"Similarly, we only retrieve GET forms and avoid forms that require any kind of user information. For example, we omit any forms that have a password input or that use terms commonly associated with personal information such as logins, userids, contacts, etc. We are also mindful of the impact we can have on web sites and limit ourselves to a very small number of fetches for a given site."
Stuff like login forms, contact forms or forms for user generated content should be using the POST method not GET, so there shouldn't be any concern for web developers who know how to design their sites. If you are using GET in the wrong places, then it is your own fault.
What is the motto of this story, read the actual post/article in detail before overreacting on something posted out of context by a slashdotter. (and yes I'm also guilty of this)
The stuff behind forms are normally of no use to someone doing a search on Google, so how does this fits in with their "Do-No-Evil" motto? What's the use of indexing a confirmation page to a support ticket system?
Is someone going to do a search for:
"A support ticket has been created. Your reference number is.... bla... bla... bla..." Anyway, how do you expect someone to visit a dynamic confirmation page without filling out a form? Is Google going to hack our CAPTCHA scripts and anti-spam measures just to get past our forms?
"Nevertheless, directions like 'nofollow' and 'noindex' are still respected". It's like the stupid CAN SPAM law, spammers are allowed to spam us until we tell them to stop. Google automatically allow themselves the privilege of fiddling with our e-mail forms until we tell them to stop.
...and so-called security experts tells us to throw away our anti-virus software because they are obsolete, imagine what will happen to the Internet if everyone started doing that.
The bottom line is, at least protect your PC against the known threats, we don't want 4-year old worms pumping out spam from every possible machine on the Internet.
This is an old trick used by the spammers. The same thing happened last year with the Super Bowl, the same with the IRS phishing e-mails (some of them e-mailed late after the filing season, some even before the filing season).
You're telling me Google (Postini?) took more than a year to discover this, some of these social engineering attacks (especially the malware e-mails focussed on special events) have been around since 2006 as far as I can recall (refer to the links below).
Apart from the fact that it is an old idea, it is too easy to exploit such a mechanism. Gullible users open any attachment, regardless of flashing red lights and warning boxes, so it won't be too hard to spoof a legitimate worm, just imagine how fast it can spread if people believe that the worm is harmless.
No there are too many ignorant and stupid users out there, so forget about using something like this.
There are more dangers on the Net over which you have no control. The dangers of surfing porn sites is something inflicted on yourself, if you can't control yourself then you will need to face the consequences. But what about the junk thrown in our faces when we browse on sites when it is least expected? What about the disgusting spam e-mails, what about the nasty spyware popping up with nasty pictures all over your screen?
We need stronger laws to keep the sexual maniacs at bay. Sexual maniacs is not people who wait for you to visit their porn sites, that is a sexual maniac visiting a website owned by another sexual maniac. The real sexual maniacs is the people who pollute our mailboxes with porn spam and infect our PC's with porn promoting spyware. If we can get rid of these people we are in a situation where only people who want porn is surfing porn.
Parents need to raise their children better so that they know it is wrong and bad to visit these sites. If they want to use monitoring software or adult content filters, let them do it, but parents need to be open about this, children need to know they are being monitored. On the other hand if you really raise your children well, building trust between each other, there is no need to use software like this. The moment you consider monitoring software or censorware, then you should start working on the trust issues between you and your children.
The bottom line is: Stop arguing about how effective or ethical monitoring software and censorware is and get rid if the psychopaths ruling the Internet with porn and material harmful to children (in fact some material is so bad, not even adults should be allowed to see it). If we don't have to deal with predators like this we won't have to use any of this software in the first place. We keep shifting the boundaries allowing more and more junk to infiltrate our homes.
Let the authorities do their work, it is because of liberal people interfering and complaining all the time that we can't get proper laws implemented and enforced on the perpetrators. No wonder the world is such a crazy place these days.
I could not believe my eyes when I read this ridiculous statement by Microsoft. Do they want to tell us that Microsoft designed these crashes deliberately? The only assumption I can make is that it is a standard function of Word 2007 to crash. It is enough to make you laugh out loud when you read unbelievable, incomprehensible statements like this.
Anti-virus software plays too nice with viruses. It needs to be more aggressive. If viruses don't play by the rules by infiltrating all kinds of places on your system, why can't anti-virus software follow the same route in sever cases. I mean a system plagued by malware can't be damaged any further if your AV goes a bit hard on your system to get rid of the malware.
One thing for instance. There is nothing more annoying than installing an AV package on an infected machine only to find that the malware is disabling the setup program. Then you start into Safe Mode and now the installer doesn't work because it depends on the Windows Installer. Why the hell did you purchase the software in the first place, it is much cheaper to format the hard drive in that case.
I know that making AV software more aggressive can lead to system instability, but I'm not suggesting AV going haywire in your Windows Registry or getting rid of stubborn files by causing bad sectors on your hard drive. I'm simply suggesting that you make AV software so that it can go to the same underground levels on your system than viruses and not bow to the supremacy of some nasty viruses, rootkits and trojans.
The real surprise was that there actually days when the browser was safe. I would like to see what the stats on IE7 will be at the end of 2007
http://www.cybertopcops.com/
More and more people are reporting spam asking why are they receiving the bucket loads of spam all of a sudden, so this is experienced everywhere. http://www.cybertopcops.com/report-spam.php
It has always been suspected from Firefox to outrun IE7 in the anti-phishing department. If IE7 delivered so many false positives at a certain point you can only imagine how many false negatives it delivers. Anti-phishing filters are only for ignorant people and only ignorant people use IE. IE is actually insulting its users with the huge scene they are making with their anti-phishing scanner. It's effectively telling the user: "Don't worry I know you are stupid, so I will protect you against phishing attacks, because I know you can't use common sense, people with common sense never use me"
In Firefox it is a complete different case. You don't even know about the filter working in the background. I bet IE makes browsing slow with their anti-phishing filter.
http://cybertopcops.blogspot.com/2006/10/internet- explorer-7-rc1-flagging-sites.htmlhttp://cybertopcops.blogspot.com/2006/07/smelling- hoax-mile-away-by-using.html
The developers of Firefox focus on high priority bugs, that's why they don't care about xml bugs, especially if it won't jeopardise the security of Firefox. Microsoft doesn't mind any kind of bug whether it is critical or not.
http://www.cybertopcops.com/
While visiting these pOrn sites they infect their PC's with spyware/adware and all kinds of junk, helping the spread of malicious software, putting everyone on their mailing list at risk and indirectly help the distribution of spam which fills our inboxes day after day, eating up valuable bandwidth. (These idiots don't even know they are putting their own online security at risk by visiting these immoral, spyware infested web sites)
http://www.cybertopcops.com/
Slashdot Mirror
As per Google Webmaster Central:
"Similarly, we only retrieve GET forms and avoid forms that require any kind of user information. For example, we omit any forms that have a password input or that use terms commonly associated with personal information such as logins, userids, contacts, etc. We are also mindful of the impact we can have on web sites and limit ourselves to a very small number of fetches for a given site."
Stuff like login forms, contact forms or forms for user generated content should be using the POST method not GET, so there shouldn't be any concern for web developers who know how to design their sites. If you are using GET in the wrong places, then it is your own fault.
What is the motto of this story, read the actual post/article in detail before overreacting on something posted out of context by a slashdotter. (and yes I'm also guilty of this)
The stuff behind forms are normally of no use to someone doing a search on Google, so how does this fits in with their "Do-No-Evil" motto? What's the use of indexing a confirmation page to a support ticket system? Is someone going to do a search for: "A support ticket has been created. Your reference number is .... bla... bla... bla..." Anyway, how do you expect someone to visit a dynamic confirmation page without filling out a form? Is Google going to hack our CAPTCHA scripts and anti-spam measures just to get past our forms?
"Nevertheless, directions like 'nofollow' and 'noindex' are still respected". It's like the stupid CAN SPAM law, spammers are allowed to spam us until we tell them to stop. Google automatically allow themselves the privilege of fiddling with our e-mail forms until we tell them to stop.
...and so-called security experts tells us to throw away our anti-virus software because they are obsolete, imagine what will happen to the Internet if everyone started doing that. The bottom line is, at least protect your PC against the known threats, we don't want 4-year old worms pumping out spam from every possible machine on the Internet.
This is an old trick used by the spammers. The same thing happened last year with the Super Bowl, the same with the IRS phishing e-mails (some of them e-mailed late after the filing season, some even before the filing season).
You're telling me Google (Postini?) took more than a year to discover this, some of these social engineering attacks (especially the malware e-mails focussed on special events) have been around since 2006 as far as I can recall (refer to the links below).
Special Event Malware SpamIRS Phishing Scams
Apart from the fact that it is an old idea, it is too easy to exploit such a mechanism. Gullible users open any attachment, regardless of flashing red lights and warning boxes, so it won't be too hard to spoof a legitimate worm, just imagine how fast it can spread if people believe that the worm is harmless. No there are too many ignorant and stupid users out there, so forget about using something like this.
There are more dangers on the Net over which you have no control. The dangers of surfing porn sites is something inflicted on yourself, if you can't control yourself then you will need to face the consequences. But what about the junk thrown in our faces when we browse on sites when it is least expected? What about the disgusting spam e-mails, what about the nasty spyware popping up with nasty pictures all over your screen?
We need stronger laws to keep the sexual maniacs at bay. Sexual maniacs is not people who wait for you to visit their porn sites, that is a sexual maniac visiting a website owned by another sexual maniac. The real sexual maniacs is the people who pollute our mailboxes with porn spam and infect our PC's with porn promoting spyware. If we can get rid of these people we are in a situation where only people who want porn is surfing porn.
Parents need to raise their children better so that they know it is wrong and bad to visit these sites. If they want to use monitoring software or adult content filters, let them do it, but parents need to be open about this, children need to know they are being monitored. On the other hand if you really raise your children well, building trust between each other, there is no need to use software like this. The moment you consider monitoring software or censorware, then you should start working on the trust issues between you and your children.
The bottom line is: Stop arguing about how effective or ethical monitoring software and censorware is and get rid if the psychopaths ruling the Internet with porn and material harmful to children (in fact some material is so bad, not even adults should be allowed to see it). If we don't have to deal with predators like this we won't have to use any of this software in the first place. We keep shifting the boundaries allowing more and more junk to infiltrate our homes.
Let the authorities do their work, it is because of liberal people interfering and complaining all the time that we can't get proper laws implemented and enforced on the perpetrators. No wonder the world is such a crazy place these days.
Hardcore Porn Is Fuel For Spyware And SpamI could not believe my eyes when I read this ridiculous statement by Microsoft. Do they want to tell us that Microsoft designed these crashes deliberately? The only assumption I can make is that it is a standard function of Word 2007 to crash. It is enough to make you laugh out loud when you read unbelievable, incomprehensible statements like this.
Anti-virus software plays too nice with viruses. It needs to be more aggressive. If viruses don't play by the rules by infiltrating all kinds of places on your system, why can't anti-virus software follow the same route in sever cases. I mean a system plagued by malware can't be damaged any further if your AV goes a bit hard on your system to get rid of the malware. One thing for instance. There is nothing more annoying than installing an AV package on an infected machine only to find that the malware is disabling the setup program. Then you start into Safe Mode and now the installer doesn't work because it depends on the Windows Installer. Why the hell did you purchase the software in the first place, it is much cheaper to format the hard drive in that case. I know that making AV software more aggressive can lead to system instability, but I'm not suggesting AV going haywire in your Windows Registry or getting rid of stubborn files by causing bad sectors on your hard drive. I'm simply suggesting that you make AV software so that it can go to the same underground levels on your system than viruses and not bow to the supremacy of some nasty viruses, rootkits and trojans.
The Internet has become a war zone indeed. What should we call it, Cyber Terrorism? http://www.cybertopcops.com/
The real surprise was that there actually days when the browser was safe. I would like to see what the stats on IE7 will be at the end of 2007 http://www.cybertopcops.com/
More and more people are reporting spam asking why are they receiving the bucket loads of spam all of a sudden, so this is experienced everywhere. http://www.cybertopcops.com/report-spam.php
It has always been suspected from Firefox to outrun IE7 in the anti-phishing department. If IE7 delivered so many false positives at a certain point you can only imagine how many false negatives it delivers. Anti-phishing filters are only for ignorant people and only ignorant people use IE. IE is actually insulting its users with the huge scene they are making with their anti-phishing scanner. It's effectively telling the user: "Don't worry I know you are stupid, so I will protect you against phishing attacks, because I know you can't use common sense, people with common sense never use me" In Firefox it is a complete different case. You don't even know about the filter working in the background. I bet IE makes browsing slow with their anti-phishing filter. http://cybertopcops.blogspot.com/2006/10/internet- explorer-7-rc1-flagging-sites.html
http://cybertopcops.blogspot.com/2006/07/smelling- hoax-mile-away-by-using.html
The developers of Firefox focus on high priority bugs, that's why they don't care about xml bugs, especially if it won't jeopardise the security of Firefox. Microsoft doesn't mind any kind of bug whether it is critical or not. http://www.cybertopcops.com/
While visiting these pOrn sites they infect their PC's with spyware/adware and all kinds of junk, helping the spread of malicious software, putting everyone on their mailing list at risk and indirectly help the distribution of spam which fills our inboxes day after day, eating up valuable bandwidth. (These idiots don't even know they are putting their own online security at risk by visiting these immoral, spyware infested web sites) http://www.cybertopcops.com/