Google flags entire Internet root as malicious

[PrntRhd]

Seems a human error caused problems for the Google site and security vendors who use the malicious site detection:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/this-site-may-harm-your-computer-on.html

[mjc]

LOL!

Seriously, though, a simple mistake that in some ways speaks volumes about today's Internet.

[PrntRhd]

Google's own sites also came up listed as well.
http://blog.javacoolsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/google_this_site_may_harm_your_computer.png
:p

[mjc]

From the looks of it, the whole Internet came up that way...anything/everything that was searched during that time period.

They basically entered a wildcard in the list...kind of like putting *.* 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file (DO NOT TRY THAT AT HOME, KIDDIES!!!!!)...

[saphalline]

You know, the Luddites would claim it wasn't a mistake at all! :p

[Marzman]

Seriously, though, a simple mistake that in some ways speaks volumes about today's Internet.

I posted a couple of years ago about how dubious I felt it was that Google where blocking websites, so finding this error the other day, just confirmed my fears and was actually incredibly annoying at the same time.

[mjc]

Google wasn't blocking anything...just flagging the entire internet as being potentially malicious.

[Paul Komski]

I was surfing and Googling when it happened. When my own site was shown to be "malicious" I got suspicious and then realised it was a Google glitch since any search produced the prompt on each and every web site. It settled down about 15 mins later.

[Marzman]

Google wasn't blocking anything...just flagging the entire internet as being potentially malicious.

So having to copy and paste every result, is that just a minor nuisance, as apposed to actual blocking?

[PrntRhd]

Being able to go there by cutting and pasting is different than blocking.
Human error causing the ultimate false positive IS possible, now it has been proved.

[Marzman]

Being able to go there by cutting and pasting is different than blocking.

So what are Google doing then (apart from restricting access to websites they find unsavoury even if they do not host any malicious files)?

[PrntRhd]

So what are Google doing then (apart from restricting access to websites they find unsavoury even if they do not host any malicious files)?
Filtering is one term.
Would you rather have search engines direct you to malicious sites instead?
The mistake that caused all sites to be declared malicious is somewhat amusing. The ultimate filter. The main thing is they were able to retrace what caused it and fixed it.

[stefanus]

Mayhap that was part of my problem this week...

I thought it wa IE. Non the less after posting an HJT log, there were some items that needed attending to. Thank you. lol.;)

[Marzman]

Would you rather have search engines direct you to malicious sites instead?

You see, that was my original complaint, that they don’t just filter out malicious websites but also those that they find questionable. Commercial companies (or non-profit organisations for that matter) shouldn’t dictate what users use the internet for, especially when there is no risk to the user, rendering the premise that they're protecting people seriously weak and frankly laughable.

[Paul Komski]

It's a storm in a teacup. If you don't like Google then use another search engine. They don't prevent access they just warn you about some potentially dangerous ones. Under normal conditions it is very rare to get such warnings in my experience. This was a short-lived glitch; that's all.

You can choose to continue to the site at your own risk (http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=45449).

PS Google may remove pages completely from the search results when it involves legal issues such as piracy of product keys and a direct complaint. See This Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sexy+malware+torrent&btnG=Search) and the note at the bottom of the page which takes you to this explanation (http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=3578). You might have expected the search terms to have hit some dodgy sites - and maybe it does - but it is not littered with warnings about visiting the sites because they have been tagged as "dangerous". If you do visit such sites and download stuff from them, then don't be surprised if you get more than you bargained for - but that is different in nature to drive by downloads (sites that download and install stuff without any intervention from you) and suchlike.

[jlreich]

I think their warnings are a good thing. Think of how many people type in a wrong address or search term and end up somewhere they certainly didn't want to be. And of course malware writers take advantage of this and get domain names that are misspellings of normal words.

[PrntRhd]

You see, that was my original complaint, that they don’t just filter out malicious websites but also those that they find questionable. Commercial companies (or non-profit organisations for that matter) shouldn’t dictate what users use the internet for, especially when there is no risk to the user, rendering the premise that they're protecting people seriously weak and frankly laughable.

Google search does not create Pay to Play despite "sponsored links".

You are being contradictory here, you argue against the malicious site filters yet claim they are too weak. You can still go to the flagged sites, as Paul Komski pointed out.
Government-imposed filters, such as the China model and proposed ones in Australia and the UK are worse, yes?

[Marzman]

I think their warnings are a good thing. Think of how many people type in a wrong address or search term and end up somewhere they certainly didn't want to be.

Err… you wouldn’t actually get one if you where typing misspelt address’s into the address bar and I honestly don’t really see your point about search terms (as it’s normally obvious you’ve performed a typo unless you don’t look at what tags have been found).

Government-imposed filters, such as the China model and proposed ones in Australia and the UK are worse, yes?

No, they're pretty similar (and this is the point where most people slowly back away), as governments want to sensor dissenting voices and similarly so do big business. It’s then people start to bring up the law, which is often changed whenever it suits a regime, or in the case of the US sometimes blatantly disregarded. Therefore this is more an issue of ethics, which is where I think Google lack common decency, yet people continue to shrug their shoulders seemingly oblivious to the place this could ultimately lead to.

[PrntRhd]

Well if you read the links Paul posted, I don't see where Google is given the choices you wish existed.

[Paul Komski]

Err… you wouldn’t actually get one if you where typing misspelt address’s into the address bar and I honestly don’t really see your point about search terms (as it’s normally obvious you’ve performed a typo unless you don’t look at what tags have been found).We're not talking about the address bar (except in Chrome maybe) but of using search boxes; specifically Google Seach boxes. Googling Royal Bank of Scootland (with the Typo) does get one a number of links related to the Royal Bank of Scotland but if there was a domain (set up for phishing or other malware) with the name Scootland in it then it would be easy enough to land on it by mistake. That may be a bad example but hopefully exemplifies the point and remember that not everone is totally vigilant all the time. As I said before, there are other search engines than Google; one is not forced to use them.

I don't agree with what Google did regarding China but the China filters are not the same thing at all; they are filters and not warnings.

[PrntRhd]

No, they're pretty similar (and this is the point where most people slowly back away), as governments want to sensor dissenting voices and similarly so do big business. It’s then people start to bring up the law, which is often changed whenever it suits a regime, or in the case of the US sometimes blatantly disregarded. Therefore this is more an issue of ethics, which is where I think Google lack common decency, yet people continue to shrug their shoulders seemingly oblivious to the place this could ultimately lead to.
Maybe this would suit you:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h275_ih.xml

Unfortunately this legislation also will lead other governments to impose their beliefs on the Western world.

[Marzman]

Well if you read the links Paul posted, I don't see where Google is given the choices you wish existed.

I’m not randomly ranting here, my annoyance (over many years I might add) is that the things internet users where once able to do are being eroded, yet most other people seem to be annoyed that someone is speaking out of turn or just want to argue what’s actually happening.

To quote Google; ‘this warning message appears with search results we've identified as sites that may install malicious software on your computer’.

So, by Google’s own definition, they should be flagging themselves as you may come across malicious software when using their search engine (which is all they seem to need in justifying warning against using other websites).

That may be a bad example but hopefully exemplifies the point and remember that not everone is totally vigilant all the time. As I said before, there are other search engines than Google; one is not forced to use them.

I know it’s a minor point, but performing that typo, results in an immediate ‘did you mean’ scenario (which I have to admit is the only feature I like about Google). As for not using them, I was going to make a point when you said this before (but thought it was a little off topic), however having used Altavista [yahoo] search for years I found that people began submitting only to Google.

I don't agree with what Google did regarding China but the China filters are not the same thing at all; they are filters and not warnings.

Just one point as PrntRhd seems pretty particular about what language is used (and I’m not being insincere about that), Google are filtering, whilst China block as far as I’m aware. In China if you type in free Tibet or something similar, the result will come up in Google’s search results, but it won’t allow you to load the website upon clicking the result (although wouldn’t an internet proxy get round this)?

To quote Google again; ‘You can choose to continue to the site at your own risk’. You cannot, as it isn’t actually linked, you just get the URL unless you’re using Firefox or something which I think can actually create hyperlinks (but this point just seems to be fodder for further debate [argument]).

[Paul Komski]

You can get "did you mean" with both obvious typos and with correctly spelled entries when the engine knows that there are similarly spelled search terms that you might have meant to have entered.

At the expense of being repetitive tagging and filtering are two different things. The malware tagging is in all our own interests and doesn't, as seems to be being insisted, prevent access. What Google actually says (if the earlier link is read) is:

You can choose to continue to the site at your own risk. However, please be aware that malicious software is often installed without your knowledge or permission when you visit these sites, and can include programs that delete data on your computer, steal personal information such as passwords and credit card numbers, or alter your search results.

If anyone chooses to differ please post such a link (a Google search link that is) so that we can actually test the theory out!! Or would you actually go ahead at all at that point!! Well I might on a Linux box!

If on the other hand you are saying they don't provide a hyperlink but just the address which you must copy and paste yourself that is good and prevents the unwary from accidentally going to a rotten place. Google didn't filter out the site so that you didn't know it existed but have put a little obstruction in the way to make access a little obtuse.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Google have not got too big and powerful or that they don't need watching but do give credit where credit is due.

[minus-sign]

I'd kinda like to see a site that Marzman is postulating to exist: a site that will not harm my PC with malware/adware/garbageware that does not endorse some illegal activity and the filters are catching. What I mean is, you can get to some pretty raunchy stuff--and some really dirty sites--without the filter even popping up.

[Marzman]

You can get "did you mean" with both obvious typos and with correctly spelled entries when the engine knows that there are similarly spelled search terms that you might have meant to have entered.

Well yes I do realise that it can suggest a more common word that’s spelled similarly but my post was already becoming a bit of an essay (which basically means I realised after but couldn’t be bothered changing it).

If on the other hand you are saying they don't provide a hyperlink but just the address which you must copy and paste yourself that is good and prevents the unwary from accidentally going to a rotten place.

You see presumed ignorance may be true of the minority (in a technical sense), but you risk alienating more experienced users, who I’m sure would be the target audience if companies where more interested in innovation than profit.

I'd kinda like to see a site that Marzman is postulating to exist: a site that will not harm my PC with malware/adware/garbageware that does not endorse some illegal activity and the filters are catching.

Amazingly I can’t seem to trigger the filter (is this a possible hangover from the incident last month) although I did get this:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
I know Paul linked to a similar message in a previous post, but this sort of stuff still worries me, such as the influence now seen on Youtube since Google took over with the removal of soundtracks and even whole videos.

[Paul Komski]

You see presumed ignorance may be true of the minority (in a technical sense), but you risk alienating more experienced users,

If the more experienced are so stupid as to go where there is malware then sure that's up to them. There's a nice mountain somewhere with many paths that people can search for by signpost. One of them reads don't turn left here or you will fall off a cliff or an avalanche may fall on you. Is it better to put a gate across the road that the stupid/experienced can open if they really want to or to leave it wide open for access? That, as might be guessed is a rhetorical question.

Filtering is a different issue altogether and to extend the metaphor the path would be neither signposted nor gated. A camouflaged wall or screen might be put in place to make it seem like it didn't exist.

[mjc]

Many years ago, there were sites that just by visiting, Gator was installed. Many 'security' experts scoffed at the idea...it was ridiculous, they said...even impossible. Gator bought banners ads on 'legit' ad networks and there were widespread installs of Gator. At first, Gator denied such a thing...then when cornered in a chatroom, one of the prime movers behind Gator admitted that it exploited an ActiveX flaw and could be installed without any user intervention, at all. He said that 'future' versions would 'fix' that problem...well, future versions did, but by then the 'cat was out of the bag' and 'drive by' downloading became a reality and things much worse than Gator were born.

Then along came CoolWebSearch and things got much worse...

And somewhere along the line a number of the 'experts' became infected with some variant of CWS, by doing everything they normally did...these were the ones that screamed 'impossible'. They were 'safe', according to their thinking.

Then, when that happened, it finally became serious enough for certain groups and companies to start doing something about. The problems was, they came several years too late.

All Google is doing, by tagging 'this site may be malicious' is putting up a 'Beware of Dog' sign. In many jurisdictions, the local laws require 'Beware of Dog' signs...even for cute fluffy puppies. No body has required Google to do this and no body has to pay attention to the sign...but don't come crying to me if you don't. If the flagged sites really were dogs, they would have been taken from the owners, by force and put down...long ago.

[minus-sign]

Amazingly I can’t seem to trigger the filter (is this a possible hangover from the incident last month) although I did get this:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
I know Paul linked to a similar message in a previous post, but this sort of stuff still worries me, such as the influence now seen on Youtube since Google took over with the removal of soundtracks and even whole videos.That's not overly amazing to me Marzman. Mine was, to be honest, a loaded question.

Other than last Saturday, I have yet to see Google actually filter something that "shouldn't be" filtered...for my protection or theirs. Mention of DMCA and YouTube, however, does make me wonder what sites you really want Google to find for you.

So I'ma just ask it straight out, since I don't like to beat around the bush: are you sure you're not still pissed because napster got shut down?

[mjc]

As for the DMCA notices...that is an entirely different thing.

Google is required, by law, since it is a US company, to remove such items under the DMCA. There is no provision in the law requiring them to provide any notification that such links had been removed or why they were. The notice is, to some extent, Google's attempt to thumb its nose at the silly, bought and paid for politicians and the Media Industry that concocted the stupid thing in the first place.

Marzman...you just don't get it. Google is NOT doing the removals because it wants to. If it wants to stay in business, it MUST comply with the law. Full Stop.

DMCA takedowns =/= 'malicious content' warnings!

[Ajmukon]

http://i.gizmodo.com/5150092/303000-people-extremely-terrified-of-chinese-people

think about it.

i tested it, it is actually true.

[Paul Komski]

There is a major difference in searching by using a series of words or by using complete strings. Thus those results are a bit misleading.

[Ajmukon]

There is a major difference in searching by using a series of words or by using complete strings. Thus those results are a bit misleading.
so? it is still funny.

and it highlights the "abilities" of google.

[Paul Komski]

Finally found a google search with a malware-site-warning (http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bodo.com%2Fjavame.htm&btnG=Google+Search&meta=). Who disbelieves the filter and proceeds.

[Marzman]

When recently typing in an incorrect quote from ‘a knight’s tale’ (one of Heath Ledger’s movies from before he became all dead and infamous), I had a funny did you mean scenario, that myself and Paul had been discussing earlier on in this thread. Weighed, measured and caught wanting; Did you mean: Weighed, measured and caught wanking

[Ajmukon]

When recently typing in an incorrect quote from ‘a knight’s tale’ (one of Heath Ledger’s movies from before he became all dead and infamous), I had a funny did you mean scenario, that myself and Paul had been discussing earlier on in this thread. Weighed, measured and caught wanting; Did you mean: Weighed, measured and caught wanking

that is just wrong.