<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>hacking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.yackyack.co.uk/category/hacking/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk</link>
	<description>A Blog about Search and Online</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:48:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>hacking</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/hacking/blog-got-hacked-sigh/</link>
		<comments>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/hacking/blog-got-hacked-sigh/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>robwatts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[hacking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/?p=257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some mofo hacked the blog which stopped it from ranking.
Webmaster tools told me nothing, which ok, Ive bashed Google a little in the past but..what about the squillions of bloggers who don&#8217;t know what to look for and are getting randomly penalised?
Google or Matt they got Naylor and a few others too, isn&#8217;t about time [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some mofo hacked the blog which stopped it from ranking.</p>
<p>Webmaster tools told me nothing, which ok, Ive bashed Google a little in the past but..what about the squillions of bloggers who don&#8217;t know what to look for and are getting randomly penalised?</p>
<p>Google or <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog">Matt</a> they got <a href="http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk">Naylor</a> and a few others too, isn&#8217;t about time you gave people a heads up before banning them?</p>
<p>A little email to at webmaster would be nice.</p>
<script src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~s/yackyack?i=http://www.yackyack.co.uk/hacking/blog-got-hacked-sigh/" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/hacking/blog-got-hacked-sigh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>hacking</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/google/ghosts-in-the-google-machine-and-seeing-double/</link>
		<comments>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/google/ghosts-in-the-google-machine-and-seeing-double/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>robwatts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[302's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hacking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/hacking/ghosts-in-the-google-machine-and-seeing-double/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David  over at science text alerted me to a story  that I missed regarding Google and some strange accounts of  &#8216;indexed&#8217;  websites that don&#8217;t exist installing malaware and viri on Google user  machines.

Some searches (very specific phrases, and I won&#8217;t list any of them right now  &#8211; Google knows [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.sciencetext.com/hackers-shanghai-google-warning.html">David  over at science text </a>alerted me to a <a href="http://www.googlewatchdog.info/2007/09/spam-and-virus-sites-infesting-google.html">story  that I missed </a>regarding Google and some strange accounts of  &#8216;indexed&#8217;  websites that don&#8217;t exist installing malaware and viri on Google user  machines.</p>
<blockquote>
<li>Some searches (very specific phrases, and I won&#8217;t list any of them right now  &#8211; Google knows which they are) return results with a large number of <span style="font-weight: bold">.cn</span> (Chinese) sites.</li>
<li>The .cn sites are often scraped content from legitimate U.S. websites</li>
<li>The legitimate sites are being ranked below the scammed .cn sites for these  competitive keywords.</li>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Just another hijack story?</strong></p>
<p>Nothing so new there, we&#8217;ve all read accounts of <a href="http://diagnostics.googlerankings.com/hijacking-google-results.html">scraper  sites</a> outranking &#8216;legitimate&#8217; sites for their content often by use of a <a href="http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1940">302  &#8216;hijack</a>&#8216; . It&#8217;s pretty easy to scrape content and slap a few ads around it here  and there, and in fairness to the engines it&#8217;s not the easiest thing to  eliminate, especially in a world of rss and syndicated content.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m going to be a little lazy and summise that those clever so and so&#8217;s use a  little commonsense and hook up with the various <a href="http://pingomatic.com/">ping  services</a> that blogs like wordpress use when publishing new content. This  would you&#8217;d think give them a good way of being able to establish who published  what 1st where and when. Grab the timestamp , put it into a database and bob&#8217;s  your uncle. This way, any duplicate content that followed wouldn&#8217;t be classed as  the original source and would be ranked beneath that of the original.</p>
<p><strong>Don&#8217;t trust the authorities&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Ok so not every website out there has a ping script installed so perhaps the  above scenario is indicative of a problem within the Google ranking machine with  its reliance and trust in link data and authority scores. If site A happens to  have a higher trust level than site B, and Site A decides to use content from  site B, then in a scenario where Site A is indexed more frequently than say site  B (because of its higher authority  score) then there is a very real chance that  Google will decide that the rightful owner of the content is Site A and not the  original publisher site B.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=66359">Google  advise people</a> who syndicate content to embed a link within it so that its   googlebot sees a link back to the original source and handles it correctly.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Syndicate carefully</strong>: If you syndicate your content on other  sites, Google will always show the version we think is most appropriate for  users in each given search, which may or may not be the version you&#8217;d prefer.  However, it is helpful to ensure that each site on which your content is  syndicated includes a link back to your original article. You can also ask those  who use your syndicated material to block the version on their sites with  robots.txt.</p></blockquote>
<p>Whilst this may well work fine and dandy for people who are behaving  themselves, it&#8217;s clearly inadequate for those who are not.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t take too much effort to strip an href out of a piece of html. Web  scripting languages come complete with all manner of string functions that  enable a person to do all manner of imaginative things with some text or HTML. A  person looking to rank higher with someone else&#8217;s content  can rank higher up in  a SERP and deprive the rightful owner of both kudos and traffic.</p>
<p>Has this aspect of their systems contributed to this problem? Is it soley  attributable to this <a href="http://www.yackyack.co.uk/google/unfairness-inherent-in-authorities-just-another-flaw-in-an-algo/">particular  flaw in their algo</a>? I doubt it, but at the end of it all it sure looks like  its contributing.</p>
<p><strong>List my non existent domain please</strong></p>
<p>The amazing thing about the  <a href="http://www.googlewatchdog.info/2007/09/spam-and-virus-sites-infesting-google.html">story  </a> from the site calling itself  googlewatchdog  is that it appears that  someone has managed to fool the googlebot completely, getting it to list domain  names that do not even exist.</p>
<blockquote>
<li>The .cn sites don&#8217;t appear to be hosted ANYWHERE. They are simply redirected  domain names. How they got ranked in Google in such a short period of time for  fairly competitive keywords is a mystery. Google&#8217;s index even shows legitimate  content for the .cn sites.</li>
<li>It appears that the faked sites are redirecting the Googlebot to a location  where content can be indexed, while at the same time recognizing normal users  and redirecting them to a site that includes the malware mentioned earlier. This  is an obvious violation of Google&#8217;s guidelines, but the spammers have found ways  to circumvent the rule and hide it from the Googlebot.</li>
<li>These sites are numbering in the millions for many different keywords and  phrases, and appear to be developed on an automated basis. Because of privacy  laws, it&#8217;s hard to track down who owns the domain names &#8211; Google has the power  to do so, but there has been about exactly zero information from Google about  the problem so far, and even many SEO experts and webmasters are not picking up  on it.</li>
</blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;m sure that this has made quite a few people sit up and think hmmn how mad  is that. How did they do that then. People can spoof user agents and redirect  people or bots all over the shop. They can cloak content and have in the past  confused the Google technology into believing that an indexed page resided at  one place, when in fact it resided elsewhere. This commonly became known as the  302 hijack a phenomenon that Google stayed silent on for some considerable  time, refusing to concede its existence. There were literally hundreds upon  hundreds of posts at places like Webmasterworld and the busier webmaster and SEO  forums from people complaining about how their content had been replaced by  other domains using it as some kind of bait and switch tool.</p>
<p>Yet this one seems different. Very different indeed in that somehow they&#8217;ve  managed to get around all the accepted safeguards causing Google to output stuff  that was at best inaccurate and at worst decidedly harmful to the recipient  computer.</p>
<p>There is of course always the possibility that the people concerned are  unaware of an errant piece of scumware that is simply  hijacking their  browsers and taking over the Google SERP from <a href="http://www.sciencetext.com/hackers-shanghai-google-warning.html">David&#8217;s  piece</a> quoting Dr Jenny Oliver</p>
<blockquote><p>“I can’t remember what I put in to search with,” she told me, “as I was idly  surfing last night, my Mac was suddenly very busy for several seconds as if  installing a program.” She rebooted very quickly after that, but her net  connection seemed to have become ominously slow.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yet this was after she had clicked and not before. Perhaps she was already  infected is a chorus I hear from behind, yet David does go on to say that he too  saw it with his own eyes on his own pc, <a href="http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/014828.html"> seroundtable  </a>also provide a screenshot and a little more background and it seems that the  <a href="http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/014828.html#comment-543573">Spam  team </a>are aware of the issue too.</p>
<p>If it is true, then its a big step up from the conventional means of  manipulating the Google index. To get into the results for such well known  keywords is a bit of a blackhat coup de force and of course a huge headache for the  Google technology team too.</p>
<p>How long before this is plugged? God knows. It&#8217;s fair to draw the conclusion  that we are very unlikely to hear Google say &#8220;Yeah, our index isn&#8217;t impregnable,  spammers can get right on in and do what they like&#8221; It&#8217;ll either be bluntly  denied or dismissed as some kind of  <a href="http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1579">browser  hijack</a>. We will no doubt see&#8230; Interesting nonetheless <img src='http://www.yackyack.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<script src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~s/yackyack?i=http://www.yackyack.co.uk/google/ghosts-in-the-google-machine-and-seeing-double/" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/google/ghosts-in-the-google-machine-and-seeing-double/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>hacking</title>
		<link>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/matt-cutts/matt-upgrades-wp-and-then-gets-hacked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/matt-cutts/matt-upgrades-wp-and-then-gets-hacked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:46:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>robwatts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[hacking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matt cutts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.yackyack.co.uk/2007/04/01/matt-upgrades-wp-and-then-gets-hacked/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow Matt upgrades WP and um gets hacked &#8211; WP 2.2 time already?  
Is there some kind of discredit WP agenda going on?
Not good.
edit:Um hold on, could this be anApril fools joke? Lol if it is, too funny, it got me!  
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow <a href="http://www.mattcutts.com/blog">Matt upgrades WP </a>and um gets hacked &#8211; WP 2.2 time already? <img src='http://www.yackyack.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Is there some kind of discredit WP agenda going on?</p>
<p>Not good.</p>
<p>edit:Um hold on, could this be anApril fools joke? Lol if it is, too funny, it got me! <img src='http://www.yackyack.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<script src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~s/yackyack?i=http://www.yackyack.co.uk/matt-cutts/matt-upgrades-wp-and-then-gets-hacked/" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.yackyack.co.uk/matt-cutts/matt-upgrades-wp-and-then-gets-hacked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
