4 ms·
I'd say the tool is broken: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://google.com http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://go..
by bmfet 13y ago
I'd say the tool is broken:
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://google.com http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://go...
It reports google.com for 142 exploit(s), 131 trojan(s), 98 scripting exploit(s)
- smsm42 13y agoFor php.net, it reports only mere 4 trojans. So php.net is almost 100 times safer that google.com, according to this tool. That sounds pretty good :)
- camus2 13y ago> For php.net, it reports only mere 4 trojans. So php.net is almost 100 times safer that google.com, according to this tool. That sounds pretty good :) Compare how many google.com pages have been tested and how much php.net pages have been tested and stop with that non sense.
- skj 13y agoYou are confident enough in Google's ability to have perfect security on all pages that you think the tool is broken when it says that is not true?
- drzaiusapelord 13y agoThat query probably contains all subpages in google.com, which I imagine have been exploited in some fashion. Google isn't perfect.
- eli 13y agoI'd say you're wrong. Google hosts user-created content that could (and likely did) contain malware at, for example, sites.google.com: http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://sites.google.com http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://si...