4 ms·

>Because it makes using DNS filtering a pain. You're doing the internet wrong and I feel sorry for your users. A tld makes no difference when a request to a re

>Because it makes using DNS filtering a pain. You're doing the internet wrong and I feel sorry for your users. A tld makes no difference when a request to a resource could be to gstatic.com or to gstatic.io unless you're doing something as stupid as assuming the .com tld is magically safe from hosting malware and phishing sites. >to save a scant few bytes when referencing a 1MB block of JS? Presumably you are referring to the cookie with those "scant few bytes". I highly recommend you read up on the cdn caching implications of having all of your users request resources with cookies.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
> You're doing the internet wrong and I feel sorry for your users. A tld makes no difference when a request to a resource could be to gstatic.com or to gstatic.io unless you're doing something as stupid as assuming the .com tld is magically safe from hosting malware and phishing sites. I certainly don't think they're safe, but a much, much higher ratio of .com domains are A) actually used by our business, and B) legitimate. > Presumably you are referring to the cookie with those "scant few bytes". I highly recommend you read up on the cdn caching implications of having all of your users request resources with cookies. No, I'm referring to the domain using one of these TLDs. Why 'gstatic.com' instead of 'static.google.com' or some other subdomain of the primary?
- hueving 8y ago
  >I certainly don't think they're safe, but a much, much higher ratio of .com domains are A) actually used by our business, and B) legitimate. So what? It seems like you are confusing false positives with false negatives and using that to justify bad policy. There are probably 0.001% of .com domains your users need access to and 0.0001% of alt tlds. That's not a justification for whitelisting .com and blacklisting the others.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    The policy hasn't inconvenienced users much at all, I'd know because I see any unblock requests, so why not? As I keep saying, it is just one of many safeguards in place against malware and phishing, we are not under the delusion that it is anything other than that. If it were causing any significant friction in the business I'd be among the first to recommend stopping the practice.
- r3bl 8y ago
  > Why 'gstatic.com' instead of 'static.google.com' or some other subdomain of the primary? Because they don't manually upload stuff hosted there, so in case some user-generated content hurts the reputation of the domain it's served on, it isn't their main domain that suffered the reputation hit.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

> You're doing the internet wrong and I feel sorry for your users. A tld makes no difference when a request to a resource could be to gstatic.com or to gstatic.io unless you're doing something as stupid as assuming the .com tld is magically safe from hosting malware and phishing sites. I certainly don't think they're safe, but a much, much higher ratio of .com domains are A) actually used by our business, and B) legitimate. > Presumably you are referring to the cookie with those "scant few bytes". I highly recommend you read up on the cdn caching implications of having all of your users request resources with cookies. No, I'm referring to the domain using one of these TLDs. Why 'gstatic.com' instead of 'static.google.com' or some other subdomain of the primary?

hueving 8y ago
>I certainly don't think they're safe, but a much, much higher ratio of .com domains are A) actually used by our business, and B) legitimate. So what? It seems like you are confusing false positives with false negatives and using that to justify bad policy. There are probably 0.001% of .com domains your users need access to and 0.0001% of alt tlds. That's not a justification for whitelisting .com and blacklisting the others.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  The policy hasn't inconvenienced users much at all, I'd know because I see any unblock requests, so why not? As I keep saying, it is just one of many safeguards in place against malware and phishing, we are not under the delusion that it is anything other than that. If it were causing any significant friction in the business I'd be among the first to recommend stopping the practice.
r3bl 8y ago
> Why 'gstatic.com' instead of 'static.google.com' or some other subdomain of the primary? Because they don't manually upload stuff hosted there, so in case some user-generated content hurts the reputation of the domain it's served on, it isn't their main domain that suffered the reputation hit.