Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

7/14/2008
03:16 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Google Search Security Mistaken For Censorship

By warning users of a hack on a net neutrality opponent's Web site, Google was accused of trying to silence critics of a policy it supports.

Google is known for its code of conduct -- "Don't be evil" -- as much as its computer code. But as the company has become a dominant force online, Google's detractors have become more willing to see evil in its actions, even when they're seeing things that aren't there.

On Friday evening, the Web site of the Progress & Freedom Foundation was hit with a SQL injection attack that temporarily turned it into a malware distribution vector -- the injected script called out to a malicious third-party site that attempted to infect visitors' computers with malware.

Google has been automatically flagging malicious sites in its search results list for about two years and, upon detecting the hack at pff.org, its anti-malware code began adding a warning to search results listings for certain PFF pages.

But because the warning applied to Web pages that contained documents expressing opposition to net neutrality, a policy that Google supports, some saw politically motivated censorship.

Google "appears to be blocking a site which expresses opinions with which it does not agree ...," said Brett Glass, owner of wireless ISP Lariat.net, in an e-mail sent to David Farber's Interesting People mailing list. "When one does a search for the terms 'neutrality' and 'site:pff.org' ... many of the pages and documents on the site -- in particular, white papers expressing views with which Google disagrees -- are tagged with a warning that 'This site may harm your computer.'"

Glass didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. In previous e-mail messages and online posts, he has been critical of net neutrality.

As Google senior engineer Niels Provos and PFF visiting fellow Berin Michael Szoka explained in reply messages, there wasn't any political censorship. The PFF site was flagged as part of a technical process based on Google's anti-malware code. Sites that believe they have been unfairly or incorrectly labeled as having malware can appeal to StopBadware.org, which helps moderate potential disputes.

"Some of our critics are unfortunately quick to leap to political conclusions when a technical explanation is the answer," said Google spokesperson Adam Kovacevich.

However, the political and technical appear to be destined to collide as Google's influence grows. Indeed, in many ways politics and technology have fused.

Back in May, U.S. Sen. Joseph Liberman sent Google CEO Eric Schmidt an open letter seeking the removal of Islamic terrorist videos from YouTube. YouTube responded by saying it does remove videos that violate its terms of service, but that it would not remove "legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos."

Outside the United States, in countries like China, for example, Google has been more willing to accommodate politically directed requests.

And because of that, Google will find it hard to avoid being seen as a suspect when speech gets silenced, even when it has acted in good faith.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19645
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
alter.c in SQLite through 3.30.1 allows attackers to trigger infinite recursion via certain types of self-referential views in conjunction with ALTER TABLE statements.
CVE-2019-19678
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In "Xray Test Management for Jira" prior to version 3.5.5, remote authenticated attackers can cause XSS in the generic field entry point via the Generic Test Definition field of a new Generic Test issue.
CVE-2019-19679
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In "Xray Test Management for Jira" prior to version 3.5.5, remote authenticated attackers can cause XSS in the Pre-Condition Summary entry point via the summary field of a Create Pre-Condition action for a new Test Issue.
CVE-2019-19647
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
radare2 through 4.0.0 lacks validation of the content variable in the function r_asm_pseudo_incbin at libr/asm/asm.c, ultimately leading to an arbitrary write. This allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via crafted input.
CVE-2019-19648
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
In the macho_parse_file functionality in macho/macho.c of YARA 3.11.0, command_size may be inconsistent with the real size. A specially crafted MachO file can cause an out-of-bounds memory access, resulting in Denial of Service (application crash) or potential code execution.