Google flagged our site as malware on our prelaunch announcement day

Re:Google flagged our site as malware on our prelaunch annou... by invisible on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @07:05PM (#6247176)

I appreciate the complexity of the subject a lot. I understand we can't just break iframes. The frustrating thing is that sandboxed iframes left out one essential option: allow-plugins. Yes, allow-plugins would be a security concern and it goes against sandboxing but so does allow-top-navigation. We can go back and forth forever on that subject but the fact is that ads use flash and limiting the use of iframe sandboxing sucks (which makes me say it is horrible).

Fundamentally, something better should exist and websites get the flak of bad iframe security. Annoyingly, any site with an iframe on it can't determine what locations are being accessed within the iframe to be able to accurately let there be a "report ad" feature that grabs the sites involved. Sometimes ad network iframes are nested 3-4 deep (disgusting but true) and it is impossible to read the location (yet these iframes can call window.top.location with ease).

I don't know what needs to exist but trying to work against these bad actors is nearly impossible for web devs (yet the burden is placed on the site).

Thanks for taking the time to comment - I understand it's very complex but I feel like this important subject hasn't seen a lot of real world use (we've decided against using sandboxing because it doesn't work for ads).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google flagged our site as malware on our prelaunch annou... by justinschuh on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @10:10AM (#6250352)

I appreciate your frustration, but I think you may be misunderstanding the security impact of browsers allowing top navigation. Either way, an exploit can still be launched from within the nested browsing context (be it a plugin or HTML frame). So, the risk here is that some of the content (no matter how deeply nested) is being served from the same location as known malware. And the risk is the same regardless of whether or not the nested context can navigate top.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google flagged our site as malware on our prelaunch annou... by invisible on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @11:16AM (#6250889)

Given that most successful malware infected via a good browser (like Chrome) is obtained due by downloading (rather than an exploit) I'd say allowing top navigation is a pretty big concern. But if there is an exploit that targets a specific browser there is very little that anyone can do in advance if it is being served on an ad network.

So, if as a normal user (someone that doesn't understand malware versus OS-level dialog) sees a big warning in their trusted browser (or a popup) without having clicked on anything at all they might be compelled to download some malware. So yes, getting sandboxed iframes right would have been amazing but in my mind it was a failure.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google flagged our site as malware on our prelaunch annou... by invisible on Thursday August 22, 2013 @01:00AM (#6255255)

Just to clarify "sees a big warning" - I had meant the fake warnings that a lot of malware display: "1000 INFECTIONS FOUND, DOWNLOAD THIS NOW!!!"

[ Parent | on HN ]