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."
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?
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.
Actually the issue was that I was using Google's DNS. When I disabled that, it worked just fine. But thanks for showing me the Chrome trick.
As to the technically correct statement, don't you think that saying a site is a "known malware distributor" is a bit more sweeping than saying something more accurate like "we discovered malware on this site"?
In other words, they are using the same language I would expect to see directed towards sites that have malicious intent and should never be visited.
How should they word when the site is known to distribute malware? There is no difference between discovery and distribution, if you consider the method of discovery.
-------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most(?) browser vulnerabilities are caused by errors in C++ code which would not be exploitable in memory safe languages. One of the goals of Mozilla's Servo is to write a browser that's memory safe without compromising performance.
I think Servo's "safety" is ultimately due to the fact that it's built on Rust. Rust, however, seems to be ultimately built on C, unless I'm mistaken (having a hard time telling by briefly glancing through their Github, but it looks that way).
My point was that it's not a C specific problem, though. Most browsers are in fact built on C, I agree. This is due primarily to the speed and performance of the language that is harder to reach with other languages.
It is definitely a more difficult language to write, as it is much more "raw," but that doesn't make it inherently unsafe to use, or any more unsafe than other languages.
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.
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.
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.
97 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadThe 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.
ps: Mozilla Firefox 31.0a1 is ok with wired.com
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-m...
So it makes sense the error would show up both places.
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.
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.
It's still blocked for me, with Google branding wired.com as "a known malware distributor."
Try:
chrome://net-internals/#dns Click "Clear host cache"
As to the technically correct statement, don't you think that saying a site is a "known malware distributor" is a bit more sweeping than saying something more accurate like "we discovered malware on this site"?
In other words, they are using the same language I would expect to see directed towards sites that have malicious intent and should never be visited.
------- 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?
Is this typically through Java Applets/other plugins?
There are in number of ways for nasty things to happen just by visiting a page.
specially crafted jpgs and gifs have also been used to exploit overflows in image handling code.
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.
My point was that it's not a C specific problem, though. Most browsers are in fact built on C, I agree. This is due primarily to the speed and performance of the language that is harder to reach with other languages.
It is definitely a more difficult language to write, as it is much more "raw," but that doesn't make it inherently unsafe to use, or any more unsafe than other languages.
If you vote because you think C is unsafe, carry on. You're wrong, though.
And it's not a "potentially" thing, as is apparent to anyone following news about browser vulnerabilities. For a recent public performance, see pwn2own - http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/03/14/pwn2own-day-two-c...
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?
What happened when Google visited this site? Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware? Has this site hosted malware? How did this happen? Next steps:Screenshot: http://cl.ly/image/1m3g3L2v3w3C