Slashdot Mirror


IE7 Blocking Google Image Search?

An anonymous reader writes, "I just tried a Google Image Search in IE7 for the first time. Whenever I click on an image, my browser tells me in big bold letters, "This is a reported phishing website." Try it yourself: make sure automatic phishing detection is turned on and do an (adorable) image search; click on one of the result thumbnails. MSN Live Image Search has no such issues. Insert Microsoft evil conspiracy theory here." I get this behavior under IE7, Win XP Pro, SP2, Parallels, Mac OS X.

181 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. And your point is? by blanchae · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing to see here move on...

    1. Re:And your point is? by dotgain · · Score: 2
      I tagged this article: 'slashdothelpdesk'.

      I thought I'd seen some pathetic Ask Slashdots, but this is an all-new low.

    2. Re:And your point is? by toopc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Works fine for me in IE7. Turn on Anti-Fisihing, started Google, Image Search "Ferrari". First image opened with no problems.

    3. Re:And your point is? by ejdmoo · · Score: 5, Funny
    4. Re:And your point is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tagged: PEBCAK (Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard)

    5. Re:And your point is? by AusIV · · Score: 1
    6. Re:And your point is? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Anonymous Cowards are a nationality now?

      This is more serious than I thought.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    7. Re:And your point is? by scumdamn · · Score: 1

      Especially since it doesn't happen with Vista RC1. I also tried it on XP and it works fine there too. So maybe some sites are incorrectly set as phishing sites. Big deal.

    8. Re:And your point is? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Funny

      I prefer the acronym "PICNIC" - Problem In Chair, Not In Computer.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:And your point is? by Jesterboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they mostly reside over there, at that (warning; NSFW or your sanity) discussion board thing.

    10. Re:And your point is? by someothername · · Score: 1

      I've always used I/O error - ignorant operator.

      --
      sig, what sig, am I supposed to have a sig? I don't want a sig. I don't need a sig.
    11. Re:And your point is? by toleraen · · Score: 1

      I'm a big fan of "ID 10T" errors.

  2. I would guess... by billyjoeray · · Score: 1

    This is due to the frame stuff it does?

    --
    This sig will make it clear that ANYONE can use this post for ANY purpose WITHOUT the written consent of the NFL.
  3. Strange by mingot · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just tried it. Works fine.

    1. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Same here. I spent hours last night looking for pictures of the adorable Scarlett Johansen, and had no problem doing so. Only problem I had was getting things to come up.

    2. Re:Strange by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Since her name is Scarlet Johansson, whoever you were looking at probably wasn't her.

      "Did I just say that out loud?" (Andrea Corr)

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    3. Re:Strange by shinerweb · · Score: 1

      Nothing strange about it. Some people just know instinctively the wrong buttons to press. The author obviously has it down to a fine art. Works fine for me also.

    4. Re:Strange by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean Scarlett Johansson.

    5. Re:Strange by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      That's what I get for typing the first name instead of cutting and pasting...

      However, two wrongs don't make a right - unless you're George Bush, in which case wrongs to the nth power are permitted by Congress and the question of right never enters the discussion.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  4. I think not by maxrate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seems to work well (properly) for me

    1. Re:I think not by jamesbulman · · Score: 1

      Works for me too.

      I'm running IE 7.0.5744.16384.

      How does this stuff make it too the front page? Did nobody check even the most basic of facts for the story?

    2. Re:I think not by maxrate · · Score: 1

      Agreed - anonymous writer - did anyone check this? It's like SlashDot is just creaming their pants hoping that this is true - Anti MS people!

    3. Re:I think not by Wornstrom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try it yourself: make sure automatic phishing detection is turned on and do an (adorable) image search; click on one of the result thumbnails.
      I wonder how many slashdotters this "AC" will trick into installing IE7...

  5. No problems in Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Just tried the above link in Vista RC 2. I don't get any warnings, but the IE7 in Vista might be an older version.

    Internet Explorer 7 version: 7.0.5744.16384

  6. Can't duplicate by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Vista RC1 and XP Pro SP2. Not able to duplicate. Methinks PEBKAC.

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    1. Re:Can't duplicate by Cally · · Score: 1

      Interesting; over here we call it 'PEBCAM[onitor]'. Or the "10D/0t" problem.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    2. Re:Can't duplicate by monkeydo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or the "10D/0t" problem.

      Indeed.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    3. Re:Can't duplicate by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      I laughed out loud. What an iodlot.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    4. Re:Can't duplicate by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

      Nice. Absolutely hilarious.

    5. Re:Can't duplicate by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Now... I've seen ID-10T error, I can see PEBCAM... but yeah. The Chair and the Keyboard....

      The other one I've used, and when I was at Compaq I actually said it point blank to a customer, was that "the user-interface instruction set has not been properly assimilated."

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    6. Re:Can't duplicate by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least he didn't have a grammatical error in his sig.

      --
      Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
  7. Seems to work fine here... by RootWind · · Score: 1

    I don't see any strange behavior... perhaps the poster has some spyware problem?

    1. Re:Seems to work fine here... by joeybagadonuts · · Score: 1

      Most certainly, unless this is a complete fabrication. One person on the planet sees a problem on their MS system though - good enough for a /. front page!

  8. works by icqboy1987 · · Score: 1

    Works great on IE7, no problem at all.

    1. Re:works by jridley · · Score: 1

      Same here, no problems. A few of those sites are blocked by our company's filters, some were 404, but the rest display fine.
      XP Pro/IE7 final.

  9. No need conspiracy by Tei · · Score: 1

    I have no IE7 myself, but I guest his heuristic is somewhat flawed, and image search is tryiing to cheat the user in some way... that and of course, no one on the IE7 beta testing was searching images on google, thats kind of sad. Poor bastards :D

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  10. No problem here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using IE7 with XP Pro, fully updated. No problem at all.

    Maybe you should ask politely on some IE7 forums before trying to incite a controvery at slashdot? Just a thought.

  11. OMG CUTE by zdzichu · · Score: 4, Funny

    OMG KITTENS!!!!!

    So, basically any page with frames containing other pages is evil now? Thank you, MS.

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:OMG CUTE by bcat24 · · Score: 1
      So, basically any page with frames containing other pages is evil now?
      Umm, now? People have been saying that for a very long time.
  12. Never ascribe to malice that which can be by catbutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    explained by incompetence.

    Its obviously not in their interest to incorrectly block google images. All it will do is make people not trust the phishing stuff, and turn it off. Incomptent maybe, but they aren't stupid enough to think that people would just stop using google images when they get blocked and use msn instead.

    1. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by pegr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice...

    2. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice..."

      On the other hand, caterpillars turn into butterflies...

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by maynard · · Score: 1

      And yet spiders eat butterflies!

      Whoa...

    4. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by rbochan · · Score: 1
      Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice...


      or slashdot editors

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    5. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
      All it will do is make people not trust the phishing stuff, and turn it off.

      I am less than happy about Microsoft monitoring my surfing habits under the guise of phishing prevention. I wonder how long before that information will be used against me by the MPAA or the RIAA, since Microsoft is in bed with those associations already.

    6. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      And I squash spiders! And ants! And pretty much any other creepy crawly that won't take the hint and stays around me for too long...

    7. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      As I always say, government is defined by incompetence AND malice.

      So is Microsoft.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    8. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by jefu · · Score: 1

      Nice!

      That may be something worth submitting to wikiquote.

    9. Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Corollary:
      Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.

      Corollary to the corollary:
      Any malice distinguishable from incompetence is insufficiently advanced.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. The real conspiracy theory by melonman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Guys, can't you see it, this article is a cunning plot by the Evil Empire to produce 3,000 /. posts saying "IE7 is fine"? How devious can you get? Stick to Firefox, and then you'll never get suckered like this!

    --
    Virtually serving coffee
    1. Re:The real conspiracy theory by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      You may be trying to be funny, but happened something like that with a slashdot article on one guy criticizing wga and later saying "oopsie, my fault". And i had anticipated it, too. read comment, story and then... Tinfoil hat working great And look how anti-tinfoil M$ brigade is already modding you down :)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    2. Re:The real conspiracy theory by Shohat · · Score: 1

      Sticking to FireFox stucks your computer .... (quite annoying . I've seen the session recovery window 5 times now)

    3. Re:The real conspiracy theory by Kuvter · · Score: 1

      I thought you were going to say it's a conspiracy to make you download IE7.

      --
      "To be is to do." --Socrates
      "To do is to be." -- Aristotle
      "Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
    4. Re:The real conspiracy theory by blippy · · Score: 1

      can't you see it, this article is a cunning plot by the Evil Empire

      Ah, but that's what the kittens want us to think. Think about it. Whilst everyone is banging on about Microsoft, the kittens are up to stuff that we can't even see. It's the perfect setup.

  14. Your Search by tgpo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps MS is afraid of all felines.

    Lynx,
    Cheetahs,
    Pumas,
    Jaguars,
    Panthers,
    Tigers,
    Leopards

    --
    -tgpo
    1. Re:Your Search by ettlz · · Score: 1

      What, no pussy?

    2. Re:Your Search by tgpo · · Score: 4, Funny
      What, no pussy?
      If you plan on staying at slashdot you should get use to that saying.
      --
      -tgpo
    3. Re:Your Search by ettlz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, given it's in response to an OS X-centric post, that assertion is not necessarily so...

    4. Re:Your Search by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      You forgot 10.6, "American Shorthair."

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
  15. Can anyone reproduce the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did the editors confirm this before accepting the story? Perhaps the submitter's computer has spyware which redirects web requests to another site!

    1. Re:Can anyone reproduce the problem? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      How could they? Surely no /. editor uses Windows.

    2. Re:Can anyone reproduce the problem? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Did the editors confirm this before accepting the story?

      Read the FAQ - the editors do no fact-checking on stories at all. They're more concerned with getting the stories posted as quickly as possible (even when they're months old...)

    3. Re:Can anyone reproduce the problem? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      They're more concerned with getting the stories posted as quickly as possible (even when they're months old...)


      And even when they've already been posted recently. :-p
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  16. Mmm by Lullabye_Muse · · Score: 1

    O Lawd Was Dat Sum Massive Dud

    1. Re:Mmm by Lullabye_Muse · · Score: 1

      I tested it, have ie7, xp sp 2 home and have anti phishing turned on, worked fine.

  17. PEBKAC by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair for those that haven't see the acronym. I have XP SP2 here and IE7 is in a basically default state since I use FF. Tried GIS and explicitly asked it to check and it reports "this is not a phishing webstie". It says that both for the main GIS page and after I did an actual search.

    Remember folks: FUD, it's not just from MS anymore!

    Seriously I wish people would stop with the crap but I really wish /. would not post things like this without verification.

    1. Re:PEBKAC by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      The prevailing attitude seems to be "FUD's alright if we're the ones spewing it"; that is, it's OK if it's in the name of the cause

      Personally I think it's rubbish, and that maybe nobody should spew FUD, but, hey...

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    2. Re:PEBKAC by jesboat · · Score: 1

      The problem (according to the story) isn't with the GIS homepage or the results page, it's when you click on one of the thumbnails. So your experiences, as posted, do not, in fact, contradict the story. So, maybe you should try verifying it again.

      And speaking of verification, kdawson supposedly did reproduce the behavior, and the story (if you read it carefully) never asserts that this happens to everyone, just to the author and kdawson. Note especially the question mark in the title?

    3. Re:PEBKAC by theendlessnow · · Score: 1
      Seriously I wish people would stop with the crap but I really wish /. would not post things like this without verification.


      Agreed. We have digg for posts like this! Well... for that and describing how to make rounded corners in CSS.
    4. Re:PEBKAC by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Does PEBKAC include you not reading the description of the problem? He wasn't talking about the main page, or the search page. He was talking about the two-frame page you get after clicking on a single search result, the one with the image and 'see see full size' link at the top, and the source page at the bottom.

    5. Re:PEBKAC by caluml · · Score: 1

      PEBCAK looks like Russian to me. Like COBNET, or something. What is REVSAK, anyway?

  18. Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by baadger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...the URL and query string and hence everything you are Googling for being passed to Microsoft's servers. Think of all those Google searches (and the following immediate clicks) Microsoft could extrapolate and use to improve their own search engine...

    1. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by stevied · · Score: 1

      Actually, IE7 apparently strips the query string, which is more than FF2 does in enhanced mode. Still, I'm stuck on Win2K, so I have no choice over which to use ..

    2. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by DavidD_CA · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. According to MSDN, only URLs that are not common are sent to the Microsoft server for verification. This list of not-common URLs sit on your machine, and even then only the base of the URL is sent to Microsoft for analysis.

      Here's the blurb from MSDN:

      Phishing Filter does not check every URL on the Microsoft server. It only sends those which are not on a known list of OK sites or those that appear suspicious based on heuristics. If an URL is checked on the Microsoft server, first the URL is stripped down to the path to help remove personal information, then the remaining URL is sent over a secure SSL connection. The communication with the Microsoft server is done asynchronously so that there is little to no effect on your browsing experience.

      So, for example, if you were to visit http://www.msn.com/ nothing will be checked on the Microsoft server because "msn.com" and other major websites are on the client-side list of OK sites. However, let's say the URL looked like this: http://207.68.172.246/result.aspx?u=Tariq&p=Tariq' sPassword, in this scenario phishing filter will remove the query string to help protect my privacy but it will send "http://207.68.172.246/result.aspx" to be checked by the Microsoft Server because 207.68.172.246 is not on the allow list of OK sites. As it turns out, 207.68.172.246 is just the IP address of MSN.com server, so its not a phishing site but this example should help you understand more about how Phishing Filter checks sites on the server.

      But thanks for spreading the FUD.

      --
      -David
    3. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How long until someone spreads a worm which adds pishing websites to the whitelist?

    4. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Of course that's no disproof of the conspiracy, as long as neither the list of good sites, nor the heuristics is published. After all, the heuristics could contain "if it starts with http://www.google./ it's suspicious." (This could be justified by the fact that you might view a phishing site through Google cache).

      But like every good conspiracy theory, it could be immunized even against publishing of this information: Who knows if the published algorithm really matches the one implemented in IE7? After all, you can't look it up in the source.

      Of course it's actually quite easy to find out the truth: Just check if IE7 connects to MS when surfing Google.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by dhach · · Score: 1

      Nope. Look at "What information is sent to Microsoft for checking a website" at among other posts at the IE Blog about user privacy.

    6. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by hyfe · · Score: 1
      But thanks for spreading the FUD.
      No, it's still scary as hell.

      They can track every non-main stream website you go to. Which is, you know, probably EXACTLY WHAT THEY* WANT. This is just pre-filtering and data-massaging built into the computer being spied upon. Sounds really convinient really.

      * CIA, NSA, FBI or whoever.

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
    7. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by Golthur · · Score: 1

      Bingo. I'd mod you up if I had points.

      --
      Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
    8. Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

      For the paranoid, just turn the option off.

      For the extra paranoid, monitor the IP packets and see exactly what they are tracing.

      --
      -David
  19. Upon further investigation by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    (I know I know, replying to your own posts is bad form) my bet is that Google returned an image that was on a suspected phishing site. When you click on an image, Google actually sends you to that site. Thus if it's a phishing site, well that'd set IE7 off. That would be the browser operating as it should, so I still stand by my original diagnosis. The user is the problem, they fail to understand how the Internet works and ascribe it to MS conspiracy.

  20. Maybe Bill Fears Kittens? by TheCrayfish · · Score: 1

    I mean, after all, he may have been permanently traumatized by the Bonsai Kitten hoax.

  21. What does NOT work fine... by JAB+Creations · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't believe this was posted without a screenshot! Sheesh! What does NOT work fine and IS worthy of Slashdot is the fact that most MS apps open websites up in IE regardless of the fact that Firefox is my default browser.

  22. IEs not done Till Google won't run. by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Someone had to say it.

  23. Works fine by jam244 · · Score: 1

    STFU RTFM

    1. Re:Works fine by mikiN · · Score: 1

      FWIW FLAS*
      YMMV

      * Four Letter Acronyms Suck

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  24. That isn't real, but this is... by techmuse · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    After reading this article, I used IE7 to go to a website that wanted to install the Flash 9 ActiveX control (actually, I went to several) and then got tired of it asking me to install one when I didn't want to every time I hit certain web pages, so I looked in help to see how to turn it off. Now here's the confusing part:

    Apparently, to disable information bar prompting, you have to *enable* automatic prompting for several different types of prompts in the security settings property sheet. I tried one, and indeed, I was no longer prompted. But why do you *enable* automatic prompting to *disable* prompts from the information bar? This option doesn't *appear* (so far) to actually enable another form of prompting (and if it did, it would be really annoying - you should just be able to say no once and never be bothered again. Sites shouldn't harass you into installing plug-ins you don't want.

    The design of IE has never made much sense to me.

    1. Re:That isn't real, but this is... by prockcore · · Score: 1
      I looked in help to see how to turn it off.


      Anyone know how to turn it off on firefox? I'm running firefox on ppc linux.. so I'm constantly getting harrassed about flash missing. Make it stop!
    2. Re:That isn't real, but this is... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Use the Flashblock plugin and then don't bother to install the flash plugin - works for me!

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:That isn't real, but this is... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you're saying you just don't want to run Flash, since otherwise you REALLY don't want to be using an outdated version of the player (security issues). Best solution I've found: Install Flash player, then disable it. You can disable it (IE-wide global switch) using the Add-In Manager (you can reach this from the Tools comand bar icon, or by double clicking a spot on the Status bar - I think there's s tooltip that appears when your mouse is over the Add-In Manager) and flash will then just not load. You shouldn't get any prompts at all, except perhaps the first time, and I'm pretty sure you can set that to never appear again. It's not quite as good as Flashblock because you can't block specific sites while allowing others - global switching only - but it works well, and can be enabled/disabled in about 3 clicks.

      Some truly wonderful sites, like Pandora.com, are awfully boring without Flash. Yes, there is a justification for its existence. You really don't want to run an outdated version, though.

      Somewhat OT, but useful info for those running IE7.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  25. Editors on crack? by DeusExMalex · · Score: 1

    I don't know what TFA is talking about - it works fine for me.

  26. Slow news day... by kiwioddBall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a slow news day isn't it? Still, kitten searches are all good.

    Look, somebody probably reported the Google Images header as a phishing website. Microsoft have probably since removed it from their phishing database. I'm sure they're refining the phishing technology so that websites require multiple reports before they enter the phishing database as we speak.

    But you kiddies can release all the conspiracy stories you want.

    1. Re:Slow news day... by arth1 · · Score: 1
      This is a slow news day isn't it? Still, kitten searches are all good.

      Like this http://images.google.com/images?q=wet+pussy, you mean?
  27. cute little kittens by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    Big deal. Just another opportunity to bash Microsoft with no evidence or clue.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:cute little kittens by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's an unique opportunity to bash microsoft without the usual microsoft-supplied evidence.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  28. disproved, at least on my box by Saeris · · Score: 1

    just tried this under IE7, XP MCE, Phising Filter turned On. No such problem encountered for multiple image searches. couldn't duplicate the problem

  29. Gray Cake... by Joebert · · Score: 1

    Methinks the Microsoft Marketing Department is getting crafty.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  30. Slashdot special by doktorstop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A good example when someone who has found anything in IE7 gets a headlight... even without checking. Either due to frames or not replicable by anyone but the author.. still.. OMG... its an IE7 error.. so it's got to be posted! Talk about conspiracy theries

    --
    http://www.automatiq.se
    1. Re:Slashdot special by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      You people are implying /. editors don't try a simple google search before top-posting the story. COME ON EDITORS! TELL THE WORLD YOU DID CHEck... what? nevermind.... Seriously, the phishing report is built in or depends on connecting to mother m$? in the second case you're just making assumptions. You anti-anti-microsoft zealots.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    2. Re:Slashdot special by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      Talk about conspiracy theries
      While we are all talking about them, perhaps you could learn how to spell conspiracy theories?
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  31. Right Taco, NOW by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know all the users with IE7, you can block their IP's at will ;)

    I mean, it takes 39 people to say the same thing, thankfully I can't test it.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  32. No problem here by helmutvs · · Score: 1

    I'm running IE7 (not a beta or RC) on XP Pro SP2 and have no problems at all.

    --
    There are no uninteresting things. There are only uninterested people.
  33. Possibility? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that you went to click on an image, but instead of sending you an image, it sent you re-directed HTML? You can all point and laugh at me for admitting this if you like, but this often happens to me with porn searches. You get this really nice thumbnail that claims to be a good res, then ya click on it, and instead of being met with a nice high-res image you're met with a web page saying "Gimme a credit card number!" Is it possible that IE7 has protection against this? Is this considered an exploit or a form of phishing?

    Has anybody tested porn image searching with IE7? (Ha!)

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Possibility? by mikiN · · Score: 1

      To add my spoonful to the word soup brewing in this thread: no, it's not an exploit and it's not phishing, except perhaps in the moral sense. What this site is probably doing is called cloaking, which means that Web sites return different content depending on whether they detect a search engine indexing the site or a visit by a regular user. It used to be (and maybe still is) somewhat popular among webmasters trying to improve their sites' ranking in search results.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  34. Works here by IanBevan · · Score: 1

    XP SP2. No problems. *yawn*

  35. Well, maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... maybe it really WAS a phishing website that he thought was The Google. Maybe, just maybe IE7 actually protected him in his search for adorable pussies.

  36. wtf by Bizzeh · · Score: 1

    i have the phishing filter on, ie7 installed, xpsp2, i ran that search, and many others... i get the images as anyone should.
    i think this is just some blind bashing to try and get on slashdot.

  37. cannot be reproduced by icepick72 · · Score: 1
    I cannot duplicate the problem either. Before creating a Microsoft conspiracy, please try for yourself. If anyone can reproduce, post a link and let others try it.

    How the hell does this stuff make it onto Slashdot.

    1. Re:cannot be reproduced by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The Slashdot editors only browse the web using an early version of Mozilla running on their Dreamcasts which run NetBSD. So they've got no way to verify such things.

  38. No problems by LinuxIsRetarded · · Score: 1

    It works fine for me with XP Pro SP2 (fully patched) with IE7 with the phishing filter turned on. I even tried invoking the phishing filter explicitly and also had no problems.

  39. Users should understand how Internet works?! by Frobnicator · · Score: 1
    The user is the problem, they fail to understand how the Internet works and ascribe it to MS conspiracy.
    Great.

    Now everybody needs to educate grandma not only what phishing is, but also how innocent material can be blocked by an association with phishing sites.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    1. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by dvNull · · Score: 1

      So if someone puts up a phishing site with pictures of cute little kittens and puppies on it, then that is innocent material ?

    2. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Funny

      kittens and puppies are *never* innocent. They're responsible for more than you know... if we drop our guard then they'll enslave the world.

    3. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by matrixhax0r · · Score: 1

      Zomg! This was rated 3 INSIGHTFUL???

      --
      If it's no on fire, it's a hardware problem.
    4. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      No no no, it's ducks you mean. http://www.asofterworld.com/soft_aug5_2005.htm is proof!

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    5. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by l0cust · · Score: 1

      maybe because kittens and puppies ARE sneaky creatures planning to take over the world, and only slashdot moderators know about this global conspiracy ?! Considering what fud of a topic this is, we should put /. editors and moderators in a tinfoil hut on a remote island, and nuke them from orbit just to be sure.

      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
    6. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by macurmudgeon · · Score: 1

      Yes, and we'll have so much more fun!!!!

    7. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by J44xm · · Score: 1

      I strongly suspect that it would then be incumbent upon us to welcome our new canine and/or feline overlords.

    8. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by mikiN · · Score: 1

      I always thought that it was the mice. Didn't they commission the construction of the Earth in order to perform some massive computation task?

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    9. Re:Users should understand how Internet works?! by l0cust · · Score: 1

      yeah sneaky bastards. I always hated them white micesss. Wait, so we do lab testing on white mice and they are doing some sort of complex galactical experiments on us.. so.. its like..the observer becomes the subject..becomes the observer..becomes... *head explodes*

      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
  40. The editors should at least check... by amontiel · · Score: 1

    for the accuracy of the stories submitted to Slashdot. It is this kind of careless posting what has kept me from subscribing.

  41. The OP's real search... by AmIAnAi · · Score: 1

    Ah! But the OP's original search was for fluffy kitten porn, which linked him to a phishing site.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
  42. Well I tried it, and it works fine... by HeliXx · · Score: 1

    ...Sure, I'm on Firefox, but it works on that. I just came for the kittens.

    --
    HeliXx - Now with extra Ooo.
  43. Re:Works great here by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As usual, this story is posted by our good friend kdawson, the editor who thought the Enlightenment icon was a state of being.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  44. Can't duplicate by AsmordeanX · · Score: 1

    IE7, native XP SP2

  45. Re:This pretty much sums up how I feel about FireF by noamsml · · Score: 1

    What extension do you use? FasterFox, certain greasemonkey scripts, and others have been known to have memory leaks.

  46. Adorable by GTMoogle · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long it took him to find another word that was also blocked and ended up with 'adorable'.

    "Surely these pr0n sites couldn't really be phising! Let's try some other words!"

    Heh.

  47. Fixed already? by Rosyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember, the phishing filter that IE uses is "live". If a new site becomes a phishing site, MS can address it on their servers immediately. If a site is mislabeled, MS can fix that immediately. There's no definitions being downloaded, it's all server side.

    1. Re:Fixed already? by egypt_jimbob · · Score: 1

      The only way for that to work would be if IE sends the url of every single page you visit back to the mother ship.

      Does any one else see a problem with this?

      --
      I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
  48. do not worry by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    It is all FUD. Some of the images of "adorable kittens" were from phishing sites (BTW, now all my personal info is fished out, since I your search in Firefox), and Microsoft took good care of you.

    The alternative explanation would be that Microsoft is unscrupulous software monopoly that could not compete honestly for a single day of its stinking existence, but, hay, that would be totally untrue, right?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:do not worry by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Try not to overhit your CPU, man. Take it easy. Aspirin can help your fever. Peace.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  49. More evil conspiracy. by dannycim · · Score: 1

    If what you guys say is true and anti-phishing measures in IE are verified by MS's servers then it means that for every link you click MS could be tracking you.

    I wouldn't put it past them. Couldn't care less, I'm running moz.

    1. Re:More evil conspiracy. by smash · · Score: 1
      Well duh.

      This is why when it asks you if you want anti-phishing support turned on, you say no, only when requested :D

      Whether or not microsoft use the data they could potentially be collecting is one thing, but providing this service without you sending data to their servers (in the form of a query, from your IP address), is impossible.

      One could argue that all of the cddb databases out there are tracking your music listening habits, but no one seems to be up in arms about that :D

      I'm no ms-fanboy, but seriously...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  50. Just turn off phishing search. by Axe · · Score: 1

    It has nothing to do with Google. What a retarded story.

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
  51. Re:Adorable Kittens by ettlz · · Score: 1
  52. Maybe its the Paralells VM ?????????? by AgNO3 · · Score: 1

    LOL maybe its paralells VM and Not IE> D'Oh He is running IE 7 in Paralells on a Mac. hmm

    --
    OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
  53. which user is warned about by saikou · · Score: 1

    With a big fat dialog, that says "This URL will be sent to Microsoft". With option to cancel. With no mandatory option to check all URLs (unless you say that you want to). In other words, yeah, if you say "Do that automatically" it will do exactly what you asked it to. Duh

    1. Re:which user is warned about by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      With a big fat dialog, that says "This URL will be sent to Microsoft". With option to cancel. With no mandatory option to check all URLs (unless you say that you want to). In other words, yeah, if you say "Do that automatically" it will do exactly what you asked it to. Duh
      And what percentage of the computer using population has no idea what is meant by the warning? But if it is getting sent to M$ it must be OK. M$ could warn "by clicking on this you authorize Microsoft to enable you to take advantage of the wonderful benefits of DRM". Great. The user just thanked M$ for screwing them without so much as a kiss as foreplay ... but it is OK, because the user has been "warned", right?
      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  54. Why are you using phishing filter? by insomniac8400 · · Score: 1

    Disable it, problem solved.

  55. Works fine in Safari? by bealzabobs_youruncle · · Score: 1

    Why would you purposely use IE anyway?

  56. Yet Again by xximjasonxx · · Score: 1

    This only proves why I dont read Slashdot. Not only does the statement not hold any value, it was clearly not tested by the moderator or any person commenting in favor of it. This just further makes my case that Slashdot is simply biased, why else wouldnt we have heard anything about the zero day FireFox flaw

  57. how??? by pdschmid · · Score: 1

    How did a non-verifiable, non-reproducible post with such a huge accusation make it onto slashdot? Especially as an anonymous posting? Such an accusation wouldn't even survive a few minutes in any newsgroup, but it makes it onto slashdot without anyone actually trying this? I'd really like to know which interesting, truthful, non-FUD story didn't make it onto slashdot because of this bs posting?

  58. The Slashdot Story Fast-Track System by AnalogBoy · · Score: 1

    1) Post unsubstantiated story regarding any Microsoft product malfunctioning.
    2) Slashdot engine automatically posts
    3) you know the rest.

    I've been reading slashdot for so very long now, it's almost like an addiction, but i think it's finally time i erased my bookmark.

    I have to admit though i'm pleased that, at the current time, the kneejerk reaction so typical of the slashdot community hasn't fired yet.

    It's not 1998 anymore. Microsoft software isn't perfect, but neither is anything else created by human hands.

    Bye, community. It's been.. well, i'm not sure how to properly describe it.

  59. use the fox to search for cats by Luxifer · · Score: 1

    Fear not, if it's cat pix you need, I have the cure. http://catsinsinks.com/ And just stick to FireFox and we won't worry about IE7. Besides, you don't want Microsoft to know about our cat fetish... ... it seems I've already said too much.

  60. The editor DID check this by linuxci · · Score: 1
    Believe it or not the editor probably did check this. If you notice the bit "I get this behavior under IE7, Win XP Pro, SP2, Parallels, Mac OS X." is outside of the quote of the submitter this implies the editor did check and seen the same results.


    As for why it doesn't work now, that's obvious, as soon as the mistake was spotted Microsoft would have fixed it. They'd have got sued by Google if they were incorrectly labelled as a phishing site and it turned out MS weren't going to rectify this.


    I'm sure we'll see the occaisional embarassing moment in both IE7 and Firefox with these new features.


    So, this article was pointless, but it does appear the editor did check!

  61. Works on Vista Ultimate RC2 Build 5744, IE 7.0 by theborg1of4 · · Score: 1

    I also recall doing Google searches when I first started running Vista a couple of months ago. Even the Google Toolbar works. Don't know if it's FUD or PEBCAK or a legitimate glitch with the original poster.

    1. Re:Works on Vista Ultimate RC2 Build 5744, IE 7.0 by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Well, either the poster is just SOL or it was just a little SNAFU. Anyway, tracking down some problems can be a major PITA. Also, a major release means a lot of work and MSFT isn't just working on a new browser but also have to put a new OS on the market and bugs don't magically fix themselves. TANSTAAFL. Maybe Google will see reason to sue over this, but IANAL. Maybe the poster could try other browsers, but all have their pro's and cons. YMMV.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
  62. Stop w/ the conspiracy stuff... by Pfa3d0 · · Score: 1

    ...the conspiracy theory stuff about MS is so 20th century. Get with the times.

  63. What are you searching for pictures of? by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    I searched on pictures of rabbits (no reason - a random word) and got pictures of little bunnies. Perhaps you were searching for something more adult...

    As other people here were saying, perhaps you hit on a site(s) that MS had just had reported as a suspect site. Alternatively, perhaps MS had a fault on a server somewhere. That last one may seem like a long shot. I mean, everyone here can attest to their reliability!

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  64. Re:NICOLE BRAZZLE'S TITS ARE FLOPPING EVERYWHERE!! by Rich+Klein · · Score: 1

    They really are! And IE7 isn't worried about her flopping tits doing any phishing! No problems with adorable kittens, either. Was the OP Steve Jobs?

    --
    -Rich
  65. Umm....... by ZMech13 · · Score: 1

    IE 7 isn't available for Mac OS X.

    1. Re:Umm....... by taybin · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. Wtf?

    2. Re:Umm....... by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      He told you, albeit awkwardly, that he is running IE7 in Windows, which is running inside of the application Parallels, which is running on OS X.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  66. I can't duplicate this by Bryan+Bytehead · · Score: 1

    I ran IE 7 under Windows 2003 Server Standard, did a Google image search for kitten, and clicked away.

    No phishing here nor was it flagged as such.

    --
    Bryan
  67. OMG!! by quakeroatz · · Score: 1

    Not only did they fux0r google image search, when I hit Alt-F4 in Firefox it closes the window!
    I tried in all of my open source apps, same thing! Alt-F4 closes them!!!!! Damn u M$!!!!!

    OMG OMG OMG!!!! :P

  68. Don't see it by tigerhawkvok · · Score: 1

    Running IE7 on WinVista build 5744, and I don't get any phishing error messages...

    --
    Blog
  69. Someone doesn't have a klew by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
    I get this behavior under IE7, Win XP Pro, SP2, Parallels, Mac OS X.
    I'm impressed! I couldn't get SP2 or IE7 to boot no matter what options I passed to them through Lilo!
    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  70. Hmm.... by Jon.Laslow · · Score: 1

    Submitter has a bad case of EEOC (Equipment Exceeds Operators Capabilities).

  71. Re:Note especially the question mark in the title? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

    It's the FOX question mark, as explained by Jon Stewart a few weeks ago. As in, "Hillary Clinton Photographed Sacrificing Babies to Satan?" or "Your Mother's a Whore?" (Seriously, they do it a lot. Mr. Stewart speculated, quite possibly correctly, that the question mark is a cover-your-ass manuver. Actually, not just FOX, but they do appear to be the masters of it.)

  72. obviously by AI0867 · · Score: 1

    this is a microsoft conspiracy to get more people to download IE7!

  73. Only on certain google urls by allio · · Score: 1

    Something like images.google.com.au will set it off, because putting the full name of a website before an unrelated hostname is a common phishing tactic. images.google.com will be fine. This isn't a Microsoft conspiracy, it's just sloppy coding.

  74. ...honest to goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I've turned down better looking girls when I was falling down drunk. I mean, she's okay, but would anybody really pay to see a girl with a body and face that are at best average (and I'm being kind).

    Maybe she has a great personality?

    1. Re:...honest to goodness... by swb · · Score: 1

      No, it's probably her averageness that's considered part of her appeal. Most men see and find themselves attracted to and in some cases, infatuated with, the ordinary looking women around them. An ordinary girl doing porn simply takes those fantasies closer to full circle.

      I think this has something to do with the rise of so-called "amateur" porn as well, and ironically is somewhat feminist since it tends to ignore the cultural standards of beauty so many feminists complain about.

  75. Saw that yesterday for the first time ever... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    ...been using it at work to find images on occasion for a looooong time now and never had this happen.

    Probably related to multiple phishing links being promulgated by links from Google. Something they'll surely look to fix as this will happen with MSN and other sites as they get more usage (Google's always the big one.)

    --
    Loading...
  76. Firefox 2.0... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    I posted a story a week ago about Firefox 2.0 reporting its own default start-up page as a phishing operation. And did they take it? No!

    Sometimes I think /. has a glaring anti-Firefox agenda.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    1. Re:Firefox 2.0... by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      "Sometimes I think /. has a glaring anti-Firefox agenda."

      If this were true wouldn't they actually post a negative story about Firefox instead of NOT posting it?

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  77. Conspiracy Theory #2 by pyrbrand · · Score: 1

    Microsoft PM #1: So, anyone got any ideas how do we get slashdot users to install IE7? Microsoft PM #2: Especially when they're so eager to prove that something's wrong with it Microsoft PM #1: That gives me an idea... Seriously, how many of you installed IE7 just to repro this report?

  78. Reminds me... by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of when some other such database (which, as it turns out, powered our corporate firewall) flagged a big chunk of MS's website as drug-related IIRC.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  79. So true! by deesine · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've watched the phenomena happen live. Like many of us, I've tutored beginning and novice users on specific apps and general OS tasks. Maybe it's just the run of numbers, but some people, in spite of my instructions, will want to click on the button that gets them the furthest from their goal.

    I've also witnessed something a little more, well, let's just say metaphysical. A couple people I know seem to make computers crash or operate unpredictably. Anywhere from full-on crashes (on say, my computer that never/mostly never crashes) to problems that instantly go away when someone other than they are using the machine. Weird.

    --
    damaged by dogma
    1. Re:So true! by shinerweb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not wrong there...

      I've been called out at 4am in the morning because an important machine had lost all of its passwords and wouldn't allow anybody to access it causing a delay costing 10's of 1000's of $ for each hour it was down.

      I travelled 15miles to go in and press the caps lock button.

      That was some hourly rate I got paid that night....

  80. Adorable kittens, without so many god damn cats by Alsee · · Score: 1
    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  81. True by rbarreira · · Score: 1
    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  82. Even more... by rbarreira · · Score: 1
    Just check if IE7 connects to MS when surfing Google.

    Yes, but make sure to check at the router level - who knows if IE7 patches the OS so that you can't find out if it's connecting to the phishing filtering server.

    Better yet, check at the molecular level, you never know if MS might have a partnership with all the router manufacturers...
    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    1. Re:Even more... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      Better yet, check at the molecular level, you never know if MS might have a partnership with all the router manufacturers...

      But if MS has a partnership with the devil, even molecular level might not be enough!
      And note that there's evidence for such a partnership: The "monkey dance". After all, you don't make a dance to get normal developers. Those ceremonies are only used for the devil and his demons. I'm sure that if you examine it further, he actually shouted "Devilopers! Devilopers! Devilopers!"
      </conspiracy-theory>
      SCNR :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  83. Well... by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

    I was going to try it, but the poster obviously has the only copy of IE7 for Mac OSX that was ever released...

  84. Google is evil by itchi · · Score: 1

    I didn't have any problems at all viewing the page and the thumbnails. That's a shame though. Google websites & projects should be consider as phising sites and they should be blocked. Google started by only recording your web searches, now they can access your email, your IM conversations even your local files if you use they dodgy indexing service.

    1. Re:Google is evil by Krojack · · Score: 1
      Google started by only recording your web searches
      This can be turned off.

      now they can access your email
      Any ISP has access to its customers email messages.. Hope you didn't forget this.

      your IM conversations
      If I remember correctly, its AIM that changed its AUP to say that anything you send over its AIM service they have explicit rights to, meaning they can use your chat message anyway they please without asking. As for the other IM clients, I'm sure they can save everything you send though them as well. At least Google is letting you know they can do and do it IF you have the logging enabled. I do because I like going to my gmail account and searching my chat logs if i ever need to, and I have in the past.

      even your local files if you use they dodgy indexing service
      Got some proof? Please share with us.

    2. Re:Google is evil by itchi · · Score: 1

      "Google will securely transmit copies of your indexed files to Google servers, in order to provide the feature. Google treats the contents of your indexed files as personal information, in accordance with the Google Privacy Policy." http://desktop.google.com/en/GB/privacypolicy.html

  85. Working as intended? by FrostyCoolSlug · · Score: 1

    My guess is, someone pulled open a phishing site whilst browsing google images, and IE somehow managed to block the address in the address bar, as opposed to the address of the evil frame, thus leaving image drop-in urls all marked as 'phishing'. My guess is someone at MS saw this (be it this specific post, or someone else mentioned it), and rectified the issue.

  86. Re:I got your Francophile right here.... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Whereas we have a President who is getting his ass handed to him and who hears voices telling him to "smite Saddam".

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  87. uh by ipooptoomuch · · Score: 1

    This is just another postulate to my theorem. My theorem is: Microsoft=Evil. Get me some more postulates and I can prove it even more :)