back to article Scared yet, web devs? Google smears malware warnings over

Google's Safe Browsing technology is blocking access to as a precaution, after apparently detecting that some of its pages were booby-trapped with links to malicious software. The move put warning blocks in the way of accessing a site that's widely used by web developers. Google didn't specify the types of Trojans …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Havin_it


    "Indictment of PHP's inherent insecurity, froth, rant, etc."

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: InB4

      Looks like Google are finally trying to catch up with Microsoft in browser malware detection...

  2. b0llchit

    Three hops

    Better to block anything that is up to three hops from the malware. That will make us all a lot safer!

    With Google indexing world+dog, thus distancing two hops in general, would ensure a pretty good cleanup of the Internet.

    Time to enable safe-browsing >click< powering down.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Three hops

      You visit a web page (1 hop) which displays an ad from an ad network (2 hops). That ad contains a link to a malicious file (3 hops).

      Now if the advert on that page tries to trick the user into clicking on it (like the download pages on sourceforge used to with a big download now button) it is very easy for a visitor to hit that third hop.

      1. theblackhand Silver badge

        Re: Three hops


        As an alternative, Google include a functional AdBlocker into Chrome, block the ad's and prevent the second and third hops and everyone lives happily ever after.

        OK - maybe not the things that make the ad's but they're not people so it's all OK.

        I realise this will kill ad-revenue for websites but shutting down the whole Internet would make malware even harder to spread.

        1. Sulehir

          Re: Three hops

          Google blocking ads by default? Nope don't think we'll be seeing that anytime soon.

        2. MikeHenken

          Re: Three hops

          It is highly improbable that Google would include an Ad blocker with their browser. They make the vast majority of their profits through advertising and catering to spammers.

          1. Captain Save-a-ho

            Re: Three hops

            Silly rabbit, the Chocolate Factory ad blocker will block all those nasty, untrustworthy, non-Google ads. Problem solved!

      2. User McUser

        @AC 12:00GMT

        if the advert on that page tries to trick the user into clicking on it

        Don't they all? I mean, that's the whole point of ads on a webpage, right?

  3. Dan Mullen

    Beta documentation to blame?

    I wonder if it's related to the new beta PHP manual? Possibly something up with the comments system?

  4. James Boag

    Always a backup

    Dear NSA, can i please have your backup copy of The main one seems to be broken !

  5. melt

    Looks like it's deeper than just comment spam too:

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unwanted extras

    Were any of the unwanted software downloads for the Google Toolbar?

  7. Steve Knox

    Buried Lede: Google apparently can't write a secure browser

    4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent.

    Shurely that's as much or more the fault of the browser downloading and installing files without user consent than of the site hosting links to links to links to such content...?

    1. Not That Andrew
      Thumb Down

      Re: Buried Lede: Google apparently can't write a secure browser

      Silly me, here was me thinking that the providers of one of the building blocks of the World Wide Web could be trusted to maintain a secure website.

      1. Steve Knox

        Re: Buried Lede: Google apparently can't write a secure browser is secure. There's nothing malicious on the site. Some user content apparently contains links to sites which allegedly contain links to malware.

        Websites should be able to link to pretty much anything, and they could, if the browser followed the standards and prompted the user for anything out of the ordinary.

        It's much easier to NOT write code to automatically download everything than it is to monitor and moderate a website which is designed for user collaboration and is accessed by people around the world.

        1. skeeboe

          Re: Buried Lede: Google apparently can't write a secure browser

          Wrong, but thanks for letting everyone know that when you're ill informed, you'll still make crap up.

 confirmed that two of their servers were compromised and used to attack visitors. However, the administrators are still not sure how the attackers accessed the servers.


  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    not is not

    They must be sharing the ip address as other sites due to the way the host manages IP addresses.

    My site has the same problem sometimes because we don't have our own IP address.

    1. Notas Badoff

      Re: not awake yet

      "Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including,," page(s) reference stuff stored at

      Please read above about 1 hop, 2 hops, 3 hops

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: not

      Do you really think a major site like is on a shared hosting platform ?

  9. peredur

    Not there now

    Just accessed the site using FF and Chrome. No problem.

  10. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

    PHP: Forbidden in Idaho


  11. Grogan

    That's why you should just turn silly nannying site ranking/search result checking filters like that off. I don't care if it's that McNorton shit, or AVG, or Google's "phishing and malware protection" in Chromium/Chrome it's the wrong approach. You can't blacklist the whole interent.

    That kind of "security" just results in sites that no longer have (or never had) malware serving ads being on the shit list, and sites with malicious content that they don't know about unfiltered. That's most of them. It has always been that way ever since the first "Site Ranker" product. (That McAfee bought)

    Checking sites against databases is extra gyration that you don't need, too. I turn stuff like that off wherever it exists.

  12. No Quarter

    Instruction manual broken

    Couldn't load the instructions on making the internet. So went sailing.

  13. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    @Grogan. Not really. I've found it to be pretty effective; sites flagged as bad are scanned more frequently so they come up clean pretty shorty after they have been cleaned up. I use Linux, so I won't get viruses and spyware anyway. That said, I'm not about to try to suggest you turn it back on or anything, this is up to you.

    Anyway, yes, 1 bad link is 1 too many, a system like this is useless if it knowingly allows *some* malware to get through (just not sites with *too much*.) That said, is loading for me now so it may not have been listed for long.

  14. katjap

    The guy in the picture reaching through the screen controlling your computer.. Google.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google Keeps wanking the wankers.

    Nuf Said.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020