3 ms·

>Whether it was a type of attack also known as “click fraud,” or not, it does appear to be an attack. I disagree with describing this as an attack. Based on th

by rflrob 16y ago

>Whether it was a type of attack also known as “click fraud,” or not, it does appear to be an attack. I disagree with describing this as an attack. Based on the kinds of search terms Google has said they used, they aren't attempting to make the Bing results any worse. There is simply no good search result for "hiybbprqag", so Google pointing to the Wiltern Seating Chart is just as good as pointing to nothing at all from the purposes of what any user who happened to Google hiybbprqag randomly would see. At best, you could make the argument that by revealing that Bing is susceptible to these kinds of attacks, they are making it easier for others to attack Bing. It's certainly illegal to rob a bank, but what about walking down the street yelling, "The bank guards are all gone! The combination to the vault is 1-2-3-4-5!"

brudgers 16y ago
"what any user who happened to Google hiybbprqag randomly" But it wasn't any user, it was a Google engineer and the circumstances were not ordinary. Those engineers were actively trying to get the results into Bing over the course of at least two weeks 12/17-12/31 according to searchenginland.com.
- rflrob 16y ago
  So Google, by doing this, has created up to a hundred or so bogus entries in the Bing database, to which I say, "big whoop". If Google had to pay damages for the extra infrastructure that Microsoft requires, the stamp to mail the check would be more than the check itself. What I would classify as an attack is if, through a similar process, Google introduced bogus entries for real search terms, which they don't claim to have done.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    >"which they don't claim to have done." IANAL, but if they have attacked Microsoft, that is probably a prudent legal strategy. Keep in mind that Google claims to have discovered this episode by noticing similarities between their results and Bing's which although it suggests and active program to monitor Bing, is hardly surprising. On the other hand, however plausible it appears their claim about how they discovered it smells a bit of BS. It strains belief that Google never looked at the packets the Bing toolbar was sending home during browser compatibility testing. They lost their virginity a long time ago.

by rflrob 16y ago

brudgers 16y ago

"what any user who happened to Google hiybbprqag randomly" But it wasn't any user, it was a Google engineer and the circumstances were not ordinary. Those engineers were actively trying to get the results into Bing over the course of at least two weeks 12/17-12/31 according to searchenginland.com.

rflrob 16y ago
So Google, by doing this, has created up to a hundred or so bogus entries in the Bing database, to which I say, "big whoop". If Google had to pay damages for the extra infrastructure that Microsoft requires, the stamp to mail the check would be more than the check itself. What I would classify as an attack is if, through a similar process, Google introduced bogus entries for real search terms, which they don't claim to have done.
- brudgers 16y ago
  >"which they don't claim to have done." IANAL, but if they have attacked Microsoft, that is probably a prudent legal strategy. Keep in mind that Google claims to have discovered this episode by noticing similarities between their results and Bing's which although it suggests and active program to monitor Bing, is hardly surprising. On the other hand, however plausible it appears their claim about how they discovered it smells a bit of BS. It strains belief that Google never looked at the packets the Bing toolbar was sending home during browser compatibility testing. They lost their virginity a long time ago.