6 ms·
Google is reporting itself as a malware distributor.
- b0o 15y agointeresting.
- b0o 15y agowell sorry for it not being as interesting as i thought...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- akash2005 15y agoits actually different for www.google.com and google.com. Any googlers care to explain why?
- zrgiu_ 15y agois it possible that google.com also includes subdomains like plus.google.com?
- kdommeyer 15y ago©2008 Google Forgive my ignorance, but why don't companies program the copyright year to automatically update?
- Animus7 15y agoBecause that would basically make the year meaningless.
- ars 15y agoThe year is supposed to be the first year the work was created. You can do 2008-2012 if you want though (and let the end year automatically update). But since that's the assumption if you don't include the end year, there isn't any reason to do it.
- kdommeyer 15y agoFacebook © 2012 The content of Facebook wasn't first created in 2012, so I'm not sure if you're correct. In fact, I've noticed that the majority of sites don't include a date-range. Regardless, thanks for the info.
- GreekOphion 15y agoDidn't Facebook just update their website thus having a new copy write?
- ars 15y agoNo, it's a mistake, they should have left the original date. If you update it you are supposed to do year, year, year or a range. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice
- kdommeyer 15y agoI still doubt that Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Twitter, etc. are all mistaken in listing the current year in their copyright. That seems implausible.
- sirclueless 15y agoThe alternative, Google turning a blind eye to its own domain, would be far worse.
- kenrik 15y agoDon't be evil.
- SquareWheel 15y agoDon't be a jackass.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- daniellockard 15y agoHeh, working as intended I suppose.
- runn1ng 15y agoWhat IS interesting is that you can actually put in any other domain and find the results of malware diagnostics. http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.facebook.com http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://ww... http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://techcrunch.com http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://te... http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://okoun.cz http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://ok... (one Czech discussion server I visit time from time) and so on.
- icehawk 15y agoNot just hostnames, you can plug in things like Autonomous System Numbers and get reports: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:15169 http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:15169 http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:6327 http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:6327 http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:17464 http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:17464
- revorad 15y agoThat can't be working right. It doesn't even check if the site parameter is actually a site - http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=gobbledygook http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=gobbledyg...
- pja 15y agoSmells like...a bloomier filter!
- selvakn 15y agoRepeat: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934669 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=934669
- Groxx 15y agoNot really - that's about Google listing Dropbox.com as suspicious. This is about Google listing Google as being a source / intermediary for malware.
- cicloid 15y agoDon't be evil? So, this is the final proof that the mantra has been forgotten and Google has move to the dark side… Is it?
- Drakim 15y agoNo, it shows exactly the opposite. Google doesn't except it's own servers from the malware search.