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

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.