RSS
One More Reason Not To Blindly Trust What A Computer Tells You
from the this-site-is-sooooooo-dangeorus dept
By now, you've probably heard the news that Google had a bit of a "glitch" this past weekend, whereby it warned people that every single site in existence (including Google) was rated as potentially dangerous and could put malware on your computer. It lasted for about an hour Saturday morning, causing amused chatter around the web. But, of course, it does highlight one key issue: whenever we end up with various "automated" warning systems, we tend to start believing what the systems tell us -- even when we know they're fallible. It's something worth remembering -- not to say that computer models are bad, just that we almost always underestimate how much weight people put on them once they're in place, no matter how much we intuitively understand that it's just a model.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
people took it too seriously
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: people took it too seriously
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT getting a warning about a harmful sight is.
How does this all add up then?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not to you, no. But, to the site, it can be devastating. When Google itself is not on the list, they are not nearly as quick to respond, either.
Take, for example, Gamepark Holdings, makers of the GP2x handheld game console. The company markets to a niche, enthusiast group of homebrew/emulator fans. They market purely online and via word-of-mouth. Several months ago, their site got listed with Google as potentially harmful for no known reason. It was a mistake. However, Google left it that way for OVER A MONTH. Just imagine if you are a company who has little brand recognition and whose primary sales portal is your own website. Suddenly, everyone who tries to get there is told they're going to get malware if they go to your site. That not only damages sales for that month, but permanently destroys credibility with a lot of potential customers.
So, yeah, a false positive can be extremely harmful if you think beyond your own selfish interests.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuff happens, plan for the worst, expect the best, and learn to cope.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reason why Firefox is great!
In fact, I didn't even know the message existed until this news came out.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another reason why Firefox is great!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a (brief) shining moment in corporate responsibility...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Are we still in danger?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
more than just a warning
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh...
Google also did something worth noting, which was admitting the mistake, as well as admitting that they were the cause (and not their malware filtering company). It's rare that companies do that...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh...
It is better though, for google to blame it on an anonymous employee than to undermine the reputation for reliability of their systems/practices.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Firefox uses Google's data
So if you have a corporate website and it gets hacked, Google will effectively shut down your site with no warning.
Plus the fastest way you can get past it is to log in to webmaster tools and have the site rechecked. Could take a day or longer.
Whatever happened to tech support??
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm no.. not infallible...
Interesting that the author writes
It's not the system that was fallible. It was a user programming error. It's humans that are fallible (despite what the Pope may believe). Computers just do what they're told. They do not make decisions without user input.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
be smart...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
#13 & thoughts....
Are you saying you would disregard a malware warning if you hadn't seen or heard about the suite being hacked in the news?
If so, that's a REALLY bad practice. A site can be hacked to include malicious code at any time and you might be among the first people to hit it.
It;s also highly unlikely a single hacked site would make headlines and there is several hours delay between hacked and reported.
Or are you saying you wouldn't believe Google's malware warning?
In which case disregard my above comment :-P
Either way I tend to look at such warnings as more of a "Proceed with Caution" sort of sign.
As a tech I have a ton of "infected" files on my home PC that my anti virus would love to sanitize. I'm not about to let that happen (as it would destroy perfectly good software I need for work) but I still run my anti virus to makes sure I;m not legitimately infected.
I would still browse such a site if I saw that kind of waning I would just be a bit more careful about it.
Just my $0.02
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What this does point out is that as computers and the Internet become less of a tool and more of an appliance (the assumption being that tools require some amount of skill or knowledge to operate efficiently) anything that inconveniences any quantity of non-technical users it going to be newsworthy.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
hysteria
http://the-anti-google-baloney.blogspot.com/2009/02/45-hysteria.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
This is the way the world will end, not with a bang, but a perl script.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment