Chrome is blocking wired.com

http://www.wired.com

by hammerbrostime • 12 years ago

75 90 12 years ago

wired.com

mherrmann• 12 years ago

Not in Android (?) Nexus 5.

bingofuel• 12 years ago

Not on OSX (33.0.1750.152)

ghaff• 12 years ago

Yes on OSX 34.0.1847.11 beta

tensenki3• 12 years ago

Blocks on OSX for me (33.0.1750.152) Does not block on Safari Version 7.0.3 (9537.75.14)

jcrites• 12 years ago

I can reproduce on Chrome 33.0.1750.154 m on Windows 8. Screenshot: 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/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• 12 years ago

Does block for me OSX Version 33.0.1750.152

jackbauer• 12 years ago

me too 33.0.1750.152

pit2• 12 years ago

Definitely on Chromium 33.0.1750.152.

agumonkey2• 12 years ago

Just accessed it under Chromium Version 33.0.1750.152 (256984) (arch linux) with no problems (except for some lag).

pit2• 12 years ago

Super weird -- I'm on Arch Linux, too. Could it be DNS-related?

leephillips• 12 years ago

I 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• 12 years ago

The "more about" link shows that there are no malicious codes detected, etc. Maybe someone is sending false warnings?

marcusr• 12 years ago

It'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• 12 years ago

Firefox 28 also detects it. On Ubuntu 14.04

maxerickson2• 12 years ago

Firefox sources their malware detection from Google.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m...

So it makes sense the error would show up both places.

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

It's blocked in Windows, too.

lukeschlather2• 12 years ago

Weird: 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• 12 years ago

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?

lvs2• 12 years 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.

lukeschlather2• 12 years ago

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

fragmede• 12 years ago

I get: Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including zlubob.org/.

cdransf• 12 years ago

Not on iOS in either Chrome or Safari.

randunel• 12 years ago

Works ok on ubuntu..

jw2013• 12 years ago

The 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/soc... Safe Browsing diagnostic page

Malware http://www.wired.com/playbook/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bik... Safe Browsing diagnostic page -------

I wonder what's wrong with these two pictures?

JohnTHaller2• 12 years ago

The 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• 12 years ago

http://www.checkpoint.com/defense/advisories/public/2004/cpa... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7537719 maybe chrome can detect these even if they aren't using same dlls?

sixothree• 12 years ago

I've stopped using chrome for general browsing since this latest scandal.

Jamie452• 12 years ago

I'm a little confused how a webpage can infect a machine with malware?

Is this typically through Java Applets/other plugins?

yaur• 12 years ago

On a mainstream site like wired its almost always flash ads. It can also be jpegs (see http://www.checkpoint.com/defense/advisories/public/2004/cpa...) but this is rare/patched.

emeraldd• 12 years ago

Take a look at 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• 12 years ago

having 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.

zurn2• 12 years ago

Exploiting 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.

shortstuffsushi3• 12 years ago

While some of the vectors you've mentioned could potentially be exploitable, blaming a "very unsafe programming language," isn't really a good explanation. These issues could occur in any program and any programming language -- it's not a problem specific to C languages.

JohnTHaller2• 12 years ago

Sucuri shows wired.com as clean on all lists and not blocked by anyone: http://sitecheck3.sucuri.net/results/wired.com

jimhefferon• 12 years ago

Blocked 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• 12 years ago

Chrome 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

platinumdragon• 12 years ago

Not 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.

tensenki3• 12 years ago

So 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.

danielweber2• 12 years ago

This 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.

tensenki3• 12 years ago

True, 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• 12 years ago

it could be that their ads networks did in fact serve malware temporarily.

podperson• 12 years ago

Safari also -- not the home page but the articles. Showing up as phishing attack.

drvortex• 12 years ago

I 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• 12 years ago

Safari and Firefox are also blocking Wired.

danielweber2• 12 years ago

(I think I accidentally downvoted you, I'm sorry.)

tijs• 12 years ago

They 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

kanche• 12 years ago

In 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• 12 years ago

This is almost always due to a malicious ad.

pearjuice2• 12 years ago

I 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• 12 years ago

Don't forget your tinfoil hat on the way out.

maxerickson2• 12 years ago

The 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/

If you don't trust what they are saying there, you shouldn't be using Chrome at all.

nullymcnull• 12 years 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• 12 years ago

That's not true. Safe browsing checks are done locally.

Matt_Cutts5• 12 years ago

pearjuice, 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/SafeBrow...

pearjuice2• 12 years ago

It still holds regarding all the other Google activities in Chrome.

Istof4• 12 years ago

I 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

fooyc2• 12 years ago

The 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.

Istof4• 12 years ago

I 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.

amenod• 12 years ago

Performance side effects should be negligible, but there are some privacy concerns (your browser is asking Google for each page it visits if it is ok - thus telling G where you surf).

dpcan2• 12 years ago

This 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• 12 years ago

I connected my site to Google's Webmaster Tools.

I get notified via email when Google finds any issues on my site.

dpcan2• 12 years ago

Yes, 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_Cutts5• 12 years ago

Often 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

1337biz• 12 years ago

Oh, and I was thinking Google were just disagreeing with somebody in Wired's management on some personal viewpoint. Silly me!

sgy2• 12 years ago

They had some technical issue this morning, but it's supposedly fixed now. And they're just waiting for Chrome to unflag them.

aslewofmice• 12 years ago

Any chance it's related to this?

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.

sgy2• 12 years ago

The block is lifted now. Supposedly.

MatthewWilkes• 12 years ago

Works fine for me, Chrome 33.0.1750.152 on OSX

Chrome is blocking wired.com

Related Stories