4 ms·
Any URL shortening site that doesn't have an active block list is likely linking to some unsafe sites. Singling out bit.ly in this instance is frankly unfair.
by ChrisGranger 12y ago
Any URL shortening site that doesn't have an active block list is likely linking to some unsafe sites. Singling out bit.ly in this instance is frankly unfair.
Guess who else Google warns is linking to unsafe sites:
https://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=google.com https://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=google.c...
- anoncow 12y agoCan somebody explain the part where it says "google.com has infected plus.google.com" and other websites in your link?
- dsl 12y agoSomeone with a Google Plus account embedded content (likely a block of JavaScript, iframe, or Flash object) from a bit.ly URL. That content was in turn deemed malicious.
- rapcal 12y agogoo.gl too, with nearly 6,300 links to Trojans, way more than on the bit.ly report: https://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=goo.gl https://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=goo.gl
- abraham 12y agoAlthough for goo.gl "6292349 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 826 page(s) resulted in malicious software" and for bit.ly "91856 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 721 page(s) resulted in malicious software". The % of pages on goo.gl with malicious software is much lower.