Timeline for How did "tech-supportcenter" phishers trick Google?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
32 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7, 2017 at 20:18 | comment | added | spender | github.com/palant/searchlinkfix fixes google's monkeying with the target URL in Firefox. I like my links to do what they say on the tin. I don't know if the same is available in Chrome | |
| Jun 7, 2017 at 17:56 | comment | added | Gudradain | @jpaugh Indeed, it would be far too easy to attack and this is what they states on their website : support.google.com/adwordspolicy/answer/2643759?hl=en. I don't understand it either. | |
| Jun 7, 2017 at 14:53 | comment | added | jpaugh |
@Gudradain Why would Google allow a mismatch where only the subdomain matches? That doesn't make sense. It makes sense to allow a display name of target.com when the redirect is to arbitrary.subdomain.of.target.com, since the same entity (Target, Inc) controls both domains (that's how sub-domains work), and Target's own reputation is on the line. If Google allowed you to match your arbitrarily-chosen subdomain against a real domain, then they will very quickly loose their reputation as a respectable advertising agency, because this attack would be far too easy.
|
|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 21:22 | comment | added | Vnge | This is exactly why I don't click on the 'Ad' links... | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 15:34 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 512 characters in body
|
| Jun 6, 2017 at 12:36 | comment | added | Doktor J | @IllusiveBrian It's not that legit advertisers are pulling this crap after begging users not to block their ads -- it's that scammers are posing as legitimate advertisers and then pulling this crap. | |
| Jun 6, 2017 at 7:20 | comment | added | nutty about natty | Fasten your seatbealt with superuser.com/questions/391832/… and noscript.net. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 20:45 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 16:13 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1087 characters in body
|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 15:22 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1087 characters in body
|
| Jun 5, 2017 at 14:22 | comment | added | Arminius | @Gudradain (Accidentally deleted my last comment.) It wouldn't be that easy though. Google still has a vetting process, not everyone can get arbitrary proxy domains approved. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 14:19 | comment | added | Gudradain | @Arminius example.com and example.proxydomain.com are 2 different domains. The second domain should be proxydomain.example.com to be a subdomain. For example, I can register stackexchange.mydomain.com right now if I want and google would let me put adds for stackexchange.com. | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 14:09 | comment | added | Gudradain | This is plain wrong... The 2 URLs don't even need to be on the same domain or be on a sub-domain. It's 2 completely different domains so anyone can fake it... | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 8:35 | comment | added | Shantnu | @XiongChiamiov All advertisers allow you to specify a different url from what's displayed. For example, so does Facebook, and I think(but not 100% sure) Twitter as well. It's a feature, not a bug :) | |
| Jun 5, 2017 at 6:29 | comment | added | Cave Johnson | @FedericoPoloni In all fairness it looks like Javascript is the culprit here and Google is the company that is implementing the Javascript that hijacks the click. So the fault lies squarely on Google. The status bar preview is just a nice thing to make sure you are not going to a bad place, but there is no guarantee that the link will go to a good place. I guess browsers could hide the link if there is any javascript code attached to it. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 6:14 | comment | added | NoBugs | @XiongChiamiov Good point, and educating users that they can use that engine that "doesn't track you" and stow your personal info, is a good security education effort too. | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 5:14 | vote | accept | browly | ||
| Jun 3, 2017 at 23:41 | comment | added | Xiong Chiamiov | @NoBugs I've been using DuckDuckGo as my primary search engine for a few years now, but I'm less concerned about my security than the population as a whole. I can't force other people to stop using Google (or to block ads), but more importantly, this is a blow against security education efforts. | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 21:48 | comment | added | NoBugs | @XiongChiamiov Why don't you use BING, it seems to not have the weird Google redirecting thing in their search results. | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 15:41 | comment | added | Ilia Sidorenko | The very point of chrome's "preview link destination" feature was exactly to avoid that. | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 15:08 | comment | added | Sebb | I can see why you want to hide the tracking URL, but I can't wrap my head around the idea that someone thought it would be a good feature to allow a whole different domain. The last point effectively voids any restriction they have on domain names. | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 13:21 | comment | added | jrh | @WumpusQ.Wumbley I would recommend starting a change.org petition to try to get some attention on this issue. | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 11:32 | comment | added | Federico Poloni | @WumpusQ.Wumbley Never mind Google, the ability to have a different target address displayed in the status bar is a feature that should never have existed in browsers in the first place. | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 2:45 | comment | added | user54862 | Where's the vote button for "This feature is an obvious abuse magnet and should never have existed"? | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 1:17 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2017 at 1:10 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2017 at 0:50 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 690 characters in body
|
| Jun 3, 2017 at 0:12 | comment | added | IllusiveBrian | It's absurd how advertisers beg users not to block their ads and then pull this crap. | |
| Jun 2, 2017 at 21:44 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 87 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2017 at 21:09 | comment | added | Xiong Chiamiov | I had no idea Google allowed advertisers to do that. It seems like they learned that users have finally been learning you preemptively check urls, and so they made a "feature" to trick them. Shame on them! :( | |
| Jun 2, 2017 at 19:29 | history | edited | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 107 characters in body
|
| Jun 2, 2017 at 19:19 | history | answered | Arminius | CC BY-SA 3.0 |