- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
Has this impacted your self hosted instances of Immich? Are you hosting Immich via subdomain?
Related:
You must log in or # to comment.
Google, protecting you from privacy
Google protecting Google from FOSS.
They’re right too, after using Immich I don’t want to go back.
Also protecting you from the East Wing of the White House.
Google
I have identified the problem.
… for which all solutions are pitifully incapable, relatively speaking.
I smell fear.
I knew it was too good to be true when they give away free pic storage for their pixel phones. I just didn’t listen to my gut.
They’ve also started warning against android apps from outside repos. Basically they want to force people to use their ai-filled bullshit apps.
Immich users flag Google sites as dangerous
Stop using google. Don’t you know their motto? “Be evil”
Easier said than done, if your end users run Chrome. Because Chrome will automatically block your site if you’re on double secret probation.
The phishing flag usually happens because you have the Username, Password, Log In, and SSO button all on the same screen. Google wants you to have the Username field, the Log In button, and any SSO stuff on one page. Then if you input a username and go to start a password login, Google expects the SSO to disappear and be replaced by the vanilla Log In button. If you simply have all of the fields and buttons on one page, Google flags it as a phishing attempt. Like I guess they expect you to try and steal users’ Google passwords if you have a password field on the same page as a “Sign in with Google” button.
Firefox ingests Google SafeBrowsing lists.
If you are falsely flagged as phishing (like I was), then you are fucked regardless of what you use (except you use curl).I couldnt even bypass the safebrowse warning on my Android phone in Firefox.
OP is impacted by Google SafeBrowsing which various websites use.
Same when you try to deviate from the approved path of email providers or, dog forbid, even self-host email.
This is why I always switch off that “block potentially dangerous sites” setting in my browser - it means Google’s blacklists. This is how Google influences the web beyond its own products.
edit: it’s much more complex than simple blocklists with email
I wouldn’t recommend turning off safe browsing
If a page is blocked it is very easy to bypass. However, the warning page will make you take a step back.
For instance, someone could create a fake Lemmy instance at fedit.org to harvest credentials.
just use ublock origin and a proper password manager. google safe browsing means google sees what sites you browse.
@possiblylinux127 @A_norny_mousse ungoogled-chromium disables safe browsing, and for Debian’s chromium package I keep going back and forth about whether to pull that patch in or not.
@Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it
Running Debian Stable, I have installed ungoogled-chromium which is also in the repos.
But Librewolf is my main browser, Chromium a rarely used secondary.
What I’m talking about is how these blocklists are used by many other browsers/softwares (e.g. Firefox) as well.
This is why I always don’t use Chrome or Google Search
Why are the immich teams internal deployments available to anyone on the open web? If you go to one of their links, like they provide in the article, they have an invalid SSL certificate, which google rightly flags as being a security risk, warns you about it, and stops you from going there without manual intervention. This is standard behaviour and no-one should want google to stop doing this.
I was going to install linux on an old NUC to run immich some time soon, but think I might have to have a look to see if it has been audited by some legit security companies first. How do they not see this issue of their own doing?
It is for pull requests. A user makes a change to the documentation, they want to be able to see the changes on a web page.
If you don’t have them on the open web, developers and pull request authors can’t see the previews.
The issue they had was being marked as phishing, not the SSL certificate warning page.
The issue they had was being marked as phishing, not the SSL certificate warning page.
Have you seen what browsers say when you have a look at the SSL certificate warning page?
It is for pull requests. A user makes a change to the documentation, they want to be able to see the changes on a web page.
Why is a user made PR publishing a branch to Immich’s domain for the user to see?
I thought that was how pull requests worked, its a branch if you’veade a departure to edit code, you have the pull request and ask them to merge into the main branch. It should be visible to everyone so everyone can review the change.
It is for pull requests. A user makes a change to the documentation, they want to be able to see the changes on a web page.
So? What that has to do with SSL certificates? Do you think GitHub loses SSL when viewing PRs?
If you don’t have them on the open web, developers and pull request authors can’t see the previews.
You can have them in the open, but without SSL you can’t be sure what you’re accessing, i.e. it’s trivial to make a malicious site to take it’s place an MitM whoever tries to access the real one.
The issue they had was being marked as phishing, not the SSL certificate warning page.
Yes, a website without SSL is very likely a phishing attack, it means someone might be impersonating the real website and so it shouldn’t be trusted. Even if by a fluke of chance you hit the right site, all of your communication with it is unencrypted, so anyone in the path can see it clearly.
You could just host it inside your network and do an always on VPN. That’s what I do.
Now imagine you’re running a successful open source project developed in the open, where it’s expected that people outside your core team review and comment on changes.
How would that work? The use case is for previews for pull requests. Somebody submits a change to the website. This creates a preview domain that reviewers and authors can see their proposed changes in a clean environment.
CloudFlare pages gives this behavior out of the box.
Ah, I missed that part
Fuck you google. I can’t see youtube videos with my browser because google wants me to sign in. Tells me it is protecting the community.
BULLSHIT.
Because google doesnt make me sign in to view or edit someone elses google docs they are sharing. Which one is more important google? Assholes.
I can’t see youtube videos with my browser because google wants me to sign in. Tells me it is protecting the community.
I’m guessing the videos are age restricted 18+ videos? You don’t have to be signed in to watch any other videos.
Nope, sometimes it asks for normal videos as well, it really depends on the case since there’s a lot of background stuff happening, making the experience vary between users.
No, not age restricted.
Happens most frequently with using any VPN, which we use all the time at work and I often use at home or while traveling.
But sometimes it just does it without.
I think most people are signed into their gmail account or have been recently so the cookie is set. It’s crazy when you don’t have one how hard Google pushes you.
jellyfin had a similar issue too for a long time for servers exposed to the internet. google would always reblock the domains soon after unblocking them. I think they solved it in the latest update. Basically it’s that google’s scraping bots think that all jellyfin servers are a scam that imitate a “real” website.
But the malvertisements on Google’s front page are ok, I guess
What is the usecase for exposing jellyfin to the outernet anyway ?
What’s the usecase for Netflix? Same case.
watching it remotely, like at friends. even if you can access it on your phone through VPN, the smart TV won’t be able to use it
this is why you disable google “safe browsing” in librewolf and use badblock instead
Librewolf has Google “safe browsing” to disable…? Google?
firefox has google safe browser api protection; librewolf disables it by default under librewolf settings.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/safe-browsing-firefox-focus
Similar issues were reported with aves libre early this week, maybe it’s related?
From the OP:
Google Safe Browsing looks to be have been built without consideration for open-source or self-hosted software. Many popular projects have run into similar issues, such as:
-
Jellyfin
-
YunoHost
-
n8n
-
NextCloud
I’m sure it’s all accidental and coincidental that open source project that rival Google just weirdly got flagged as being dangerous. Google also doesn’t know how this happened, it just did! Magic!
Clearly their run-in with the DOJ and subsequent wrist-slap has emboldened them to new heights of anticompetitiveness.
It probably is accidental, but they don’t care enough to fix the root problem
Uh huh.
Loads of scam projects on play store that rarely get taken down but a competitor on play store gets sabotaged. I’m sure it’s purely coincidental
-
I got a ‘dangerous site’ warning and then prompts for crap on my Vaultwarden instance (didn’t see it on Immich but this was a while ago). I think I had to prove I owned the domain with some DNS TXT records then let them “recheck” the domain. It seems to have worked.
Google flags F-Droid updates…
Why would people have Google security going on if they have set up F-Droid as their appstore? Doesn’t that defeat the entire purpose?
Well according to the OP, it’s a list they offer for free and it’s integrated with many browsers including Firefox…
Like I understand that if I buy a phone from Apple, and they control everything on the phone and what I can install - well I mean I bought it from Apple, what else did I expect?
But I didn’t buy my phone from Google. They should have no say in what I could or couldn’t install.
But I didn’t buy my phone from Google. They should have no say in what I could or couldn’t install.
You bought a phone running a Google operating system, knowingly so. This one is on you buddy.
I mean, I don’t think it matters if you bought the phone from Google or not (and you could have). Samsung or Motorola or whoever shouldn’t have any say either.
Was also flagged recently.
In my case it was the root domain which is- Geofiltered to only my own Country in Cloudflare
- Geofiltered to only my country in my firewall
- Protected by Authelia (except the root domain which says 404 when accessing)
So…IDK what they want from me :p My domain doesnt serve public websites (like a blog) destined for public consumption…
