4 ms·

>secret safe browsing lists Isn't there an open API for querying this information, as well as their webapp? It can't be all that secret. https://transparency

>secret safe browsing lists Isn't there an open API for querying this information, as well as their webapp? It can't be all that secret. https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search

kodablah 9y ago
Only one site at a time. I want to see them all. Other ad blockers let me do this with their lists. Google is no stranger to supporting big list downloads. They are choosing not to and should not be defended. Sure they can say they don't want the offenders to know they are offending, but they can find that out anyways. I think in reality, they want to maintain the keys to the lists which means not giving it away and keeping it secret.
- SquareWheel 9y ago
  That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list. Keep in mind that Safe Browsing is much more complex than an adblock list. They allow actions from site owners via Search Console, and track many types of threats (phishing sites, malicious downloads). My guess would be there isn't a simple canonical list, and it's more of a heuristic evaluation where certain thresholds will trigger site warnings. In this case an API would be more up-to-date, and less computationally expensive than serving large, always-changing lists. It was likely just the more logical choice. Though I'm assuming the new ads functionality uses the same Safe Browsing infrastructure. >Sure they can say they don't want the offenders to know they are offending Actually not the case at all. They send alerts to sites that are affected by Safe Browsing via Search Console.
  - kodablah 9y ago
    All true. And I have found a place to obtain the list (see other comments). I do think the list as it relates to how the browser uses it is not that complex (is or isn't an "unsafe" or "bad ads" site).
  - ksk 9y ago
    >That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list. >In this case an API would be more up-to-date, and less computationally expensive than serving large, always-changing lists. Like Google search? I fail to see whats hard about returning a large list of items. Its their entire organizations' core competency.
    - SquareWheel 9y ago
      Google Search works like an API. You search the keyword, they run it through their algorithms. There's no download of their entire search index because that would be impossible.
      - ksk 9y ago
        The website here: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search Makes you type-in a single URL. There is no way to use a keyword to get a list of items back. My point is that it should be trivial for google to do this, since this is their core competency. I fail to understand whats so special about maintaining a tiny list of website URLs that anybody can access at any time? I'd wager you can fit 10+ million URLs per GB. The wayback machine has 300 billion+ pages of full page historical content and you can access all of it. This is entirely within Google's wheelhouse. Certainly, there could be other factors to not handout the list, but I'm merely speaking about the engineering aspect here.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list. Oh please. Claiming Google can't publish a giant list is really disingenuous. The question is really if they want to or not.
    - SquareWheel 9y ago
      I didn't say they couldn't. What I said is that such a list wouldn't make as much sense because it would always be out of date. A programmer looks at that problem and sees that an API makes more sense.
      - kodablah 9y ago
        I downloaded the entire list via the API just fine. What is the difference between an API and a download? Answer: authorization control. It doesn't have to be a fixed file on their side...a URL can serve just what the API does like a download. But then they wouldn't know who wanted it.
joering2 9y ago
If you want to see how flagged site info looks like, use this link: http://livetvcafe.net/video/7RDR4DAYSBMO/Fox-News http://livetvcafe.net/video/7RDR4DAYSBMO/Fox-News Unfortunately.. I don't see a dispute button. If Google won't let you dispute like blacklisted mailserver, I see class action lawsuits because ultimately with such high % of market share, Google and his pal Chrome will decide whether your business thrives or dies.

kodablah 9y ago

Only one site at a time. I want to see them all. Other ad blockers let me do this with their lists. Google is no stranger to supporting big list downloads. They are choosing not to and should not be defended. Sure they can say they don't want the offenders to know they are offending, but they can find that out anyways. I think in reality, they want to maintain the keys to the lists which means not giving it away and keeping it secret.

SquareWheel 9y ago
That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list. Keep in mind that Safe Browsing is much more complex than an adblock list. They allow actions from site owners via Search Console, and track many types of threats (phishing sites, malicious downloads). My guess would be there isn't a simple canonical list, and it's more of a heuristic evaluation where certain thresholds will trigger site warnings. In this case an API would be more up-to-date, and less computationally expensive than serving large, always-changing lists. It was likely just the more logical choice. Though I'm assuming the new ads functionality uses the same Safe Browsing infrastructure. >Sure they can say they don't want the offenders to know they are offending Actually not the case at all. They send alerts to sites that are affected by Safe Browsing via Search Console.
- kodablah 9y ago
  All true. And I have found a place to obtain the list (see other comments). I do think the list as it relates to how the browser uses it is not that complex (is or isn't an "unsafe" or "bad ads" site).
- ksk 9y ago
  >That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list. >In this case an API would be more up-to-date, and less computationally expensive than serving large, always-changing lists. Like Google search? I fail to see whats hard about returning a large list of items. Its their entire organizations' core competency.
  - SquareWheel 9y ago
    Google Search works like an API. You search the keyword, they run it through their algorithms. There's no download of their entire search index because that would be impossible.
    - ksk 9y ago
      The website here: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search Makes you type-in a single URL. There is no way to use a keyword to get a list of items back. My point is that it should be trivial for google to do this, since this is their core competency. I fail to understand whats so special about maintaining a tiny list of website URLs that anybody can access at any time? I'd wager you can fit 10+ million URLs per GB. The wayback machine has 300 billion+ pages of full page historical content and you can access all of it. This is entirely within Google's wheelhouse. Certainly, there could be other factors to not handout the list, but I'm merely speaking about the engineering aspect here.
- hueving 9y ago
  >That's assuming that it's a simple process to publish a huge list. Oh please. Claiming Google can't publish a giant list is really disingenuous. The question is really if they want to or not.
  - SquareWheel 9y ago
    I didn't say they couldn't. What I said is that such a list wouldn't make as much sense because it would always be out of date. A programmer looks at that problem and sees that an API makes more sense.
    - kodablah 9y ago
      I downloaded the entire list via the API just fine. What is the difference between an API and a download? Answer: authorization control. It doesn't have to be a fixed file on their side...a URL can serve just what the API does like a download. But then they wouldn't know who wanted it.

joering2 9y ago

If you want to see how flagged site info looks like, use this link: http://livetvcafe.net/video/7RDR4DAYSBMO/Fox-News http://livetvcafe.net/video/7RDR4DAYSBMO/Fox-News Unfortunately.. I don't see a dispute button. If Google won't let you dispute like blacklisted mailserver, I see class action lawsuits because ultimately with such high % of market share, Google and his pal Chrome will decide whether your business thrives or dies.