6 ms·
Chrome is blocking wired.com
- JohnTHaller 13y agoSucuri shows wired.com as clean on all lists and not blocked by anyone: http://sitecheck3.sucuri.net/results/wired.com http://sitecheck3.sucuri.net/results/wired.com
- mherrmann 13y agoNot in Android (?) Nexus 5.
- bingofuel 13y agoNot on OSX (33.0.1750.152)
- jcrites 13y agoI can reproduce on Chrome 33.0.1750.154 m on Windows 8. Screenshot: http://imgur.com/cUEZJYe http://imgur.com/cUEZJYe The safe browsing diagnostic page shows no negative current or previous reports for wired.com despite describing it as suspicious: http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com&client=googlechrome&hl=en-US http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnost... > What is the current listing status for www.wired.com? This site is not currently listed as suspicious. > Has this site hosted malware? No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
- kunjanshah 13y agoDoes block for me OSX Version 33.0.1750.152
- jackbauer 13y agome too 33.0.1750.152
- pit 13y agoDefinitely on Chromium 33.0.1750.152.
- leephillips 13y agoI just tried to go there using Chrome on Ubuntu and I got a malware warning: "Content from www.wired.com, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware."
- AzAngel 13y agoThe "more about" link shows that there are no malicious codes detected, etc. Maybe someone is sending false warnings?
- marcusr 13y agoIt's blocking in Safari too so I think it's a MacOS diagnosis rather than a Chrome one perhaps? Or both browsers are detecting the same thing
- psykovsky 13y agoFirefox 28 also detects it. On Ubuntu 14.04
- maxerickson 13y agoFirefox sources their malware detection from Google. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m... So it makes sense the error would show up both places.
- higherpurpose 13y agoIt's blocked in Windows, too.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lukeschlather 13y agoWeird: http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fplaybook%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F07%2Fsurf-shaper-w.jpg&client=chromium&hl=en-US http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnost... The page essentially says "We believe this page is suspicious, and we have no evidence to back up that claim." EDIT: They must have updated it/ busted a cache. The page is now reporting some evidence.
- th3iedkid 13y agofunny it says "Of the 20 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2014-03-25, and suspicious content was never found on this site within the past 90 days." does zero count to be blocked?
- lvs 13y agoFirst, it's already been unblocked. Second, this is what it says at the above link: --SNIP-- What happened when Google visited this site? Of the 26 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2014-04-05, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2014-04-05. Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including zlubob.org/. --SNIP-- They're doing a good thing with this, and they're helping webmasters who can't help themselves.
- cdransf 13y agoNot on iOS in either Chrome or Safari.
- randunel 13y agoWorks ok on ubuntu..
- jw2013 13y agoThe message I got when I proceed is: ------- The website at www.wired.com contains elements from sites which appear to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent. Just visiting a site that contains malware can infect your computer. Below is a list of all the unsafe elements for the page. Click on the Diagnostic link for more information on the thread for a specific element. Malware http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/soccer_w.jpg http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/soc... Safe Browsing diagnostic page Malware http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bike-press-w.jpg http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bik... Safe Browsing diagnostic page ------- I wonder what's wrong with these two pictures?
- JohnTHaller 13y agoThe wired homepage itself is fine for me, but Firefox 28.0 is blocking both of those images in your post along with any links I try to click from the Wired homepage.
- Stormcaller 13y agohttp://www.checkpoint.com/defense/advisories/public/2004/cpai-2004-42.html http://www.checkpoint.com/defense/advisories/public/2004/cpa... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537719 maybe chrome can detect these even if they aren't using same dlls?
- sixothree 13y agoI've stopped using chrome for general browsing since this latest scandal.
- sixothree 13y agoI've stopped using chrome for general browsing since this latest scandal.
- Jamie452 13y agoI'm a little confused how a webpage can infect a machine with malware? Is this typically through Java Applets/other plugins?
- yaur 13y agoOn a mainstream site like wired its almost always flash ads. It can also be jpegs (see http://www.checkpoint.com/defense/advisories/public/2004/cpai-2004-42.html http://www.checkpoint.com/defense/advisories/public/2004/cpa...) but this is rare/patched.
- emeraldd 13y agoTake a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download There are in number of ways for nasty things to happen just by visiting a page.
- barkingcat 13y agohaving hacked websites serve infected or specially crafted files that exploit 0 day bugs is a very common vector actually. like 0 day PDF reader bugs - they spread by being linked to in phishing emails for example. people click on them and boom they load a bad PDF and are drive by infected. specially crafted jpgs and gifs have also been used to exploit overflows in image handling code.
- zurn 13y agoExploiting programming errors in the browser is one way. Because browsers are written in very unsafe programming languages (C++), bugs are regularly exploitable so that by specially crafting the bug-triggering input data they can be fooled to scribble content-controlled data inside the browser's memory space. For example, a memory handling bug might let the page overwrite some of the browser's code with data coming from the web page. This lets the web page break into your computer, running arbitrary code of its choosing on your box. Browser plugins can be similarly targeted instead of the browser itself.
- shortstuffsushi 13y ago
- jimhefferon 13y agoBlocked for me, Ubuntu 13.10, Firefox 28.0. The main page is not blocked but anything I click on is blocked. Here is the Why page: Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for wired.com/2014/04 What is the current listing status for wired.com/2014/04? Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer. What happened when Google visited this site? Of the 135 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2014-04-05, and suspicious content was never found on this site within the past 90 days. This site was hosted on 12 network(s) including AS31377 (AKAMAI-BOS), AS701 (UUNET), AS12989 (HWNG). Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware? Over the past 90 days, wired.com/2014/04 did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites. Has this site hosted malware? No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. How did this happen? In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message. Next steps: Return to the previous page. If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Center.
- mef 13y agoChrome lists two images as "malware": http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/soccer_w.jpg http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bike-press-w.jpg Both return actual images, so perhaps at some point in the past when wired.com was scanned these URLs redirected to somewhere malicious? Screenshot: http://cl.ly/image/1m3g3L2v3w3C http://cl.ly/image/1m3g3L2v3w3C
- platinumdragon 13y agoNot on Chrome for Android. Yes on Chrome for Windows. However, it's been years since wired.com has been relevant, so it won't be missed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tensenki 13y agoSo when does robot slander/libel suits begin? I'd be mighty ticked if google started labelling my sites as malware when they're clearly not.
- danielweber 13y agoThis is why we can't have nice things. Chrome was doing yeoman's work by stopping their users from going to a site that was malicious earlier today.
- tensenki 13y agoTrue, I usually wait until the facts are in, but I'm more curious about the question itself. At what point do semi-autonomous programs or constructs become liable for their words or actions.
- kzrdude 13y agoit could be that their ads networks did in fact serve malware temporarily.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- podperson 13y agoSafari also -- not the home page but the articles. Showing up as phishing attack.
- drvortex 13y agoI am surprised why anyone is still using Chrome. Their debacle with remotely disabling extensions that are not from the Web Store should have spooked users enough.
- btian 13y agoSafari and Firefox are also blocking Wired.
- danielweber 13y ago(I think I accidentally downvoted you, I'm sorry.)
- tijs 13y agoThey had a 'technical issue' earlier today it seems: "WIRED: @Freakonomicss @hoffin205 Yeah, we had a technical issue this morning, but our tech team fixed. Waiting for @googlechrome to clear us" https://twitter.com/wired/status/452490353283588096 https://twitter.com/wired/status/452490353283588096
- kanche 13y agoIn my laptop (Win 7, Dell 1555): Blocked in Chrome Version 33.0.1750.154 m Not blocked in ie11, Firefox 20 In my Mobile (HTC One M7 4.4.2): Neither blocked in Chrome(33.1) nor in the stock browser Doesn't Android Chrome support malware detection?
- bunni 13y agoThis is almost always due to a malicious ad.
- pearjuice 13y agoI can't believe on HN of all places people are using Chrome its malware-detecting-capabilities. Friendly reminder that EVERY REQUEST you make with it enabled, will be passed through Google its filters. You should turn all Google networking activities in your browser off. By default, there are at least five or so enabled which will happily send every request you make to Google. Some services even go as far as logging every keystroke you make.
- korzun 13y agoDon't forget your tinfoil hat on the way out.
- maxerickson 13y agoThe majority of safe browsing checks happen client side (when a page matches the client side list, more info is retrieved from Google). It's covered in the appropriate section here: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/ https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/ If you don't trust what they are saying there, you shouldn't be using Chrome at all.
- nullymcnull 13y ago> Friendly reminder that EVERY REQUEST you make with it enabled, will be passed through Google its filters. Perhaps you should actually fact-check such assumptions before passing them along as "friendly reminders"?
- bla2 13y agoThat's not true. Safe browsing checks are done locally.
- Matt_Cutts 13y agopearjuice, this simply isn't true. The way that Chrome does this is periodically downloads a file from Google. The file consists of hashes of known-dangerous web pages. When you visit a new URL, the URL is hashed locally and checked against the client-side list of hashes of known-bad pages. If there's no match, Chrome proceeds normally. Only if there is a hash collision does Chrome do more checking to see if the URL is safe. Here's more information in case you want to read more: https://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/SafeBrowsingDesign https://code.google.com/p/google-safe-browsing/wiki/SafeBrow...
- Istof 13y agoI always thought that using the safe browsing feature is asking for trouble so it is disabled in all my browsers. So my browser doesn't need to make an extra request to Mozilla/Google/etc every time I load a new website and the web is not censored if there is a technical issue
- fooyc 13y agoThe browser has a local copy of the blocked sites database; so it doesn't have to do any extra request in order to check if a web site is blocked or not.
- Istof 13y agoI didn't know that and I think that it is very surprising since Google usually doesn't turn down free information about it's users.
- nolok 13y agoWhy would they turn down the expected payment for their free services ? That would be stupid.
- Istof 13y agoexactly
- fooyc 13y agoI believe Chrome is much more strategical than that. Google could lose enormous market share if any major browser decided to change the default search engine. So they created their own major browser. Chrome is not an information source for Google, it's a way to maintain Google as a default search engine. They fund Mozilla for the same reason.
- spacemanmatt 13y agoYour premise about Google's motivation for creating Chrome is belied by the fact that they were dominant in search for years before Chrome came out. They never had anything to worry about there.
- dpcan 13y agoThis happens to many small business sites. If they leave their WordPress un-patched, or have a crappy plugin installed with security holes, or their FTP info is guessed, etc, hackers drop some malicious Javascript on their sites, and the next thing you know, their site cannot be accessed in Chrome, and usually Firefox as well. Depending on what services pick-up on the bad javascript. For me, it usually takes a day(ish) from the time we are notified of the issue, update the sites, remove the malware, install webmaster tools from Google, submit and wait for the review to be unblocked. On one hand, this is very frustrating, but on the other hand, many small businesses would have no idea their site had been hacked without it being blocked. The only thing I'd like to see personally is if Google were somehow able to notify the domain registrant of the block via email so they find out right away, and not after a few weeks (or longer) in some cases. Some small business owners don't check their sites very often. We like to monitor our client sites, but sometimes new clients come to us with these problems and have no idea how long they've been down.
- dannyr 13y agoI connected my site to Google's Webmaster Tools. I get notified via email when Google finds any issues on my site.
- dpcan 13y agoYes, but they still block websites that are not connected to Google Webmaster Tools, and the site owners may not realize it. It would be nice if they notified the domain registrant as a heads-up because most small biz site owners that find their way to me may have sites that were designed years ago that need little to no maintaining, so they don't know they've been blocked as they barely ever look at their own sites.
- Matt_Cutts 13y agoWe explored trying to email whois contacts or standard addresses (such as webmaster@example.com or postmaster@example.com) and essentially got zero pickup. That's one of the reasons we provide Webmaster Tools, and so far it's our best channel to notify small business owners. We can sometimes label sites as hacked in the search results, but Webmaster Tools is definitely the preferred channel for communication of stuff like this.
- Matt_Cutts 13y agoOften when this happens with a large site, it's because of an malware-laden ad. Typically with a smaller site, it's because the site was somehow hacked or didn't stay fully up-to-date on security patches. Added: Looks like it was an actual hack, not just a bad ad. The Wired folks will want to make sure there's no more iframes from hxxp://zlu bob.org. Folks can use our free Fetch as Google tool to see what we see when we try to fetch a page. You can find out more about the Fetch as Google tool here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/158587?hl=en https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/158587?hl=en
- 1337biz 13y agoOh, and I was thinking Google were just disagreeing with somebody in Wired's management on some personal viewpoint. Silly me!
- sgy 13y agoThey had some technical issue this morning, but it's supposedly fixed now. And they're just waiting for Chrome to unflag them.
- aslewofmice 13y agoAny chance it's related to this? http://www.incapsula.com/blog/world-largest-site-xss-ddos-zombies.html http://www.incapsula.com/blog/world-largest-site-xss-ddos-zo... Security company found a vulnerable Alexa Top 50 site where someone was able to inject XSS code in the comments section creating "DDoS Zombies" of the visitors.
- sgy 13y agoThe block is lifted now. Supposedly.
- MatthewWilkes 13y agoWorks fine for me, Chrome 33.0.1750.152 on OSX