HN user
Not sure what the big advantage of using Dropbox is when you are working with lots of confidential data or stuff that is competitive in nature. Better to host on-premises using FileCloud, OwnCloud etc. I wouldn't want to run a mission critical business relying on Dropbox.
What kind of enterprises use this solution? I would think Dropbox/Google Drive are much more easier to setup and use by employees?
When a dictator comes to power he does so and remains in power because of the support of the people around them. Wrongs are perpetuated and maintained all in the name of 'laws'.
My point is that with an browser (similar to an OS), they cannot take things lightly and flag things left and right based on "heuristics". With great power comes great responsibility.
My point is that if you are going to design a system to identify bad websites it better be fail safe otherwise it is going to cause a lot of hurt.
The message shown in the browser for a phishing warning is the same as when a website has an invalid SSL certificate. The first is vaguely accurate, the latter is 100% accurate and no one is going to argue if the warning is needed. Both show the mind chilling warning no sane user will click through.
I am more interested in removing the phishing filter than in writing a phishing filter.
Anyways, with a 'closed' server component also in the mix, what option is there to provide any implementation.
IMHO, I think that doing things for the 'benefit of most' will lead to eroded freedoms for all over time.
PS: 'Supply a better implementation' is not an answer to writing poor code and hoisting on the world.
It would be nice if the antiphishing filter also gave some good way for web developers to figure out why this happened and what to do to correct this.
Thanks for the really useful tip to look into Chrome's debug log.
First of all we see that this so called phishing detection filter's code is found at http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/src/chrome/renderer/safe_b...
Second, this code and the logic it employs is really bull.
The world wide web is not a kiddie playground especially for a browser, and especially for a plugin whose's job is to detect phishing. The way Chrome's anti-phishing works is to use several foolish measures that mean nothing in the real world and then 'punish' and push websites into oblivion when someone crosses these arbitrary sets of rules.
The way the plugin appears to work is to look at various things * The type of URL (IP vs domainname, number of subdomains, size of the subdomain names, the strings in the Path URL) * Whether the page contains form data * Whether the page contains password input box * Whether the page contains checkboxes/radio boxes * Whether the page text contains some terms (in this case 'connexion') * Whether page has links/images to other domains
and so on.
None of these are ANY indication of phishing behavior and if this set of quackery based logic is what we see from Google Chrome, where else can we go to really feel safe and protected?
Linode has been working very well for our company as we roll out lots of servers all around the globe. We find the service pretty robust. Only wish they increased the bandwidth quota more.