GMail Adds Virus Protection 355
AxsDeny writes "Google has rolled out virus protection for it's web based email service. Apparently they are scanning incoming and outgoing messages for infected messages. Read more on their "what's new" page."
"it's"? (Score:1, Insightful)
but what powers it? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This could be a big issue (Score:4, Insightful)
......
If a virus is found in an attachment you're trying to send, you won't be able to send the message until you remove the attachment.
Now I know Google is pretty good and reliable, but that's sort of a harsh way to do business. There should be some sort of work-around if Google gets it wrong on what is and isn't a virus (which I assume they are going to do sooner or later). I mean, a false positive would get you cut off from what could be vital information. If that happens to someone, they'll be mad, even though it was done for a good reason. I hope they at least warn the people that there was an attachment.
Wrong Link (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I'm still pissed they havent added the option to empty the spam folder, yes I know it gets automagically deleted after 30 days, but I'd like to clear it out without having to go through 30 pages.
Re:but what powers it? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about false positives? (Score:3, Insightful)
"If the virus can't be removed from the file, you won't be able to download it"
All that talk about false positive and important (project/contract saving) mails sounds so important suddenly...
Re:Hotmail has integrated this for years... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:but what powers it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only are they scanning for infected messages (Score:5, Insightful)
That's obviously pretty damned annoying for people who actually work with zipfiles. "Here, give this version a try." "What version?"
I've sent them polite feedback requests to stop doing that. Other services scan zipfile contents for known viruses; Google is just dropping the zipfiles altogether. In my message to their support folks, I pointed out that letting virus writers dictate the design of your mail service isn't the best long-term business model.
Re:"it's"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:but what powers it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditional virus scanning based on a blacklist of known bad code is hopeless. By the time a new piece of trojan code has been identified a hundred million copies have been blasted out from a botnet. There is almost no legitimate use of email to send executable code, way over 99% of all executable attachments are malicious.
ISPs should block executable attachments by default and offer the people who really really think that they can't live without it the option of turning delivery back on. AIDS awareness campaigns have saved millions of lives by persuading people to use condoms even though some people think that they just have to have casual sex without one. Accepting code in email is like having casual unprotected sex, its idiotic.
There is a very small, largely theoretical problem with non-executable content. Any data that is transferred from one machine to another could be used to exploit a code vulnerability in theory. The use of anti-virus style malicious data lists will still be necessary but the problem is much, much smaller. It is a much easier signal to spot. AV systems spend huge numbers of cycles recursively unpacking program loaders. With a data exploit we know the shape of the lock it fits into.
Re:but what powers it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about false positives? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I send _uninfected_ .exe files now? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This could be a big issue (Score:2, Insightful)
And the next obvious step - is long overdue (Score:5, Insightful)
The next, obvious, and far too long overdue, step is for Google to flag web-sites that attempt to install malware, redirect you to sites you didn't want to visit, spawn endless pop-up windows, attempt to create a full-screen browser that you can't close, or disable features of your browser like right mouse button clicks. Since they've already spidered it, and in most cases cached it, they can darn well scan it for viruses and other crap at the same time! Their virus, adware, spyware, malware signature files would certainly be more upto date than my own. They could even be protecting surfers now from the current unpatched IE exploit by warning of sites that have dodgy or questionable code while MS takes its own sweet time coming up with a patch.
The first decent search engine that takes this step to protect its users can count on the majority of my traffic.
Re:but what powers it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, don't send the executable. Send a link to where the executable lives on your website. If it's important that no one else get it, then password-protect the directory. (.htaccess on Apache.) This is a much better solution: