Whenever I see a suspicious looking URL I want to go to, I usually just search it up on Google's webcache and browse the site that way. But I just realized that I never really had evidence to support this kind of habit. Are web cached pages generally more safe than the original pages?


Cached pages aren't inherently more secure, as the same page is being sent to your browser. It still renders the website in your browser. If you need to go to a sketchy website, turning off plugins and JavaScript makes it more safe. In Chrome, go to Content settings and add a Deny exception for the site in Plugins and JavaScript. For Firefox, use the NoScript add-on.


It is all down to what "cached" means... Since you mentioned Google Cache, a default cached version, caches the text and load external resources (potentially unsafe): So it is by default no more secure than accessing the webpage directly.

If you edit the cached URL however by adding &strip=1, it will be more secure by essence, because the current cached page has been stripped of external references. Example:

If you wish to check a URL that is suspicious, I would advice doing so on a Unix/Linux (including OS X) VM then restore a snapshot.

if using a Windows computer, I would be a bit more careful, open a private session in the browser, disable Java, Flash, Silverlight and any other plugins (but the antivirus/malware agent), then access this page or use the striped cached mode.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.