5 ms·
That wouldn't be the worst future though. In my head, once the adverts are being hosted on the website domain, there'd be a lot more incentive to a) NOT deliver
by exergy 7y ago
That wouldn't be the worst future though. In my head, once the adverts are being hosted on the website domain, there'd be a lot more incentive to a) NOT deliver malware, and b) NOT have those wearisome video/sound/flashing/js-heavy adverts.
- icebraining 7y agoWhy? It's not like the user can distinguish the two, so in term of giving a bad image, it's essentially the same.
- mikhailt 7y agoThink of the impact if the site is blocked by the browser's red malware warning UI (Google's safe browsing or smartscreen in IE) because a compromised file was hosted on the main domain. It is much harder to get the site whitelisted once it has been compromised since it is on the same domain. In my job, we had a site domain that was falsely flagged as malware-infected and it took about a few days before it was confirmed as removed (it is not automated apparently). It was never made clear why it was flagged in the first place but it scared us and we had to isolate any downloadable files (installer, ads, etc) away from the main domain as much as possible.
- icebraining 7y agoAFAIK, Google Safe Browsing will show that warning on your site even if the malware came from a third-party domain.
- mikhailt 7y agoBut what's easier to remove; your site or the third party links on the website? I don't remember third party domains being problematic to remove compared to the first party stuff?