×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IE7 Blocking Google Image Search?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the play-nicely-now dept.

253

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

253 comments

And your point is? (5, Funny)

blanchae (965013) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634858)

Nothing to see here move on...

Re:And your point is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634890)

Works fine for me and has worked fine since the early BETAs.
- Mike

Re:And your point is? (2)

dotgain (630123) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635112)

I tagged this article: 'slashdothelpdesk'.

I thought I'd seen some pathetic Ask Slashdots, but this is an all-new low.

Well, maybe... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635244)

... maybe it really WAS a phishing website that he thought was The Google. Maybe, just maybe IE7 actually protected him in his search for adorable pussies.

Re:And your point is? (2, Informative)

toopc (32927) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635304)

Works fine for me in IE7. Turn on Anti-Fisihing, started Google, Image Search "Ferrari". First image opened with no problems.

NICOLE BRAZZLE'S TITS ARE FLOPPING EVERYWHERE!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635002)

Right here, bitchez! [nicolebrazzlexxx.com]

Re:NICOLE BRAZZLE'S TITS ARE FLOPPING EVERYWHERE!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635126)

what an ugly girl.

Re:NICOLE BRAZZLE'S TITS ARE FLOPPING EVERYWHERE!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635194)

She's pretty hot. Actually, she looks like my girlfriend. A lot like her, actually.

Re:NICOLE BRAZZLE'S TITS ARE FLOPPING EVERYWHERE!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635252)

She's pretty hot. Actually, she looks like my girlfriend. A lot like her, actually.


Looks like they have a similar technique, too.

Re:And your point is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635262)

I'd post anonymously if I was constantly searching google for adorable kittens too

Wow, talk about missing a chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634868)

to goatse slashdot.

Strange (5, Informative)

mingot (665080) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634870)

I just tried it. Works fine.

Re:Strange (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635180)

Would you like some Enzyte?

Re:Strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635212)

> Only problem I had was getting things to come up.

I get emails about that all the time, research says it's linked to smoking and painkillers.

I think not (5, Funny)

maxrate (886773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634872)

Seems to work well (properly) for me

Re:I think not (1)

jamesbulman (103594) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635006)

Works for me too.

I'm running IE 7.0.5744.16384.

How does this stuff make it too the front page? Did nobody check even the most basic of facts for the story?

Re:I think not (1)

maxrate (886773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635022)

Agreed - anonymous writer - did anyone check this? It's like SlashDot is just creaming their pants hoping that this is true - Anti MS people!

Re:I think not (2, Funny)

Wornstrom (920197) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635098)

Try it yourself: make sure automatic phishing detection is turned on and do an (adorable) image search; click on one of the result thumbnails.
I wonder how many slashdotters this "AC" will trick into installing IE7...

No problems in Vista (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634876)

Just tried the above link in Vista RC 2. I don't get any warnings, but the IE7 in Vista might be an older version.

Internet Explorer 7 version: 7.0.5744.16384

Re:No problems in Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634932)

FWIW: I'm running a slightly more recent Vista build 5840 (IE7 version 7.0.5840.16388) and I cannot reproduce the problem either.

Can't duplicate (4, Interesting)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634900)

Vista RC1 and XP Pro SP2. Not able to duplicate. Methinks PEBKAC.

Re:Can't duplicate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635166)

Same here on XP Pro SP2 and Win2003 R2 Standard. No problems at all (not that I'd use IE7, nor the phishing thing either)

OT: does anyone know how to have rows of tabs in FF 2.0? The scrolling thing sucks big time. Tab Mix Plus doesn't work seemingly. Looks like I might have to go back to 1.5 or use Opera meanwhile...

Re:Can't duplicate (1)

Cally (10873) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635170)

Interesting; over here we call it 'PEBCAM[onitor]'. Or the "10D/0t" problem.

Seems to work fine here... (1)

RootWind (993172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634902)

I don't see any strange behavior... perhaps the poster has some spyware problem?

Re:Seems to work fine here... (1)

joeybagadonuts (849172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635366)

Most certainly, unless this is a complete fabrication. One person on the planet sees a problem on their MS system though - good enough for a /. front page!

Works just fine for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634904)

FUD.

works (1)

icqboy1987 (869529) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634908)

Works great on IE7, no problem at all.

Re:works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635276)

Look, plant, some people might actually want a working search engine instead of the garbage our masters in Redmond try to foist on us.

M$, you have just lost a customer forever with this continuing bullshit. I can only hope, for your sake, that you mend your ways before the whole world is aware of your misdeeds. Stop your criminal interference with other servics, stop astroturfing /. and maybe spend some of those billions to hire a couple of programmers who know what they're doing. Google doesn't seem to have any problems finding them.

Re:works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635340)

I give you a "D" for effort but an "F" for execution. Perhaps you should seek council with the GNAA before you proceed further.

No need conspiracy (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634916)

I have no IE7 myself, but I guest his heuristic is somewhat flawed, and image search is tryiing to cheat the user in some way... that and of course, no one on the IE7 beta testing was searching images on google, thats kind of sad. Poor bastards :D

No problem here (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634926)

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 (4, Funny)

zdzichu (100333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634934)

OMG KITTENS!!!!!

So, basically any page with frames containing other pages is evil now? Thank you, MS.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be (4, Insightful)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be (5, Funny)

pegr (46683) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634994)

Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice...

Re:Never ascribe to malice that which can be (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635128)

"Yet sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice..."

On the other hand, caterpillars turn into butterflies...

The real conspiracy theory (5, Funny)

melonman (608440) | more than 7 years ago | (#16634954)

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!

Re:The real conspiracy theory (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635272)

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 :)

Re:The real conspiracy theory (1)

Shohat (959481) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635544)

Sticking to FireFox stucks your computer .... (quite annoying . I've seen the session recovery window 5 times now)

Can anyone reproduce the problem? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634964)

Did the editors confirm this before accepting the story? Perhaps the submitter's computer has spyware which redirects web requests to another site!

Works great here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634966)

Stop spreading FUD. You are supposed to be above this Slashdot.

Re:Works great here (3, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635422)

As usual, this story is posted by our good friend kdawson, the editor who thought the Enlightenment icon was a state of being.

Re:Works great here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635496)

We can not trust the sword of 1000 truths to a noob.

"sword of a 1000 truths" = "Slashdot editor position"
"a noob" = "kdawson"

With Opera's, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16634972)

When you access Google cached pages on Opera's latest weekly builds it will alert you that the framed and duplicated page is suspicious.

I don't see how IE and Opera can make exceptions just for Google. What about any other site which uses that type of code? This anti-phishing tech is unnecessary and annoying for people who have already learned how not to be scammed for the last 10 years when we were left out in the cold on the matter.

PEBKAC (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Upon further investigation (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635024)

(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.

Users should understand how Internet works?! (1)

Frobnicator (565869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635348)

The user is the problem, they fail to understand how the Internet works and ascribe it to MS conspiracy.
Great.

Now everybody needs to educate grandma not only what phishing is, but also how innocent material can be blocked by an association with phishing sites.

Re:PEBKAC (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635302)

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...

Re:PEBKAC (1)

jesboat (64736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635390)

The problem (according to the story) isn't with the GIS homepage or the results page, it's when you click on one of the thumbnails. So your experiences, as posted, do not, in fact, contradict the story. So, maybe you should try verifying it again.

And speaking of verification, kdawson supposedly did reproduce the behavior, and the story (if you read it carefully) never asserts that this happens to everyone, just to the author and kdawson. Note especially the question mark in the title?

Re:PEBKAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635494)

If kdawson really did "reproduce" the behavior, then I would guess that kdawson is the anonymous poster who submitted the story.

Searching for the linked term "adorable kittens", and checking all of the first page of hits, I have no problem with IE7 on XP Pro with anti-phishing turned on. That's a far cry from "Whenever I click on an image, my browser tells me in big bold letters, 'This is a reported phishing website.'".

Re:PEBKAC (1)

theendlessnow (516149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635612)

Seriously I wish people would stop with the crap but I really wish /. would not post things like this without verification.


Agreed. We have digg for posts like this! Well... for that and describing how to make rounded corners in CSS.

Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot (4, Interesting)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#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...

Re:Meanwhile a bigger conspiracy is afoot (4, Informative)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635608)

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.

What does NOT work fine... (3, Interesting)

JAB Creations (999510) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635030)

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.

That isn't real, but this is... (1, Offtopic)

techmuse (160085) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635080)

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, and indeed, I was no longer prompted. But why do you *enable* automatic prompting to *disable* prompts from the information bar? This option doesn't *appear* (so far) to actually enable another form of prompting (and if it did, it would be really annoying - you should just be able to say no once and never be bothered again. Sites shouldn't harass you into installing plug-ins you don't want.

The design of IE has never made much sense to me.

Re:That isn't real, but this is... (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635448)

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!

No problem here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635088)

Works fine. I would have expected the slashdot editors to at least verify a fake story like this before posting it.

Slow news day... (3, Insightful)

kiwioddBall (646813) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635120)

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.

disproved, at least on my box (1)

Saeris (939637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635138)

just tried this under IE7, XP MCE, Phising Filter turned On. No such problem encountered for multiple image searches. couldn't duplicate the problem

Slashdot special (4, Insightful)

doktorstop (725614) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635144)

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

tscheaa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635156)

The only purpose of this article is to see how many fucking morons actually use that pos browser IE7 here on /.

Right Taco, NOW (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635160)

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.

Possibility? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635182)

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 an exploit or a form of phishing?

Has anybody tested porn image searching with IE7? (Ha!)

Itsatrap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635274)

...anonymous reader is most likely Microsoft employee making this post to encourage slashdot users to install IE7

Once they installed IE7, Microsoft will tell everyone that their installbase has just grown by 2% due to Slashdot readers installing IE7 en masse !

wtf (1)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635280)

i have the phishing filter on, ie7 installed, xpsp2, i ran that search, and many others... i get the images as anyone should.
i think this is just some blind bashing to try and get on slashdot.

cannot be reproduced (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635292)

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.

Re:cannot be reproduced (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635480)

The Slashdot editors only browse the web using an early version of Mozilla running on their Dreamcasts which run NetBSD. So they've got no way to verify such things.

Just a theory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635306)

Submitter could have had some kind of spyware/adware/malware/etc. that does something or other with hijacking Google Image Search pages on the client computer and perhaps that was what IE7 was catching?

No problems (1)

LinuxIsRetarded (995083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635318)

It works fine for me with XP Pro SP2 (fully patched) with IE7 with the phishing filter turned on. I even tried invoking the phishing filter explicitly and also had no problems.

yu0 f4il it. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635374)

coorect network since we made the parts. The current

The editors should at least check... (1)

amontiel (863735) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635376)

for the accuracy of the stories submitted to Slashdot. It is this kind of careless posting what has kept me from subscribing.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about FireFox2 (-1, Offtopic)

zaqattack911 (532040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635378)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=513737 5&size=lg [photo.net]

There's just no excuse for this kind of memory usage, and no I didn't visit any flash intensive / video pages.
I was surfing news sites, closed windows after using them.

Re:This pretty much sums up how I feel about FireF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635620)

This happens to me as well. Is there a fix or a reason?

Re:This pretty much sums up how I feel about FireF (1)

noamsml (868075) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635622)

What extension do you use? FasterFox, certain greasemonkey scripts, and others have been known to have memory leaks.

The OP's real search... (1)

AmIAnAi (975049) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635388)

Ah! But the OP's original search was for fluffy kitten porn, which linked him to a phishing site.

Well I tried it, and it works fine... (1)

HeliXx (971165) | more than 7 years ago | (#16635392)

...Sure, I'm on Firefox, but it works on that. I just came for the kittens.

It's your proxy dumbass! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16635440)

This is obviously a proxy/firewall issue, not IE7.

Why this made Slashdot, I have no idea.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...