputation of the company has no bearing on whether or not their site or server is vulnerable to others. The amount of time someone has been in business has nothing to do with whether or not their site could be vulnerable to the ill intent of others.

It is not a badge of shame for a website to have been flagged (unless they are intentionally behind the distribution of badware ... and those have no shame anyway.) What is a shame is that the public doesn't understand that many sites that are flagged are victims. They are victims of those who are intentionally hacking sites and servers and distributing malicious third party content that is often found on those sites.

While there's no doubt that it is an inconvenience for site visitors and for the site owners, the service provided that prevents us from accidentally stumbling on something malicious before a site owner has time to learn of it and fix it, is a valuable service. I don't think we should undermine that process by second guessing it. Nothing is ever perfect, but we are not in the position to judge whether a site that is not under our control has received a meaningful warning vs a false positive.

Anyway, I'm glad to see the WOT community working together to provide additional information to each other and to our families and friends. However, I would like to know that, as a community, an effort is being made to fully understand the processes and circumstances by which a website may be issued a warning related to badware and that we will give the involved parties a chance to work the kinks out without prematurely assuring others that a site is "safe."

Posts: 1097
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 12:40 am

Here's how

Post by wehaveitall » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:45 pm

If you perform a who-is lookup (a record of their hosting information) it's the same owner as its been since 2001, when BitDefender was founded. That means the green rating and the WOT comments apply to the same owners as it was before Google added the warning. BitDefender is a very well known antivirus company, and if they weren't compromised, I guarantee they wouldn't turn on us like that

A big thank you to all the WOT staff

Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:05 am


Post by Cam42 » Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:45 am


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests