Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 4 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 28387 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 174 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2014-05-17, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2014-05-16.
Malicious software includes 85 exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 2 new process(es) on the target machine.
Malicious software is hosted on 8 domain(s), including glenserv.net/, bingoco.net/, amplifyactionset.net/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS22772 (LOGIN).
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, boards.straightdope.com 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.*
You’re quite right; I should have done this. Again, my apologies. It may be of some comfort to know that all the relevant parties are now focused on the problem.
Am I to understand the problem is supposed to be fixed now? Chrome still gives me the warning. I can understand it that takes time to rectify. However when I go to the site from IE it now hits me with pop up ads like a 2005 porn site.
I didn’t read all six pages, so I apologize if this has been previously mentioned.
For users of Firefox, under Tools->Options->Security, if you uncheck the box for blocking reported attack sites, you will not get the intercept screen. If you choose to do this, remember to turn it back on when you leave the Dope environs, and have some good antiboogerware utilities to back you up.
If you are willing and able, could you share with us please the (presumed) effect on SDMB traffic caused by the Chrome and similar warnings.
For example, compared to appropriate historical control periods (same days of the week, etc.) how much lower than normal are visits to the Dope since those scary red warning screens started to appear?
No, the problem is far from fixed. The ads, which are at the root of the problem, have been turned off again. Until the board can change its ad provider for a company that actually scans its ads for malware before pushing them out then this problem will persist. We can only hope the ads stay off until this is sorted, although clearly the SDMB is losing money in the meantime. Better that though than being branded a malware site.
Didn’t we use Google ads for a while? I assume that they’re clean, or at least that they don’t contain anything that Google would flag as malicious. Was there some reason why Google’s ads were considered inadequate for this board?
To use the site, I had to Command+comma, click the Security button, and de-select Warn when visiting a fraudulent website.
Of course that turns off the warning for every website. Still, I’m pretty conservative about clicking on things.
FWIW, I was telecommuting the other day when the problem first occurred, using RDC to connect to my office PC. I went to SDMB via IE and got no warnings. I just logged on and I ran Malwarebytes. No malware was found on my office PC.
I know very little about web advertising, but if Google can test ads for malware, what’s stopping the ad provider from doing this before the ads are provisioned to their clients? Having Google do the vetting is a bit like the proverbial horse and barn door. Why isn’t there an Advertising Council (or similar) “certified malware free” seal?
I suspect the answer to the above has to do with getting more money at the cost of being exposed to this type of problem. Obviously the SDMB should include the cost of damage to their brand when considering ad providers. And if there are contractual problems, I would be surprised if a contract can be enforced which is presenting a clear and present danger to a client and its members.
