Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

IE7 Blocking Google Image Search? 253

Posted by kdawson
from the play-nicely-now dept.
An anonymous reader writes, "I just tried a Google Image Search in IE7 for the first time. Whenever I click on an image, my browser tells me in big bold letters, "This is a reported phishing website." Try it yourself: make sure automatic phishing detection is turned on and do an (adorable) image search; click on one of the result thumbnails. MSN Live Image Search has no such issues. Insert Microsoft evil conspiracy theory here." I get this behavior under IE7, Win XP Pro, SP2, Parallels, Mac OS X.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE7 Blocking Google Image Search?

Comments Filter:
  • by blanchae (965013) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:23PM (#16634858) Homepage
    Nothing to see here move on...
  • Strange (Score:5, Informative)

    by mingot (665080) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:24PM (#16634870)
    I just tried it. Works fine.
    • Re:Strange (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:32PM (#16634974)
      Same here. I spent hours last night looking for pictures of the adorable Scarlett Johansen, and had no problem doing so. Only problem I had was getting things to come up.
    • Fixed already? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rosyna (80334)
      Remember, the phishing filter that IE uses is "live". If a new site becomes a phishing site, MS can address it on their servers immediately. If a site is mislabeled, MS can fix that immediately. There's no definitions being downloaded, it's all server side.
  • I think not (Score:5, Funny)

    by maxrate (886773) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:25PM (#16634872)
    Seems to work well (properly) for me
  • Can't duplicate (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KillerBob (217953) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:27PM (#16634900)
    Vista RC1 and XP Pro SP2. Not able to duplicate. Methinks PEBKAC.
  • No problem here (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Using IE7 with XP Pro, fully updated. No problem at all.

    Maybe you should ask politely on some IE7 forums before trying to incite a controvery at slashdot? Just a thought.
  • OMG CUTE (Score:5, Funny)

    by zdzichu (100333) <.lp.cri. .ta. .uhcizdz.> on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:29PM (#16634934) Homepage Journal
    OMG KITTENS!!!!!

    So, basically any page with frames containing other pages is evil now? Thank you, MS.
  • by catbutt (469582) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:30PM (#16634936)
    explained by incompetence.

    Its obviously not in their interest to incorrectly block google images. All it will do is make people not trust the phishing stuff, and turn it off. Incomptent maybe, but they aren't stupid enough to think that people would just stop using google images when they get blocked and use msn instead.
    • by pegr (46683) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:34PM (#16634994) Homepage Journal
      Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice...
      • "Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice..."

        On the other hand, caterpillars turn into butterflies...
      • by rbochan (827946)
        Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice...


        or slashdot editors

      • As I always say, government is defined by incompetence AND malice.

        So is Microsoft.

      • by jefu (53450)

        Nice!

        That may be something worth submitting to wikiquote.

      • by Alsee (515537)
        Corollary:
        Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.

        Corollary to the corollary:
        Any malice distinguishable from incompetence is insufficiently advanced.

        -
    • All it will do is make people not trust the phishing stuff, and turn it off.

      I am less than happy about Microsoft monitoring my surfing habits under the guise of phishing prevention. I wonder how long before that information will be used against me by the MPAA or the RIAA, since Microsoft is in bed with those associations already.

  • by melonman (608440) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:31PM (#16634954) Journal
    Guys, can't you see it, this article is a cunning plot by the Evil Empire to produce 3,000 /. posts saying "IE7 is fine"? How devious can you get? Stick to Firefox, and then you'll never get suckered like this!
    • You may be trying to be funny, but happened something like that with a slashdot article on one guy criticizing wga and later saying "oopsie, my fault". And i had anticipated it, too. read comment, story [slashdot.org] and then... Tinfoil hat working great [slashdot.org] And look how anti-tinfoil M$ brigade is already modding you down :)
  • Your Search (Score:5, Funny)

    by tgpo (976851) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:31PM (#16634956)
    Perhaps MS is afraid of all felines.

    Lynx [wikipedia.org],
    Cheetahs [wikipedia.org],
    Pumas [wikipedia.org],
    Jaguars [wikipedia.org],
    Panthers [wikipedia.org],
    Tigers [wikipedia.org],
    Leopards [wikipedia.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Did the editors confirm this before accepting the story? Perhaps the submitter's computer has spyware which redirects web requests to another site!
    • by belmolis (702863)

      How could they? Surely no /. editor uses Windows.

    • by Tim C (15259)
      Did the editors confirm this before accepting the story?

      Read the FAQ - the editors do no fact-checking on stories at all. They're more concerned with getting the stories posted as quickly as possible (even when they're months old...)
      • They're more concerned with getting the stories posted as quickly as possible (even when they're months old...)


        And even when they've already been posted recently. :-p
  • PEBKAC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:33PM (#16634978)
    That's Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair for those that haven't see the acronym. I have XP SP2 here and IE7 is in a basically default state since I use FF. Tried GIS and explicitly asked it to check and it reports "this is not a phishing webstie". It says that both for the main GIS page and after I did an actual search.

    Remember folks: FUD, it's not just from MS anymore!

    Seriously I wish people would stop with the crap but I really wish /. would not post things like this without verification.
    • (I know I know, replying to your own posts is bad form) my bet is that Google returned an image that was on a suspected phishing site. When you click on an image, Google actually sends you to that site. Thus if it's a phishing site, well that'd set IE7 off. That would be the browser operating as it should, so I still stand by my original diagnosis. The user is the problem, they fail to understand how the Internet works and ascribe it to MS conspiracy.
    • by jb.hl.com (782137)
      The prevailing attitude seems to be "FUD's alright if we're the ones spewing it"; that is, it's OK if it's in the name of the cause

      Personally I think it's rubbish, and that maybe nobody should spew FUD, but, hey...
    • by Sparr0 (451780)
      Does PEBKAC include you not reading the description of the problem? He wasn't talking about the main page, or the search page. He was talking about the two-frame page you get after clicking on a single search result, the one with the image and 'see see full size' link at the top, and the source page at the bottom.
    • by caluml (551744)
      PEBCAK looks like Russian to me. Like COBNET, or something. What is REVSAK, anyway?
  • by baadger (764884) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:35PM (#16635012)
    ...the URL and query string and hence everything you are Googling for being passed to Microsoft's servers. Think of all those Google searches (and the following immediate clicks) Microsoft could extrapolate and use to improve their own search engine...
    • by DavidD_CA (750156) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @05:39PM (#16635608) Homepage

      No. According to MSDN, only URLs that are not common are sent to the Microsoft server for verification. This list of not-common URLs sit on your machine, and even then only the base of the URL is sent to Microsoft for analysis.

      Here's the blurb from MSDN [msdn.com]:

      Phishing Filter does not check every URL on the Microsoft server. It only sends those which are not on a known list of OK sites or those that appear suspicious based on heuristics. If an URL is checked on the Microsoft server, first the URL is stripped down to the path to help remove personal information, then the remaining URL is sent over a secure SSL connection. The communication with the Microsoft server is done asynchronously so that there is little to no effect on your browsing experience.

      So, for example, if you were to visit http://www.msn.com/ [msn.com] nothing will be checked on the Microsoft server because "msn.com" and other major websites are on the client-side list of OK sites. However, let's say the URL looked like this: http://207.68.172.246/result.aspx?u=Tariq&p=Tariq [207.68.172.246]' sPassword, in this scenario phishing filter will remove the query string to help protect my privacy but it will send "http://207.68.172.246/result.aspx" to be checked by the Microsoft Server because 207.68.172.246 is not on the allow list of OK sites. As it turns out, 207.68.172.246 is just the IP address of MSN.com server, so its not a phishing site but this example should help you understand more about how Phishing Filter checks sites on the server.

      But thanks for spreading the FUD.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by cheater512 (783349)
        How long until someone spreads a worm which adds pishing websites to the whitelist?
      • Of course that's no disproof of the conspiracy, as long as neither the list of good sites, nor the heuristics is published. After all, the heuristics could contain "if it starts with http://www.google./ [www.google.] it's suspicious." (This could be justified by the fact that you might view a phishing site through Google cache).

        But like every good conspiracy theory, it could be immunized even against publishing of this information: Who knows if the published algorithm really matches the one implemented in IE7? After all,
        • Just check if IE7 connects to MS when surfing Google.

          Yes, but make sure to check at the router level - who knows if IE7 patches the OS so that you can't find out if it's connecting to the phishing filtering server.

          Better yet, check at the molecular level, you never know if MS might have a partnership with all the router manufacturers...
      • by hyfe (641811)
        But thanks for spreading the FUD.
        No, it's still scary as hell.

        They can track every non-main stream website you go to. Which is, you know, probably EXACTLY WHAT THEY* WANT. This is just pre-filtering and data-massaging built into the computer being spied upon. Sounds really convinient really.

        * CIA, NSA, FBI or whoever.

    • With a big fat dialog, that says "This URL will be sent to Microsoft". With option to cancel. With no mandatory option to check all URLs (unless you say that you want to). In other words, yeah, if you say "Do that automatically" it will do exactly what you asked it to. Duh
      • With a big fat dialog, that says "This URL will be sent to Microsoft". With option to cancel. With no mandatory option to check all URLs (unless you say that you want to). In other words, yeah, if you say "Do that automatically" it will do exactly what you asked it to. Duh

        And what percentage of the computer using population has no idea what is meant by the warning? But if it is getting sent to M$ it must be OK. M$ could warn "by clicking on this you authorize Microsoft to enable you to take advantage of t

  • I mean, after all, he may have been permanently traumatized by the Bonsai Kitten hoax [wikipedia.org].

  • I can't believe this was posted without a screenshot! Sheesh! What does NOT work fine and IS worthy of Slashdot is the fact that most MS apps open websites up in IE regardless of the fact that Firefox is my default browser.
  • After reading this article, I used IE7 to go to a website that wanted to install the Flash 9 ActiveX control (actually, I went to several) and then got tired of it asking me to install one when I didn't want to every time I hit certain web pages, so I looked in help to see how to turn it off. Now here's the confusing part:

    Apparently, to disable information bar prompting, you have to *enable* automatic prompting for several different types of prompts in the security settings property sheet. I tried one, an
    • by prockcore (543967)
      I looked in help to see how to turn it off.


      Anyone know how to turn it off on firefox? I'm running firefox on ppc linux.. so I'm constantly getting harrassed about flash missing. Make it stop!
    • by cbhacking (979169)
      I'm assuming you're saying you just don't want to run Flash, since otherwise you REALLY don't want to be using an outdated version of the player (security issues). Best solution I've found: Install Flash player, then disable it. You can disable it (IE-wide global switch) using the Add-In Manager (you can reach this from the Tools comand bar icon, or by double clicking a spot on the Status bar - I think there's s tooltip that appears when your mouse is over the Add-In Manager) and flash will then just not lo
  • I don't know what TFA is talking about - it works fine for me.
  • Slow news day... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kiwioddBall (646813) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:49PM (#16635120) Homepage
    This is a slow news day isn't it? Still, kitten searches are all good.

    Look, somebody probably reported the Google Images header as a phishing website. Microsoft have probably since removed it from their phishing database. I'm sure they're refining the phishing technology so that websites require multiple reports before they enter the phishing database as we speak.

    But you kiddies can release all the conspiracy stories you want.
    • Reminds me of when some other such database (which, as it turns out, powered our corporate firewall) flagged a big chunk of MS's website as drug-related IIRC.
  • Big deal. Just another opportunity to bash Microsoft with no evidence or clue.
    • Nope, it's an unique opportunity to bash microsoft without the usual microsoft-supplied evidence.
  • Slashdot special (Score:4, Insightful)

    by doktorstop (725614) on Sunday October 29, 2006 @04:50PM (#16635144) Homepage Journal
    A good example when someone who has found anything in IE7 gets a headlight... even without checking. Either due to frames or not replicable by anyone but the author.. still.. OMG... its an IE7 error.. so it's got to be posted! Talk about conspiracy theries
    • You people are implying /. editors don't try a simple google search before top-posting the story. COME ON EDITORS! TELL THE WORLD YOU DID CHEck... what? nevermind.... Seriously, the phishing report is built in or depends on connecting to mother m$? in the second case you're just making assumptions. You anti-anti-microsoft zealots.
    • Talk about conspiracy theries
      While we are all talking about them, perhaps you could learn how to spell conspiracy theories?
  • You know all the users with IE7, you can block their IP's at will ;)

    I mean, it takes 39 people to say the same thing, thankfully I can't test it.
  • Is it possible that you went to click on an image, but instead of sending you an image, it sent you re-directed HTML? You can all point and laugh at me for admitting this if you like, but this often happens to me with porn searches. You get this really nice thumbnail that claims to be a good res, then ya click on it, and instead of being met with a nice high-res image you're met with a web page saying "Gimme a credit card number!" Is it possible that IE7 has protection against this? Is this considered a
  • XP SP2. No problems. *yawn*
  • I cannot duplicate the problem either. Before creating a Microsoft conspiracy, please try for yourself. If anyone can reproduce, post a link and let others try it.

    How the hell does this stuff make it onto Slashdot.

  • IE7, native XP SP2
  • It is all FUD. Some of the images of "adorable kittens" were from phishing sites (BTW, now all my personal info is fished out, since I your search in Firefox), and Microsoft took good care of you.

    The alternative explanation would be that Microsoft is unscrupulous software monopoly that could not compete honestly for a single day of its stinking existence, but, hay, that would be totally untrue, right?
  • LOL maybe its paralells VM and Not IE> D'Oh He is running IE 7 in Paralells on a Mac. hmm
  • 1) Post unsubstantiated story regarding any Microsoft product malfunctioning.
    2) Slashdot engine automatically posts
    3) you know the rest.

    I've been reading slashdot for so very long now, it's almost like an addiction, but i think it's finally time i erased my bookmark.

    I have to admit though i'm pleased that, at the current time, the kneejerk reaction so typical of the slashdot community hasn't fired yet.

    It's not 1998 anymore. Microsoft software isn't perfect, but neither is anything else created by human han
  • Believe it or not the editor probably did check this. If you notice the bit "I get this behavior under IE7, Win XP Pro, SP2, Parallels, Mac OS X." is outside of the quote of the submitter this implies the editor did check and seen the same results.

    As for why it doesn't work now, that's obvious, as soon as the mistake was spotted Microsoft would have fixed it. They'd have got sued by Google if they were incorrectly labelled as a phishing site and it turned out MS weren't going to rectify this.

    I'm sure we'll

  • I searched on pictures of rabbits (no reason - a random word) and got pictures of little bunnies. Perhaps you were searching for something more adult...

    As other people here were saying, perhaps you hit on a site(s) that MS had just had reported as a suspect site. Alternatively, perhaps MS had a fault on a server somewhere. That last one may seem like a long shot. I mean, everyone here can attest to their reliability!

  • I get this behavior under IE7, Win XP Pro, SP2, Parallels, Mac OS X.
    I'm impressed! I couldn't get SP2 or IE7 to boot no matter what options I passed to them through Lilo!
  • ...been using it at work to find images on occasion for a looooong time now and never had this happen.

    Probably related to multiple phishing links being promulgated by links from Google. Something they'll surely look to fix as this will happen with MSN and other sites as they get more usage (Google's always the big one.)
  • I was going to try it, but the poster obviously has the only copy of IE7 for Mac OSX that was ever released...

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...