Posted on 07/28/2009 6:56:09 PM PDT by FreepShop1
The new update to Firefox, 3.5 is blocking access to the critical anti-homosexual activist site MassResistance.org...
UPDATE: Google is now also blocking access, warning "Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this website may harm your computer."
MassResistance folks told me that Google started doing this leading up to a recent vote on a Transgender Bill in Mass., in an obvious attempt to shut down dissent. There were not aware that the new Firefox is also censoring them.
This is an illegal violation of the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment and Digital Millenium Act. We need to get to our Representatives on this ASAP.
Doesn’t block me with FF 3.5.1
Your security preferences may be different from defaults.
See the little words in the bottom right hand corner that say “ignore this warning”?
LOL Using an old IE v 6 and it’s OK.
BING doesn’t “block” it.
It all depends on what your settings are. If you have high security filtertering, it will be blocked because of keywords used in articles (such as the word “tranny” in the article you linked to above.) It isn’t personal, it is just you use words in your articles normally associated with porn sites and such.
i have 3.5.1 and i also don’t see this problem
No blockage here.
Nope. I haven't touched them. "block reported websites" is definitely checked. FWIW.
I'm wondering if homosexual activists just falsely reported the site as an attack site and Google and Firefox took the reports at face value.
>it will be blocked because of keywords used in articles (such as the word “tranny” in the article you linked to above.)
What do people have against transmissions?
/johnny
Diagnostic page for www.massresistance.org
What is the current listing status for www.massresistance.org?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 2 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 304 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-07-28, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-07-28.
Malicious software includes 1 scripting exploit(s).
Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including carmelazfunz.com/, web-analize.org/, cqzinomonster.com/.
3 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including analitic-manager.net/, web-analize.net/, web-analize.org/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS32392 (OPENTRANSFER).
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, www.massresistance.org 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.
Unless the government is behind it, it is not a Constitutional violation.
One word - Opera
The massresistance site (like any other Web site) has to try to protect itself from hackers.
Here’s Google’s report on what’s happening:
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 304 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-07-28, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-07-28.
Malicious software includes 1 scripting exploit(s).
Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including carmelazfunz.com/, web-analize.org/, cqzinomonster.com/.
3 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including analitic-manager.net/, web-analize.net/, web-analize.org/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS32392 (OPENTRANSFER).
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, www.massresistance.org 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.
"This site may harm your computer.
Google blocks MassResistance blog! Posts warning notice that our factual transgender rights reports (with photos) are "objectionable"! ..."
Incorrect.
According to Google's Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for www.massresistance.org, they are blocking it because some sites linked from it are attempting to purvey malware. In other words, Mass Resistance probably needs to look into for whom they are serving ads.
Google's as efficient as any good search engine at finding p0rn.
Two words: no thanks.
Go to www.filehippo.com and download Malwarebytes Anti-Malware. That one will send it straight to hell.
it works on my Firefox
Three words - Aren’t you clever.
Claiming this is a first amendment issue just makes the author look kinda stupid. Nevertheless, it is a good reason to quit using firefox - and google for that matter.
Doesn’t block me with FF 3.5.
Four words - Yes, he sure is.
I clicked on “Ignore this warning”.
I am no MSFT fan but Firefox is constantly sending you updates. I stopped using FF.
What is the current listing status for www.massresistance.org?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this website may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 2 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 304 pages that we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time that Google visited this site was on 2009-07-28, and the last time that suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-07-28.
Malicious software includes 1 scripting exploit(s). ,P> Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including carmelazfunz.com/, web-analize.org/, cqzinomonster.com/.
3 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including analitic-manager.net/, web-analize.net/, web-analize.org/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS32392 (OPENTRANSFER).
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, www.massresistance.org 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.
One moral of the story is don't let Google host your blog.
Ok guys get a room
I have FF 3.5.1 and it blocks me. I just press the ignore button...
Same here. Google is doing this, not Firefox. The headline should be changed.
If click the button for why there is a block, you are told the following:
Of the 304 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-07-28, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-07-28.
Malicious software includes 1 scripting exploit(s).
Malicious software is hosted on 4 domain(s), including carmelazfunz.com/, web-analize.org/, cqzinomonster.com/.
3 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including analitic-manager.net/, web-analize.net/, web-analize.org/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS32392 (OPENTRANSFER).
There may be an actual problem with the website.
Five words - What were we talking about?
Four words: Safari is still better.
I thought six came after five. Of course, an Apple fan would go the wrong way.
I’m sorry, but we’re going to have to quit talking. I didn’t realize that you were a member of a cult. :)
Unless you mean that mess which is Safari for Windows.
Seven words - Good Night and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Reading the diagnostic page for the malicious software warning, the site was officially blocked because some of the pages they linked to (probably gay porn sites) had malware hosted on them. It’s going to be a problem when you link to the type of sites they are using to illustrate the depravity they see around them.
The Blogspot warning was clearly the result of complaints from the gay lobby. That shouldn’t happen, but that is why you should pay for your hosting.
You wrote three words, I wrote four in response. The counting error is on your end.
Safari on Windows is still better than Opera on Windows. Opera’s chronic inability to compete has led them to file lawsuits in Europe attempting to force Microsoft to ship Windows 7 with Opera included.
They pay for their hosting at their main website. The blogger site is an old site they maintain for visibility.
Blocked here with FF 3.5.1
It may be geographically-oriented
Hmm, thanks for the tip. I thought IE was the browser with those constant, annoying updates..
Websites can get minor hacks or hijacks where just external links are inserted into their code, typically index.php files will have external links added from a hacker. Firefox can actually bar entrance to a website just because the index.php file has an external link to a known spyware site. As soon as all the index.php files are restored, firefox will let you in immediately.
Whoa there fanboy. The truth is that the Windows 7 (and XP and Vista via an update) will allow for the selection of one of 10 different browsers commonly used in Europe. This is the result of an EU lawsuit, not specifically an Opera lawsuit. I think choice is a good thing. Linux has allowed it since the beginning.
But when you’re in the dominant position, people take notice. Maybe someday they’ll get around to noticing Apple.
No. The lawsuit was by the EU, not Opera. The anti-trust complaint that initiated the lawsuit was initially filed by Opera but others signed on to the complaint. Filing an antitrust complaint is roughly the equivalent of reporting a crime. Opera reported what it perceived to be illegal activity to the EU - the EU has agreed. The motives of Opera are irrelevant in this situation - illegal is illegal. The same thing was done with Media Player in 2004.
Granted, some would consider this a distinction without a difference, but from a legal perspective it is what it is.
Opera is a leader in the mobile browser market and one of their assertions was that if they had been allowed to compete fairly they would have been in the PC browser market as well - and the EU agrees.
As to how they feel concerning market share and Safari, I have yet to hear. But since they are a EU country, and the law consistently agrees with them, we may soon see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.