4 ms·

funny 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

funny 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 ago
First, 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.
- bashcoder 13y ago
  > First, it's already been unblocked. It's still blocked for me, with Google branding wired.com as "a known malware distributor."
  - lvs 13y ago
    Well that's technically a correct statement. Try: chrome://net-internals/#dns Click "Clear host cache"
    - bashcoder 13y ago
      Actually the issue was that I was using Google's DNS. When I disabled that, it worked just fine. But thanks for showing me the Chrome trick. As to the technically correct statement, don't you think that saying a site is a "known malware distributor" is a bit more sweeping than saying something more accurate like "we discovered malware on this site"? In other words, they are using the same language I would expect to see directed towards sites that have malicious intent and should never be visited.
      - spacemanmatt 13y ago
        How should they word when the site is known to distribute malware? There is no difference between discovery and distribution, if you consider the method of discovery.
lukeschlather 13y ago
Weird, I must have had a cached copy (which is really strange since Chrome was blocking Wired for me.)

lvs 13y ago

First, 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.

bashcoder 13y ago
> First, it's already been unblocked. It's still blocked for me, with Google branding wired.com as "a known malware distributor."
- lvs 13y ago
  Well that's technically a correct statement. Try: chrome://net-internals/#dns Click "Clear host cache"
  - bashcoder 13y ago
    Actually the issue was that I was using Google's DNS. When I disabled that, it worked just fine. But thanks for showing me the Chrome trick. As to the technically correct statement, don't you think that saying a site is a "known malware distributor" is a bit more sweeping than saying something more accurate like "we discovered malware on this site"? In other words, they are using the same language I would expect to see directed towards sites that have malicious intent and should never be visited.
    - spacemanmatt 13y ago
      How should they word when the site is known to distribute malware? There is no difference between discovery and distribution, if you consider the method of discovery.

lukeschlather 13y ago

Weird, I must have had a cached copy (which is really strange since Chrome was blocking Wired for me.)