Dailytech blocked by Chrome?

[KentState]

Has anyone else seen this when trying to browse Dailytech with Chrome?

 

[waggy]

wtf..hmm

 

[Oyeve]

No, but thats awesome!

 

[SunnyD]

lol, I typed it as "failytech.com"

 

[JimKiler]

If you click advanced one page has something malicious. Interesting. I did not even know Chrome has this ability in its code.

What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 324 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-03-20, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-03-20.

Malicious software includes 1 exploit(s).

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS23127 (SOFNETINC).

 

[Number1]

Well I won't be going to this site until they clear it up.

More details from Chrome.

Safe Browsing
Diagnostic page for dailytech.com

What is the current listing status for dailytech.com?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 324 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-03-20, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-03-20.
Malicious software includes 1 exploit(s).

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS23127 (SOFNETINC).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, dailytech.com 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.

 

[blankslate]

Maybe someone found a way to distribute malware through the ads?

Getting to the point were I probably will run all my browser windows through a sandboxing program.

 

[Jodell88]

And people want me to turn off Adblock. LOL!

 

[KidNiki1]

Maybe someone found a way to distribute malware through the ads?

Getting to the point were I probably will run all my browser windows through a sandboxing program.

i got a screen like OP did for myfitnesspal the other day, which is a fairly reputable site and come to find out one of the banner ads had some potentially bad code in it so my first guess would be same for this.

 

[Insomniac]

I have more details:

What is the current listing status for dailytech.com?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 18 time(s) over the past 90 days.

What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 999 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 178 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2013-03-20, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2013-03-20.

Malicious software includes 175 exploit(s), 5 trojan(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 5 new process(es) on the target machine.

Malicious software is hosted on 3 domain(s), including sistemicaolivos.com.ar/, twoplayers.net/, anitamcfarlandhomes.com/.

1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including twoplayers.net/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS23127 (SOFNETINC).

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Over the past 90 days, dailytech.com did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?
Yes, this site has hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. It infected 11 domain(s), including feedsportal.com/, bit.ly/, 199.19.80.0/.

 

[maniac5999]

FWIW, Firefox is throwing up essentially the same message, IE10 lets you surf it like normal.

 

[NFS4]

Yeah, it's an issue with one of the ad servers (probably a tainted ad), we're working on it.

 

[lxskllr]

And people want me to turn off Adblock. LOL!

^^^This

I seriously don't care much about ads. They take up some room, but I was always good at ignoring them back in the day. It's the tracking and malware dispersal that's an issue. I don't see that changing, so I'll keep blocking.

 

[Tarvaln]

I saw that myself and thought, "Well, I guess the Illuminati doesn't want anyone knowing about "Extinct 'Gastric-Brooding Frog" Comes Back to Life'. I suppose the next step is Dinosaurs." Well played Illuminati, well played.

 

[ElFenix]

Yeah, it's an issue with one of the ad servers (probably a tainted ad), we're working on it.

why is it that ad servers can't keep their stuff patched?

 

[JimKiler]

why is it that ad servers can't keep their stuff patched?

Good question. At least on dailytech when ads do not load they do not hold the content hostage and prevent you from reading it.

 

[Juddog]

And people want me to turn off Adblock. LOL!

I use noscript in combination with Adblock; Adblock by itself won't prevent malicious code from running, it will only block the ads.

 

[lxskllr]

I use noscript in combination with Adblock; Adblock by itself won't prevent malicious code from running, it will only block the ads.

Not entirely correct, but NoScript+ABP is the clear winner. An ad script that gets blocked by ABP won't run, but not all scripts come from adservers.

 

[waggy]

I use noscript in combination with Adblock; Adblock by itself won't prevent malicious code from running, it will only block the ads.

yeap that's what i run.

i used to not mind ads. until they got so big and so annoying.

 

[Juddog]

Not entirely correct, but NoScript+ABP is the clear winner. An ad script that gets blocked by ABP won't run, but not all scripts come from adservers.

True, adblock does block some scripts as part of it's ability to block the adservers, but I still recommend using both to anybody that wants a truly secure browser.

 

[Jodell88]

I use noscript in combination with Adblock; Adblock by itself won't prevent malicious code from running, it will only block the ads.

Same here. I also used to use ghostery in addition to ABP and noscript but it was causing problems.

 

[lxskllr]

Same here. I also used to use ghostery in addition to ABP and noscript but it was causing problems.

Ghostery noticeably slowed my browser. The Fanboy Ultimate list should cover most, if not all of what Ghostery did.

 

[KentState]

Yeah, it's an issue with one of the ad servers (probably a tainted ad), we're working on it.

Awesome. I miss being able to go the site.

 

[homercles337]

All the cross-pollination between comments on DailyTech and that cesspool FreeRepublic probably led to some virus spread.

 

[pcslookout]

Works fine with Ad Muncher.