Update: Google has now cleared DansDeals from the malware warning.
If you’ve visited DansDeals from a Chrome desktop browser on Sunday evening, you probably got this message:
Sounds pretty scary, right?
Except it’s not.
An advertiser’s site was hacked and since we had a link to that advertiser, Google decided to flag DansDeals as well. This despite the fact that there is zero malware on DansDeals itself.
Chrome blocked all traffic to the advertiser, so I have no idea why it also had to block traffic to DansDeals.
Nor do I understand why it blocked direct Chrome desktop traffic and not direct Chrome mobile traffic. All search engine traffic to DansDeals was blocked.
Google’s warning is an outright lie and seems defamatory to me.
They admit as much on their Safe Browsing Site Status site that DansDeals doesn’t contain malware, but it might send you to a site that does (if you clicked on the link when it was sending traffic to an advertiser who got hacked).
I removed the link to the advertiser, but Google says they need up to 72 hours to review a site and take it off the blacklist. It’s ludicrous that Google can nearly wipe a website off the internet due to having a link to another site that was hacked, and give itself up to 3 days to restore service.
With Google and Google Chrome being the most popular search engine and browser on the internet, they have an incredible amount of power over where people can visit. Even if you know that there is zero malware on DansDeals, you would have to repeatedly click on “Details” on the red page and then on “visit the unsafe site” to get there.
Or you can use a browser like Firefox or Microsoft Edge/Internet Explorer to bypass Google.
It’s yet another reminder of what happens when we rely on one company too much.
Back in 2007 Google hosted this blog and decided to delete it without warning when they thought it was a SPAM blog while I was traveling in Israel for a month. That’s when I switched from ctownbochur to DansDeals and started hosting the site without Google.
In 2016 I reported on how Google banned the accounts of people reselling their Pixel phones in a post titled “Don’t Mess With The Google”. The story went viral and Google relented, but it highlighted the problems of too much of the internet being controlled by one company. When one company can give you what is effectively a digital death sentence, there’s a big problem at hand.
As Google’s ambitions grow to control smart homes and autonomous cars, it’s a reminder that Google can mistake you for a threat at any time and completely disrupt your life without any qualms.
It’s a good time to remind people to regularly use Google Takeout to make a copy of their data and to use other browsers like Firefox that aren’t controlled by a company that already controls too much of your online persona.
Are you too reliant on Google? Could you survive online if they disabled your account?
Leave a Reply
76 Comments On "Don’t Mess With The Google Part 2: No, DansDeals Isn’t Infected With Malware. Yes, Google Is Far Too Powerful For Its Own Good."
All opinions expressed below are user generated and the opinions aren’t provided, reviewed or endorsed by any advertiser or DansDeals.
Was wondering….
On chrome. Didn’t get the warning
Gives a whole new meaning to “Is it safe?” 😉
Oy! Der Google Hador
Is there really a way to undo our society is addictive this to Google? Without the government probably no.
“Google Hador”, LOL 🙂
Annoying! I was trying to check out your site yesterday and could only pull it up in firefox. Glad you are back up!
Personally, I appreciate the fact that google flags a site if it contains links to sites that will infect my computer. Does Dansdeals have any mechanisms in place to ensure its advertiser links aren’t shady? If not, I’m thankful that google is doing it for us.
We look into all advertisers. This particular advertiser has been with us for years and is safe, but his site simply got hacked.
For what it’s worth, Chrome could have also just blocked clicks to that advertiser.
Did you know that that advertiser got hacked before Google started blocking dansdeals?
It’s painful but useful to block sites the way Google does
No.
There was no need for Google to block DD. They could have just blocked the advertiser’s site.
Anyone who does many searches with google also knows that they have a large liberal slant on what they let you see first.
Donald trump said that so it must be true. NOT
Doesn’t matter who says it. You’d have to be blind not to see it.
Maybe I’m missing something, but why do you say that Google is wrong here? There were links on the site that would lead to the distribution of malware; no one is alleging that either DansDeals or the anonymous advertiser were doing it maliciously (as Dan said, “his site simply got hacked”), but it is a risk that the site(s) posed at the time.
Google said this site contains malware, which was false.
Even if you clicked on that advertiser’s link, Chrome would block it. So why the need to block DD or claim we had malware when we didn’t?
Google’s 72 hour timeframe is also unacceptably long.
The bigger issue for any website owner is user generated content like comments or a forum. Anyone can slip a bad link in and get an entire website taken out of commission. Pretty easy to take out a competitor when the bar is as low as a bad link…
Google is wielding a lot of power here. Perhaps you feel that giving up liberty for safety is a good thing, but do always trust Google to make those decisions as judge and executioner? What about in the future when Google doesn’t like something you did and gives you a digital death sentence?
I guess we can quibble about the phrase “contains” and “hosts” and “links”. Once you have a site that is close (whatever that means) to causing harm, I do think it makes sense to blacklist, at least temporarily, everything in the area.
Regarding links in comments, I’m not positive it’s the same thing; I haven’t worked in InfoSec for almost a decade, but as I understand it, the issue would have been running JS code or an iframe or something like that from an infected domain, not simply a link. Are you sure it was only a link?
Yes, positive it was only a link.
Google’s webmaster site said that explicitly.
It took 7 hours from deleting the link to get back online.
The fact that Google has millions of sites to monitor and probably have a ton of malware issues, and still fixed it so fast is amazing. And I don’t think I have to use a different browser because chrome takes an extra step to protect me. You would probably still have that link on if Google didn’t block the site. And saying that chrome can stop it at the next step when I click on the link might work but you can’t be angry at a company who takes an extra step to protect their users. Especially in a world where people get malware daily.
The fact that Google is powerful is is not always a bad thing. It also means that they can detect bad behavior much earlier and protect the end user.
I don’t have to risk my privacy and security just because they blocked your site for a few hours as a precaution. And asking your viewers to do so is ridiculous.
Banning this site and saying it was infected was a lie. I’m not sure why an extra step when Google can just block the actual problematic site.
Regardless, sure, it was just me this time. Just remember that it can be you next time when you’re willing to sacrifice everything for Google’s definition of safety.
If your Gmail account sends a bad link and they kill all of your Google services, remember this.
If you say something Google doesn’t like in one of their autonomous cars that may one day be the only way to get around and get yourself banned from the service, remember this.
If you sell your Google phone and they don’t like you doing that and get banned, remember this. Oh wait, that already happened and I went to bat for those people and got their Google services reinstated.
Dan I respect you and all but if you erased your name I’d think the author was some insane conspiracy theorist. I think you’re getting worked up over something pretty small…
Don’t believe a bad link would do it. The problem here was an advertiser that provides images and JavaScript from their site that’s displayed on your site. Their code (possibly malicious because they got hacked) runs in the context of your site, so anyone viewing your website at that time can be pulling down and executing the malicious code without clicking anything.
They should really just block content from the bad advertisement without touching the rest of the site, but they’re just using a big hammer in the name of security.
I agree however that google has way too much power to take down whatever they feel like and no obligation to bring it back in any manner.
There should be some legal reprocessions to removing a users or business’s data without due process.
If they had financial incentive to not take down sites, they’d develop software that would be more careful about blocking legit content.
You are wrong.
No advertisers provide images, they are all hosted here. They were totally clean.
The Google security checklist only had link URLs that had to be removed to clear the site as that site had malware. We removed the URLs and the blacklist was lifted.
Got the same using Safari. I clcked through and continues to the site!
Also happened to me on Safari
https://youtu.be/ntICHMV-WMA
https://youtu.be/lMChO0qNbkY
LOL
I couldnt get on from a google mobile browser either or from the Samsung web app on the galaxy. I was pretty mad about that
Off topic, but Google also flags PragerU videos as “hate speech,” whatever that means. I try to avoid Google whenever I can. I don’t like supporting Facists.
In Google takeout there’s no option to export photos?
There should be.
Apple is my safe space…
Of course, Safari had the same warning
Main reason I don’t use Chrome and try to avoid gmail and anything google.
Use Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox for a browser. Use Outlook.
And there are plenty of email companies, even AOL is still used worldwide.
Makes no sense how a company this powerful controling 90 percent of the market has not been broken up uyet. A petition should be started to demand that the Trump Administration do something to squash them.
There are plenty of other options. They in no way have a monopoly on email, web browsing, or file storage. They’re just the most popular. This isn’t comparable to Windows only allowing Internet Explorer to be used on their OS.
They own 90% of the market share, anything above 50% you can have the anti trust laws thrown at you. Having many options does not negate the fact that they are a Monopoly.
I agree that Google is a problem, but how is it in violation of the anti-trust laws, seeing as they’re giving away most of their stuff for free?
nothing is free. they are selling you (your info) and making profit!
Dan, SSL and Anti-Virus trust that google are rolling out in its update in Chrome is good for the consumer it makes sure the site you put your details in is secure, while it might be a pain for you it saves people from identity theft and actual theft. The 72 hour time frame for the most part is due to the size of the internet and for the most part DNS/SSL/ trust updates will propigate a lot faster they just give you the longest time frame to avoid you sueing them. As with the size of google this is a problem the EU have been fighting but if people continue to use them the harder it will become!
In year 2025, when we will be driving Google driverless cars, you might get an email which might sound relayed to terrorism. The next thing you know your car will pull off the road by the next deserted area, just in case the car might explode!
Where did you come up with this crazy theory?
I was wondering what the hackers were stealing… HT’s?
If you site has links on it that contain Malware then your site is considered to have Malware. Pretty simple.
The links don’t contain malware. The other site has malware due to an attack.
Might be time to shut down the forums given how exploitable that is for someone looking to take a website down.
I understand what you are saying and I feel for site owners. If you have an advertiser and I click on that link, get MW from clicking on that link/site most are going to complain why did you have a link to an unsafe site. Bottom line IMHO you are being a little to harsh on Goggle. Either way glad to see it is resolved.
Google also blocked the link to the unsafe site, so there was no way to get malware.
The site has been been advertising here for years without issues, so it wasn’t like we dropped the ball, unfortunately that advertiser just got hacked.
It’s Google’s ability to turn off the lights of a site that links to another site that seems like an abuse of power to me.
Are you prepared to lose all of your Google services if you email someone a link that turns out to get hacked only later on?
Did Google shut down your email services because you sent a link that turned out to get hacked only later on?
No! Not the forums!
no not the forums! pl!!
Somebody’s a little salty lately! Google’s trying to protect your readers and you’re worried about losing a few clicks and your Amazon revenue? Give it a rest
There was never a risk to readers, read the comments above.
I’m not so sure that you are reading the comments above either. ♂️
I got the same message on firefox.
Interesting, I got through on FF without any issues.
i find the results of the other search companies results far more diverse and informative.
It is never a good idea for any company to get too big and have a monopoly. Just look at Microsoft and what they did with the FREE upgrade to Windows 10 – they put annoying warnings on peoples computers to upgrade, they made the upgrade a critical update (and then when they were caught said it was a mistake and changed it back to an optional update), and in some cases upgraded peoples computers without their permission (they even lost a lawsuit and had to pay $10,000 over this.) PC World even called Microsoft’s heavy handed tactics malware – like.
When you have a monopoly on the marketplace you don’t care what people care about you and have no incentive to give any customer service.
A follow up to my original Microsoft comment, I forgot that there is a class action lawsuit right now against Microsoft for over $5 million over the windows 10 upgrade fiasco.
You write Google “relented” after the pixel story. That’s only partially true. I had some longstanding accounts that were never reinstated despite repeated requests to Google to do so.
how long does it take google to remove you off their search engine once the comments you and were deleted on their website? someone i know made a stupid comment on ywn and asked them to delete it as he left his username as his email address and now every time he searches google using his email address his comments pop up on google even though ywn deleted them
I love your deals and everything, but the same way you relied on apples monopolistic powers to remove a squatter from telegram, you should appreciate google saving us from malware on your site. Linking to malware is by definition containing malware.
No, I relied on our trademark, not on a monopoly.
I didn’t link to malware. I linked to an advertiser who got hacked. Google would not have let you click on that advertiser’s link, so the extra step accomplished nothing. Saying that DD contained malware is nonsense.
You honestly thing that if apple didnt have a monopoly on the ios app store that telelgram would have complied??
What does a monopoly on the iOS app even mean?
If there were 5 competitors to iOS instead of just one, I do still think Telegram would not want to get delisted for violating trademark.
It means that telegram would have an alternative way to distribute their ios app. If that is the case I do not thing telegram would have removed the squatter.
@dan was that link just a normal link or a link towards a javascript file to include in the website?
Normal link.
I understand that its not pretty for the site owner, but googles job is to protect the user, and by definition that means if you link to malware even if it destroys your buisness, the user must be protected at ALL costs. Its not pretty, its not nice, I have had these kind of issues with apps that I built and I know how you feel, but it has to be done
And what happens when Google gets mad at users for selling their phones?
Google is too powerful in its current form and it will only get worse if they dominate the autonomous car market and other markets as they seek growth.
Dan, Consider yourself lucky they reinstated you pretty quick, even if they decide to block someone for good there is nothing you can do.. its scary.
@Dan, i dont understand why u feel a need to continue explaining urself to ridiculous ppl trying to make sense of and/or validate googles procedure. All us normal ppl get it. We are with u. Elementary logic suffices in understanding that it wasnt necessary.
Google is simply too powerful & no one can say or do anything about it. Most ppl dont understand just how intrinsic they are in tech & anything digital from here to Mars (quite literaly) it goes far beyond a search engin.
@Larry D & anyone else…
anyone that has traveled outside of the US, CA, DR, PR or anywhere in the Carribean will know that we here in the US censor our internet as much if not more than other countries. Perhaps not China or KSA but if thats is who we are comparing ourselves to, we have bigger problems than internet.
Anyone can get infected or hacked including NSA, FBI, NASA, Central banks, SWIFT. If its hosted – public or private, it can be hacked. No one can deny for a persistent attacker. One of the involved applications thru Operating systems, tools, scripts, images could be susceptible and hacked at a weakest link. Hackers find new ways to infect. Blanket denying is burying ones head in sand. We take utmost care to fight hackers but when things go wrong, we correct. No one is 100% safe 100% times.
Pretty sure the message I was getting yesterday when I went to your site was that your SSL certificate was not properly installed and your site could be considered unsafe. That could happen just by accidentally renaming your SSL directory or file.
I was asked if I wanted to continue and there was no mention of malware.
@dan you’d be right if the only browser out there would be chrome, user could copy and paste links in other browsers when they see it doesn’t work in chrome, could be that’s what google is trying to avoid, after all it links to malware.