4 ms·

Google is correct. The site was hosting malicious content, the site was public-facing, and Google took steps to protect its users trying to visit a site that wa

Google is correct. The site was hosting malicious content, the site was public-facing, and Google took steps to protect its users trying to visit a site that was hosting malicious content which is more than anyone else would do. What else could you ask for? I can go host malware on my site now, get flagged, take it down, tell Google, get my site un-flagged, and re-host the malware. Google can play cat-and-mouse with me at the expense of its users, or just keep the site flagged until enough time has passed and/or if I make enough noise about it. It's not common for a site to intentionally host malware, and especially uncommon for sites to host malware for non-nefarious purposes.

gunal2 3y ago
Google is doing the same business with VirusTotal.com. We're hosting malware as zipped files, and providing passwords to users. It's not possible to accidentally run the malware as user. And the problem is not about this, we removed all the files and Google said you didnt. They're not saying you're not trustable website, they said you still have the files but we haven't.
- antran22 3y ago
  You have to agree that verifying a website is free from a malware is not possible, while verifying that it has a malware is easy. If I play devil's advocate and say that: 1. A bad actor is publishing a malware at example.com/malware-a.zip; 2. The antivirus measure block them; 3. They move it to example.com/malware-b.zip but tell Google that the site is free from all malware, because if Google hit the old url `example.com/malware-a.zip` it is a 404; Should Google give the bad actor the benefit of the doubt, unblock them/ or keep blocking them? Again, I'm not downplaying the shittiness of the situation both you are in right now, but again, this is the default behavior we are all expecting from any antivirus measure.
antran22 3y ago
No I agree with your point and was addressing other blind anti-Google sentiment. While middle-finger to Google for their inhumane ad-based business model, we have to admit that they are doing what they are expected to do in this exact scenario.

gunal2 3y ago

Google is doing the same business with VirusTotal.com. We're hosting malware as zipped files, and providing passwords to users. It's not possible to accidentally run the malware as user. And the problem is not about this, we removed all the files and Google said you didnt. They're not saying you're not trustable website, they said you still have the files but we haven't.

antran22 3y ago
You have to agree that verifying a website is free from a malware is not possible, while verifying that it has a malware is easy. If I play devil's advocate and say that: 1. A bad actor is publishing a malware at example.com/malware-a.zip; 2. The antivirus measure block them; 3. They move it to example.com/malware-b.zip but tell Google that the site is free from all malware, because if Google hit the old url `example.com/malware-a.zip` it is a 404; Should Google give the bad actor the benefit of the doubt, unblock them/ or keep blocking them? Again, I'm not downplaying the shittiness of the situation both you are in right now, but again, this is the default behavior we are all expecting from any antivirus measure.

antran22 3y ago

No I agree with your point and was addressing other blind anti-Google sentiment. While middle-finger to Google for their inhumane ad-based business model, we have to admit that they are doing what they are expected to do in this exact scenario.