On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 22:49 -0600, Sean Burns wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 05:55:30PM -0600, Theresa Kehoe wrote: > > > > http://digg.com/security/Why_is_Google_Running_Ads_for_Known_Malware_Sites > > > > Go, Google!! > > The criticism is unfair. I agree with these three posters on the > digg site:
Did you read the article as well as the digg comments? In particular, this paragraph: <paste> And there’s reason to believe that Google knows the site hosts malware. We know that Google purges so-called “attack sites” from its index, and when we searched for “site: antivirus-world-2009.com,” which ought to turn up all pages at that domain indexed by Google, we got zero results. This isn’t conclusive, of course; there are other reasons that a site might not be indexed by Google, but it is suspicious. Malware-hosting sites are generally designed to try to climb to the top of the Google results page, and it’s probably safe to assume that a site that advertises with Google would be search-savvy enough to get its page indexed, if it weren’t blacklisted. </paste> So, a search for "antivirus-world-2009.com" comes back with a "did not match any documents", yet the advert is still on their front page, right on top. They do seem to be quick about removing such ads, and they are far from being the only company who gets malware ads served up on their sites. I don't know what the answer is. But, if they make sure they don't serve you up a baddie if you do a Google search, then why can't they do those same checks on the ads? Theresa --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) Main page: http://www.cwelug.org To post: [email protected] To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
