What To Do When Google Tells People Your Website Is Dangerous?
from the spectrum-of-evil dept
Just about a year ago, we wrote about a bunch of academics at Harvard and Oxford who were going to take on all kind of malware with a new service called Stopbadware.org, which was supposed to call out sites and applications that had malware included. Of course, the big problem with any such service is coming up with a reasonable definition of what "badware" is. Set the definition too loose, and you end up bringing down perfectly legitimate sites. Set it too strict, and the system is useless. It would appear that the StopBadware folks haven't quite figured it all out yet -- and it's made even worse by the fact that Google is apparently relying on them for warning people to stay away from certain sites. Someone anonymous submitted to us the story of one website that lost a ton of traffic after Google took the Stopbadware rating on their site, and placed any search results that linked to it with the following warning: "Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer!" Now, we have little sympathy for sites that get pissed off at Google for bad rankings, but having Google actively state that your site might harm their computer seems to take things to another level. You would think that someone at either Stopbadware or Google would at least first make some sort of effort to confirm the potential harm. Apparently, instead, it just took a random complaint from someone to get the site in question on the list. The site owners were given no chance to prevent the listing. In fact, the only thing that the site owners could do was appeal to Stopbadware after they were already on the list, which is apparently a 10 day process. Of course, there was also the alternative: they posted about it on their blog, generating a bunch of interest, which convinced either Google or Stopbadware to fix the problem a bit more quickly. It's nice that Google and Stopbadware ware so interested in preventing people from accessing dangerous sites, but it would seem like they need a better process of ensuring the sites in question are actually dangerous before putting them on the list.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I just hit on this the other day...
http://www.google.ca/interstitial?url=http://ver2.missnevada.org/index.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grr
I know it's not the best solution but if you use Firefox you might want to give this extension a try: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/190/
It will create a clickable link from just about any text link and is really quite useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Malware blues
I have to agree that is seems too easy to get a site on the list, but no matter where you draw the line, there will be blurry areas.. the question is, would you rather a safe site be blocked, or an unsafe one be allowed?
So, how long until business start reporting their competition? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Malware blues
The internet is all about freedom of information and if we start censorship of any kind it should only harm those sites that fall into the obvious range. It is in nobody's interest if we start sniping because in the long run we will all lose out on the freedom the internet has allowed.
Seems like a no brainer to me. Your question should be rephrased from, "would you rather a safe site be blocked, or an unsafe one be allowed?" to "is it a good idea to block those sites which are known harmful sites, even if the risk of a few being overlooked exists?" Pretty simple really, some harmful sites blocked is better than none and all harmful sites blocked with guaranteed casualties isn't good.
That being said, in my humble opinion, I think censorship of the internet in any way goes against everything it stands for and everything freedom of speech stands for. We take chances and risks every day and this is no exception. The internet is as life, if you don't want to get fucked up the ass then educate yourself or shut up and enjoy it. In the long run, it's just digital information and anyone dumb enough to lose everything (what? no backups?) just might need to learn that lesson once so they stop being an ignorant fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've run into this on my internet travels, and I seem to recall a way to continue.
The only way to continue is to copy and paste the URL into your address bar.
would you rather a safe site be blocked, or an unsafe one be allowed?
I would rather they do their due diligence before marking any site as dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: grr
Either way, I think site owners should submit their sites to be checked and if its OK show a green sign next to the search result, if its bad then show a red sign, and if it hasn't been checked yet show a yellow...Also, maybe some sort of thing where people can rate the site as good or bad.
But Google not (easily) allowing access to the site is kind of ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why with all the speculation?
Example:
Microsoft reports Linux to Google. MS would have to come up with an actual reason why linux.com (or whatever it is) should be blocked.
People are so hyped up about trying to create a magic bullet cure all these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-iDontWantThisSite.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: losing a "little bit of traffic"
You are mistaken.
Sites that are erroneously listed on these types of "lists" lose 65-85% of daily traffic immediately.
It is not a "little bit" or "occassionally". These warnings don't just pop up "every once in a while".
These types of sites, like McAfee's SiteAdvisor (horrid "list" generated by unqualified people who are not tested, certified or screened to "review") should not be allowed to do what they are doing.
They are ruining legitimate businesses by using their software to block sites from getting to customers. THEY are worse than viruses!
And any of YOUR competitors can sign up to be a "reviewer" and give you a big fat red WARNING dot so they'll drive your traffic away just for spite. Who needs to hack? Just go be a reviewer for a virus software company that has millions of users!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous: Merchant sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Easy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
StopBadware not as good as SiteAdvisor
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/techdirt.com?ref=safe&aff_id=0
It would be nice if this technology was integrated into the major search engines and/or they had a partnership w/ SiteAdvisor.
Then again there have been a few cases where I have disagreed with SiteAdvisor about a website's rating or status and there is no possible way of blocking every known piece of malware on the net, even with sites like SiteAdvisor and SptoBadware. I applaud Google for trying to stop spyware, however, if they did indeed report the site because it was messing with search ratings and indeed was benign then Google can chalk up one more exception to their "Don't be evil" ideals.
BMR777
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
search not censor
The other point I would make is that they are actually exacerbating the real problem(s), stupid users with unsecured machines, poor quality insecure software and malicious site owners. They are throwing themselves into a 3 way tangle that they can't possibly hope to help with, and will get all the stick for it.
"I would rather they do their due diligence before marking any site as dangerous."
Do they have any obligation to diligence? Is labellig a site "may be dangerous" troublesome for them? Sergey Brin may be a child molester. Say it often enough and people will start to beleive it is true. Keep on saying it and even when it's proven he is not a nonce, a great number of people will still believe it. Is that slander, or libel? A fat bloke in the pub told me Sergey Brin may be a child molester - I trust his opinion, he predicted the Arsenal-Liverpool game spot on, so what due diligence have I exercised before repeating that?
The only way to continue is to copy and paste the URL into your address bar."
That's wrong imo. As other posters say they can warn, but they should not block. Although of course, Google are under no obligation to even include a site in the first place.
"When you get tired of the merchant sites that pop up on google you can do as I do, start going elsewhere."
Clusty works very well imho. It is good for broad searches where you want to fan out related concepts from a semantic web from just one keyword - for example "Hoover" ... then pick politics or vacuum cleaners. Also, Ask was once very lame compared to Google, but they seem to have caught up and improved enormously in recent months - the natural language like interpretation of questions is occasionally good.
Google are starting to show signs of over-reaching themselves at the expense of their core values - search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing's infallible but McAfee seems to have put considerable thought into the mechanics and, most importantly, does not disable the links, just gives you "fair warning" so you can proceed (or not) as you choose.
What's more, anyone willing to register can leave comments relating to the warning level and effectively alter the initial designation.
There's a right way and a wrong way to do everything and in this case, Google and Stopbadware.org have clearly chosen the wrong way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law suit ahead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: law suit ahead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: law suit ahead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'll get worse...
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116649577602354120-5U4Afb0JPeyiOy1H_j3fVTUmfG8_20 071218.html?mod=rss_free
I think, overall, services like this will be beneficial to the home users, but it could be mis-used to financially benefit service sponsors (yet the current systems seem to be fair to businesses of all sizes).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
badware
Keeping up with the bad sites is hard to do. They are constantly changing domain names, and doing their best to hide their evil content. Or make it look so enticing that even your own family member could fall prey.
I will still advise new computer users to use this type of plugin or search engine, and set rules up to only visit the websites that get a good rating. People have too much money tied into their computers, and software, and they would be ludicrous to guess at the content being safe or not. A few negative reviews will not change my mine on this. I feel the risk is low on missing a good website, but todays Internet the risk is high you will visit a bad website.
The ones falsely accused of bad content can have it reversed, they only have to prove their website is clean of badware, spam, and legit business wise. This is not asking too much of any legit business online. I myself don't feel intimidated by this method, and I don't believe any legit website will be either.
I personally think it may be a added boost for some websites, that people were weary to do business at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: badware
Google and StopAdware.org are causing grave harm. If a website is clean, Google should remove the warning within 12 hours max.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
StopBadware Appeals Process is a joke
Every day your website is blocked by Google you can be losing serious business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMAO!
"If there is ANY CHANCE that visiting a website might damage my computer, I would like to be alerted"
ANY CHANCE? OK, here's your alert. Anytime you visit *ANY* site on the Internet, or even if you're not visiting sites but your computer is just connected, there's a chance, no matter how slim, that your computer might be damaged.
Heck, for that matter, even when it's off, and plugged in, even on a power strip, there's a VERY VERY VERY remote chance that a bolt of lightning will hit your building with sufficient force to fry through the walls, with enough amps and volts to fry through and around any surge protection system you use, and cook your computer's CPU to the point where the board is charcoal.
But it's still a chance. So anytime you surf from that computer, expect a series of warnings and random OK boxes telling you that your computer could be damaged at any moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remote chances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google NEVER shows pop-up ads. Ever. Many spyware programs target Google searches however.
See http://www.google.co.uk/help/nopopupads.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stopbadware.org
I can just about guarantee this will get way out of hand because there are no controls in place to insure safe websites. Heck, your competitor can put you on the list at whim...they take any complaint and act upon it..how fair is that?
No sir, stopbadware in its present form will not last past a good formal - and legal - complaint. (meaning: somebody will sue for damages and win)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stopbadware.org
Trouble is they can't seem to get Google to change their tactics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't need search engines telling me what's good or bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
StopBadware and Google = Gitmo of the Internet
They had the nerve to say they were behind because of the holiday break. When you shut down someone's livelihood for weeks, you can't go off partying like Paris Hilton!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
StopBadware and Google = Gitmo of the Internet
They had the nerve to say they were behind because of the holiday break. When you shut down someone's livelihood for weeks, you can't go off partying like Paris Hilton!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google blacklists anti-spyware site
Yet today, I see the message that Google claims we are "hosting or distributing badware". Read all the gory details here:
Google bans antispyware site
I think your thoughts about lawsuits are going to come to fruition much quicker than you may have thought. I have already consulted my attorney. I could definitely use the publicity after the damage they've caused me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Idiots !
I have sent an appeal ... 10 days they say .. my site is now at their mercy ..
Anything else I can do ? Please advice
:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Idiots !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's Malware warning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Criminal
Anyone have any advice for this problem please contact me jneylon3@hotmail.com
Thank You
Jamie Neylon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google sux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.etatvasoft.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: www.etatvasoft.com
Benedict Wick
Online Money Making forum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google are playing God with peoples lives
I later found out after hours of investigation on my part that my hosting provider and i'll shame them mdwebhosting.com.au (AKA crap) had their FTP compromised and someone had put some code on the site.(it happened to loads of other sites as well)
anyway. Google banned it straight away; what would have been nice is a message from them stating you have 24 hours to rectify the problem or we will place a warning- now that would have been better but no Google blacklisted it straightaway, now I have to insert codes, get things verified and I am waiting for them to remove the warning its now been over 4 bloody weeks date 27/02/08
A questions is can I sue Google/MD webhosting for loss of income as its not my fault that the MD servers were compromised! Google are now costing my client business as she relies on the net to generate leads for her to sing at venues
on top of this my cleint had a adword campaign which was stopped and i had a email from google stating you have malware so they ahve stopped the campign as mentioned I removed anything i found inserted their code and verified it- they said its fine now and re-released the adword campaign- now here is the point.
WHY HAVE THEY RELEASED THE ADWORD CAMPAIGN STRAIGHT TO THE SITE BUT NOT RELEASED THE ORGANIC SEARCH LISTING TO THEIR SITE
I'LL TELL YOU- BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING MONEY ON THE ADWORD CAMPAIGN- its not rocket science people Google suck big time.
I could scream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google are playing God with peoples lives
I later found out after hours of investigation on my part that my hosting provider and i'll shame them mdwebhosting.com.au (AKA crap) had their FTP compromised and someone had put some code on the site.(it happened to loads of other sites as well)
anyway. Google banned it straight away; what would have been nice is a message from them stating you have 24 hours to rectify the problem or we will place a warning- now that would have been better but no Google blacklisted it straightaway, now I have to insert codes, get things verified and I am waiting for them to remove the warning its now been over 4 bloody weeks date 27/02/08
A questions is can I sue Google/MD webhosting for loss of income as its not my fault that the MD servers were compromised! Google are now costing my client business as she relies on the net to generate leads for her to sing at venues
on top of this my cleint had a adword campaign which was stopped and i had a email from google stating you have malware so they ahve stopped the campign as mentioned I removed anything i found inserted their code and verified it- they said its fine now and re-released the adword campaign- now here is the point.
WHY HAVE THEY RELEASED THE ADWORD CAMPAIGN STRAIGHT TO THE SITE BUT NOT RELEASED THE ORGANIC SEARCH LISTING TO THEIR SITE
I'LL TELL YOU- BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING MONEY ON THE ADWORD CAMPAIGN- its not rocket science people Google suck big time.
I could scream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show Google your anger Digg it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My site is on list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SiteAdvisor defames Tech-Pro.net
The problem is that SiteAdvisor has blacklisted my site based on three downloads (actually the same file, which it downloaded three times) which it claims to contain malware. This is actually a false positive, as I have verified at VirusTotal. See my blog for the full details. Unfortunately unless you are a big company that employs some threatening lawyers it appears impossible to get McAfee to act quickly to remove the defamation.
I am all in favour of cleaning up the net so that ordinary users can surf and download in confidence, but when site ratings are given based on flawed automated tests and small companies are driven out of business by a mistake in a bit of software, something has to be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
false positive on my website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting Message on all Google searches today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had no idea how long the tag was placed there but they sure are not removing it once its been cleaned. Add me to a lawsuite list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop Badware stops only certain badware...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petition to Stop Stopbadware.org, et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just discovered my website has been called dangerous for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]