[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Google 403 error pages
I don't think this problem is due just to occasional "spyware, root
kits, malware", etc. despite the statement on the Google page. My guess
is that the Google servers are taking an unusual high volume of hits
from the Tor exit nodes probably because, the "Bad Hats" have been using
Tor to try to manipulate Google search ranking, ad-sense, etc. Just a
guess, but I think a likely scenario. In that case- A technical solution
for the lack of ethics on the part of some Tor users is what might be
required. or..eventually..Tor will be blocked, banned or,
outlawed...which could be the ultimate goal of, some.
Meanwhile- The error page has been coming up so frequently these past
few weeks that I have replaced the default 'Google' search in Firefox
with the "Scroogle" scraper. They are not blocking the Scroogle proxy...
Matthias Fischmann wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:55:09PM +0000, mary wrote:
>>From: mary <malum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:55:09 +0000 (UTC)
>>Subject: Re: Google 403 error pages
>>>the easiest way to fix this would be for google to establish a
>>>whitelist of machines that are unlikely to suffer from virusses (ie.,
>>>a list of all google exit nodes and perhaps others), and not to send
>>>warnings to those. any reason why google should be refusing to
>>What would be the point of this? All systems are subject to virus
>>infection, root-kits, malware, et al..
> well, the average windows box of a non-technical user is more likely
> to be exploited than a tor server, right? people who install tor
> servers usually get their virus protection software sorted out.
> of course this is just more heuristics, and some valid drawbacks have
> been pointed out. (i don't think it's more than a day's work for one
> person to implement the whitelist on the google site, but i don't know
> anything about the site except that it's huge and complex and it has a
> grotesquely heavy load.)
> in the end, it just bit us again that people are confusing IP
> addresses and identity, and we won't solve that problem in this
> special case all of a sudden.