13 ms·
Google tags Wikileaks as a dangerous site
- retox 10y agoAndrew Simpson was possibly the first to report. Comes very soon after DNC email leak. https://twitter.com/Andrewmd5/status/756529847762087936 https://twitter.com/Andrewmd5/status/756529847762087936
- seoguru 10y agoI am not getting the warning on my browser chrome 52.0.2743.82 beta
- astronautjones 10y agoit could be political, but it's probably because they're hosting all of the attachments from all of the e-mails that were leaked - including spam
- asuffield 10y ago(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion only, not speaking for anybody else. I'm an SRE at Google.) What you want to be thinking is: all of the attachments including malware. Safebrowsing is an anti-malware system. Large collections of unfiltered email invariably contain malware. (I can't say much more than that, sorry)
- jusob 10y agohttps://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagnostic/#url=wikileaks.org https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagn...
- dljsjr 10y agoI'm not sure that this is completely tin-foil hat worthy. I was working at a defense contractor in 2010 when the big leak of all the cables occurred, and was forced to learn a lot of things I wouldn't have otherwise, including something that maybe a lot of people don't fully grasp: When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law. I don't think there's any political shadiness going on here, I think Google is just trying to be on the correct side of the system. Whether or not that system is on the right side of some moral or ethical line is a different conversation entirely.
- dmoy 10y agoYea I was at a defense contractor at the time, I remember an email going around telling people not to go look at this stuff for that exact reason.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> When stuff like this leaks, if any of the information is considered sensitive/classified/restricted in any manner, the act of it being leaked does not dissolve its restricted status. In other words, if you are a regular US citizen and you go to Wikileaks and look at something that is classified without having the proper security clearance, then you're now on the wrong side of the law. I'm pretty sure this is wrong: regular citizens are not prohibited from viewing classified material without clearance. OTOH, if you are in particular government or government-contract jobs (including, at least, all jobs that involve a security clearance), you are prohibited from any viewing classified material you aren't cleared for (and, I believe, also have all kinds of required reporting processes if you discover you have unintentionally been exposed to such information.)
- dljsjr 10y agoThere's a good chance this is true: I'm going off what I was told, which being that I was at a government contractor was probably largely FUD because they didn't want me doing anything that would jeopardize their business (I may not have ended up in jail but I would have cost them a lot of money and probably would have been fired). Somebody much more knowledgeable than me can chime in on this.
- dragonwriter 10y agoYeah, and if it was a defense contractor, its quite likely that a substantial number of people (maybe everyone) in the firm may have actually been subject to the kind of rules you describe, even when most citizens are not.
- seorphates 10y agoClassification is provided by the government, internal to the government ergo a citizen that is neither government nor contractually associated with said government can read anything they like.
- cesarbs 10y agoIf you refresh the page multiple times, it switches between "Not dangerous" and "Dangerous downloads".
- user837728 10y agoThis is technically accurate since I found out myself this week when browsing the AKP email leak. Some of the attachments in the emails were clearly malware of some sort. See for example: https://wikileaks.org/akp-emails/emailid/27482 https://wikileaks.org/akp-emails/emailid/27482
- nchelluri 10y agoThe exact same thing happened to me when I was downloading a email containing a MIME base64 encoded PDF. I was curious as to what it was so I clicked the download button and Chrome warned me that it was malicious. Funny, it doesn't give that same warning on this URL now. I've downloaded it and base64 decoded it but I'm slightly afraid to open it; I don't know how I'd do it safely. On a VM with no internet connection maybe? https://wikileaks.org/dnc- https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/829 Space-broken URL provided above, if anyone wants it.
- x0x0 10y agouse a disposable amazon desktop vm
- popey456963 10y agoYou can start a spot instance or something like pence and then remove it minutes later.
- caffeinewriter 10y agoSubmitted it to Hybrid Analysis, and this particular attachment appears to be benign, and is in fact an e-ticket for American Airlines. Doesn't seem to contain any embedded malware readily apparent in the analysis. https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/sample/043de244fc5ca9fd20a96dd96fca3b8ae2048567a60f79bd56d8e4a49ab37067?environmentId=100 https://www.hybrid-analysis.com/sample/043de244fc5ca9fd20a96...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 10y ago
- brudgers 10y agoShows me "not dangerous" at UTC 00:43 22.07.2016.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Sylos 10y agoI figure this link needs to stand here somewhere, even if it's just for someone trying to understand the political implications that this could have: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
- yuhong 10y agoAnd while I don't take all of the claims at face value, I do wonder why Google supports the TPP.
- 2k03kv4r5p 10y agoIt requires explanation that a multinational company would support a trade deal?
- rhizome 10y agoGood question. Do they support every single trade deal? Do they lobby equitably between them? If not, then why this one?
- jonknee 10y agoWhy wouldn't they? Among other things it bans data localization which is important for a cloud operator. There are no downsides from Google's point of view.
- 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rbolla 10y agoits not a dangerous site anymore... as of 7:15 PM PST. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagnostic/?hl=en#url=wikileaks.org https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagn...
- lucb1e 10y ago> 7:15 PM UTC-8 Fixed that for you. Not everyone know every timezone ever, but we don't need to because with UTC it's very simple arithmetic.
- brute 10y agoEven worse, sometimes different timezones share the same acronym. https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/ https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/
- fixermark 10y ago"Current Status: Not dangerous." Did this change in the intervening (clock-check) 4 hours, or is there some definition of dangerous I'm missing?
- dpweb 10y agoMore interesting is the debate here in the comments where people are unsure if it's legal for them to read something on the Internet. I doubt Google is censoring Wikileaks. Too obvious. But startling is the chilling effect nowadays.
- tszming 10y ago[youtube.com] https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagnostic/?hl=en#url=youtube.com https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagn... # Some pages on this website install malware on visitors' computers... # Some pages on this website redirect visitors to dangerous websites that install malware on visitors..
- nl 10y agoThe biggest downside to the NSA revelations is how quickly people accept conspiracy theories. Wikileaks just released a big email dump. People looked at it with Google Chrome, and it detected malware in the archive. That blacklisted the site it was downloaded from. There is no big "Google is protecting the Democrats and hates Wikileaks". Wikileaks was serving malware, and Google detected it.
- gkoberger 10y agoReally? The takeaway I got from the NSA revelations was that it's now completely reasonable to assume that Google/FB/Twitter/etc are working directly with the government or politicians. Twitter removed #DNCLeaks right while it was the top trending topic today. Reddit paid staff has been suspending people who talk about Correct The Record or the DNC leaks. Facebook admitted to filtering certain topics due to political bias. Google just took down Wikileaks links. And while all of this is happening, there's not a single mention of the DNC leaks on CNN, MSNBC, Politico, etc. You're right, this probably was just a mistake... but is it wrong to question it? Everything I've learned from the NSA leaks and the DNC leaks shows that the media, politicians, the intelligence community, banks, large tech companies, etc are all working together against the public.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nl 10y agoThe alternative interpretation is that the #DNCLeaks don't seem very interesting. I don't know why Twitter removed it (assuming that did happen), but to me it looks like most of the same people tweeting about are also tweeting about #Munich and or Tim Kaine, both of which are trending. If I was building a trends algorithm I'd try to aim for diversity of sources of trends. I have no idea about Reddit. The first search result I got for "Correct the Record Reddit" was a Reddit post about some paid social media campaign by a Clinton Super PAC. The explanation for Wikileaks is pretty clearly correct, and Google no longer is marking it as dangerous. Not saying that's happening here Well then what on earth are you saying? Vaguely insinuating bad behaviour is pretty easy, especially if you then say that isn't what you are doing. Like I said - it is easy to accept conspiracy theories. They are easy explanations, but usually the truth is complex and involves multiple subtle explanations which are much harder to think about.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cLeEOGPw 10y agoHN is a liberal safe space. Of course any article that reflects badly on liberal ideas will be removed. that political-story "gravity" is the same thing as reddit's "modified algorithm" to hide /r/The_Donald. There is an enormous push of a certain agenda from all major corporations in US, neither HN, nor reddit or google is an exception.
- Natsu 10y agoIn this case, the algorithm is open, so there's no guesswork: http://www.righto.com/2009/06/how-does-newsyc-ranking-work.html http://www.righto.com/2009/06/how-does-newsyc-ranking-work.h... HN has normally been transparent whenever they modify something manually.
- cLeEOGPw 10y agoSo it's exactly that. > An item with too many comments (at least 20 and more comments than upvotes) gets the contro-factor penalty. What actually happens is an organized group of shills comment on an article and it gets burred. Also what it does is pushes all the interesting articles that facilitate discussion to the bottom. That's my another complaint about HN - there are barely any interesting stories on the first page even. And it doesn't look like there's a correlation between how interesting is the story and how high it is shown. The idea of time factor is cool in theory, but it fails in practice when most people visit once a day or only once every few days, and instead of getting the most interesting submissions they get a bunch of newly submitted links with barely any traction.
- douche 10y agoI've been noticing a pattern lately where anything that touches on a few different hot-button issues gets blasted away with flags the second it creeps onto the front page. I don't think its the mods having anything to do with it, but it feels a little broken.
- dang 10y agoIt's usually that users flag these stories, presumably because of HN's (really the public internet's) inability to discuss them civilly and substantively. It's a tough problem. Those stories often relate to important issues which hold intellectual interest, if not necessarily gratifying intellectual curiosity (the mandate of this site). In that sense they're not all off-topic. But it damages this site and community for it to host ideological flamewars, much as it damages a neighborhood to host rubbish fires. My reading of the user flags is that they're partly trying to protect the neighborhood, and there's value in that.
- colordrops 10y agoNow it is clear that you are not merely ignorant but actively obfuscating and misinforming. From your company's website: "Mission: to undertake impactful research, development, education and training that delivers outcomes to national security and other data intensive sectors" While I don't doubt that you work on disease modeling, your company's mission statement makes it clear that national security is its main focus. Now being a company of academics and intellectuals, you are precise with your words (unless you are engaging in disinformation of course), and you must know that "national security" has a specific definition, which revolves around utilizing political and military power to defend a nation. Just search google for "national security" to get some references if you plan to brush this off as well. This doesn't inherently make you untrustworthy. What does is someone of your caliber confidently committing so many factual errors in favor of corrupt power structures on a public forum. You also have a clear conflict of interest considering you make your living working on the same kind of systems we are discussing, i.e. PRISM.
- nl 10y agoThis feels pretty much like a personal attack. It feels to me like you are losing the argument, so trying to undermine my credibility. I completely disagree with your assessment that I've made factual errors. At the very least, the replies you are receiving show that there is a fair amount of disagreement on this. I'd note that you chose not to respond to my points about the link you posted. But since you've decided to show such an interest in me, check my comment history and you'll see my position on this. Here's a previous comment[1] from 3 years ago (before I started in my current job) where I though that PRISM is actually a reporting system (and that explains why the reporting is pretty confused). I think I was wrong about that comment - it does cover the collection process too. But at the time there was a great deal of confusion - read the thread[2]. The context is important - it was on a story where Google denied any involvement in PRISM. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5910580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5910580 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5910297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5910297
- dang 10y agoThis crosses into personal attack and that is not allowed here. Please don't do it again. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12148835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12148835 and marked it off-topic.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mjwilliams 10y agoIt says "not dangerous"
- Tor23 10y agotell me more ?!
- MooBah 10y agoWelp, GJ - Google Changed it back.
- MooBah 10y agoyelp - looks google changed it back. GJ Thread!
- AWildDHHAppears 10y agoI don't think there's anything to see here. Google now tags it as "safe." The mechanism worked; the website administrators removed the malware, and the warning was removed. See! Everything works in a rational way. There's no conspiracy.
- adrenalinelol 10y agoEric Schmidt got spooked we were onto his trilateral commission connections!!!111 /s
- AWildDHHAppears 10y agoI don't think there's anything to see here. Google now tags it as "safe." The mechanism worked; the website administrators removed the malware, and the warning was removed. See! Everything works in a rational way. There's no conspiracy.
- smoyer 10y agoAs of approximately 1000 EDT (US) on 07/23/2016, the link above gives the status of wikileaks.org as "Not Dangerous".
- throw2016 10y agoThis really doesn't matter. The kind of people who are concerned about the information revealed by wikileaks, Snowden, Manning and the burgeoning surveillance infrastructure have little reason to trust what Google says or does. What seems off is the default kneejerk response especially in places like HN where one would assume a far more informed audience - working in the industry which is spearheading this - to brush things under the carpet or make discredited, desperate and increasingly irrational references to conpiracy theorists. There have always been conspiracy theorists and always will be, but the current narrative on surveillance has moved so well beyond that point that to have this discussion tarred by these tired and banal references to conspiracy theorists is completely disingenious and makes those making these arguments look out of touch. If you know what has been revealed so far it should not be difficult to engage with some degree of seriousness at the issues at hand without immediately resorting to strawmen.
- prashant10 10y agoactually it doesnt anymore...
- faddat 10y agoWell, in that case, they probably really are working for Killary. Damn, I thought google was one of the good guys.
- daveloyall 10y agoUpdate: Over the weekend, I encountered some guy at a store who probably doesn't read HN. He believed that Google was deliberately filtering out WL for political/conspiracy reasons. When I explained the automated malware protection (Safe Browsing or whatever the call it), he accepted that explanation (I had him at "emails have viruses") but he countered that "google filtered out wikileaks last time". This concludes today's observation from IRL.
- miliefsky 10y agoWikiLeaks is not serving malware. I checked it today. Gary Miliefsky, CEO, www.snoopwall.com - sounds like someone wants you to NOT VISIT WikiLeaks.
- miliefsky 10y agoWikiLeaks.org is NOT SERVING MALWARE today. I validated this against 210 malware URL block lists with over 2.4m domains loaded in real-time in our NetSHIELD appliances. www.snoopwall.com Gary Miliefsky, CEO
- rocketgoldstar 10y agoWikiLeaks has a well documented history of knowingly distributing malware. Dates back years at this point.