|
My companies website has just been (incorrectly) blacklisted by Google (and browsers like Firefox that use Googles database) as hosting malware. Infralution sells software components and it seems that Googles automatic malware scanners can't distinguish between our legitimate downloads and some malware (Privacy Guard Pro) that happens to use a cracked version of one of our components.
This first happened about a month ago and after several days of submitting review requests to Google and StopBadware.org we were able to get the listing removed (without changing our site at all). Mind you there was no acknowledgement from Google or apology for the damage they did to our reputation and business.
Well now it has happened again. Again despite our site being registered with their Webmaster tools we didn't receive any notification from Google - our customers told us. I suppose I'll have to spend another few days chasing my tail to get this sorted and there will be an inevitable loss of traffic and business.
Anyone else had similar experiences? Anyone with a legal background who could comment on whether there might be a libel/slander case? I don't really want to take legal action - but this is a business killer and I can't afford to have it happen every month.
|
|
|
|
|
They're more arrogant than Apple 
|
|
|
|
|
Not long ago a website that I trust (I know the owner) was suddenly blacklisted (for alleged malware) for no apparent reason (there was no change to the site, and the owner didn't even know about it) - the next day it was all normal again
Maybe they just blacklist random sites for fun?
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a lot of fun if your business depends on it. The ironic thing is that we advertise via Google adwords and our ads are still appearing at the right alongside the organic google search results. You can click on the ad link and it will take you to our site with no warning whatsoever. So it appears that if Google are being paid for a link they won't warn you even if the site supposedly has malware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It's been changed to "Do slightly less evil". Don't blame me. I voted for Chuck Norris.
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the world of We-are-not-a-monopoly Google.
Yes, dealing with them is as fun as shouting at a brick wall.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
| This is not the evil corporation you are looking for. Don't blame me. I voted for Chuck Norris.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: fun as shouting at a brick wall.
Mind you, but it IS fun!
|
|
|
|
|
| The real villains here are the hackers/crackers that messed you up in the first place... Steve
_________________
I C(++) therefore I am
|
|
|
|
|
Still, the additional harassment by "law enforcement" just because "our technology works that way" is an undue burden.
It's like ruffian kids throw stones through your window and the local police, instead of hunting them down, fines you for giving a bad example.
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. And I sympathise with Googles objective of warning about Malware sites. It's just that their approach is "shoot first ask questions later". They effectively shut down your site (especially given that FireFox also uses their malware site database) without any warning or chance for redress.
Surely it wouldn't be that difficult for them to email the site admin and give them 24 hours to either clean their site or justify why it is clean BEFORE blacklisting it.
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Frisken wrote: shoot first ask questions later
I approve of this attitude, don't give the malware bastards a single instant, nail then.
What I don't agree with is the shoot TWICE aspect of the problem, surely once identified as a legitimate site you should be safe from repeat shootings, or at least NOW give you a 48 hour warning or something, don't go out and shoot the poor bastard again!Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: don't give the malware bastards a single instant, nail then.
Without perfect FOF detection, that means collateral damage.
That doesn't make this policy "wrong" as such, I just expect some achnowledgement. "I approve this policy, and the resulting collateral damage, even if it hits me".
(nd of course, one could ask who makes this decision for others).
|
|
|
|
|
They are already making this decision, accepting the collateral damage, after all the damage is to others, and nailing the web site.
I would be pissed in Grants position where he is being nailed twice but that is a procedural problem, the initial action is correct in shutting down the malware site.
Note: I can comfortably say this as I have no exposure to this problem at all  Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Do no evil -- but don't do it well, and don't bother thinking about what you do.
Knee-jerks are indicators of the latter word. You're left with no choice but to keep pounding on them to put it right, which makes you look like the bad guy.I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Does your web site use a shared IP address? I found out that my web site (initially) used a shared IP address, that was also used by a seller of porn. My web site was constantly getting blacklisted, until I switched to a dedicated IP address.
|
|
|
|
|
It is a shared IP - but I don't think that is the issue however because Google seem to have identified our downloads as the problem. Although this is only based on circumstantial deduction since they provide precious little information about why they are actually blacklisting you.
Still - something for me to consider - thanks. By the way when you were blacklisted what was the average time until google removed the warning? Did you ever get any correspondence from them? Even first time round I never received any replies from Google regarding my review request.
|
|
|
|
|
That's not evil, just unfortunate. 
"We did not expect the side effects of our well-intended actions to cause so much irritation, and we apologize for that"
|
|
|
|
|
That's totally unfair 
It is fine for the 1st time however for 2nd time it out of imagination. How could they do that?
Grant Frisken wrote: I don't really want to take legal action
But Why?  There should be some ways to fight against big heads who corrupt the reputation.
As it takes prolong time to get reputed and once it vain it becomes difficult to get back to original. 
Grant Frisken wrote: this is a business killer
Seriously, this is totally unacceptable.
However do you have any idea why they have done like this?
Or Do they have mentioned any reason or anything that they have pointed for doing this.Believe Yourself™
|
|
|
|
|
it happened to one of my sites recently (2 months or so ago) and i was puzzled then furious but then discovered that the server had been hacked and a bunch of malicious code had been added to the homepage, invisibly of course
i fixed the problem and went thru the "my site is fixed now" routine and in a week or so it was all good again
annoying as hell yes
understandable? yes
they are fighting against people to whom 24hrs more of time means more people's lives compromised by id theft etc etc
much as it sucks when it happens you (me, us) i think i support them
also, how would they manage trying to email and respond to the (guess) 250 million websites out there?
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't be so frustrated if my site had been hacked and there was malicious code (although I think that a warning prior to taking down your site would still be in order). Google have a mechanism to do this via their Webmaster tools which allows owners of websites to register an email address. I am registered with this but received no notification before or after the event. It was my customers who notified me of the issue.
Having your site be blacklisted for one week once is annoying - having it happen for one week each month for no real reason would be crippling.
|
|
|
|
|
An update. Google have now removed the malware listing from my site (I assume as the result of my review request and making some noise on their webmaster forums). However I still have not received any feedback on my review request or why the site was listed in the first place. This doesn't fill me with confidence that problem is not going to reoccur next time Google crawls my site.
|
|
|
|
|
Just playing with Windows Phone 7 SDK, I was trying to post a message from the embedded IE browser in the simulator. Unfortunately, it did not work out. The simulator just hangs. 
|
|
|
|
|
On the contrary, you got 1 point for posting.Christian Graus
Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
