It's used in Firefox 2, for example. The list is also saved locally (somewhere).

It sometimes shows this:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7352/googlefraudwh7.png

<<Web Forgery

This page is very likely to have been designed to trick users into sharing personal or finance information. Entering any personal information on this page may result in identity theft or other fraud.>>

Wasn't Google supposed to develop a clever algo to identify these sites. A black list? Isn't that silly?

this is good list...!!

/pd
indeed.. :)

thnx.. this is a good list..

Ionut, I think Mozilla is developing an algo based on Heuristic Analysis.

In my experience, Netcraft and IE7s Phishing Filter (Powered by 3 Firms) are superior to Safe Browsing.

Here is some information on this.
   http://wiki.mozilla.org/Phishing_Protection:_Server_Spec#Update_Requests

interesting..... i tweaked the url to find more files (see below):

http://sb.google.com/safebrowsing/update
[goog-black-enchash 1.10123]
[goog-black-url 1.6606]
[goog-sandbox-text 1.5]
[goog-white-domain 1.17]
[goog-white-url 1.353]

http://sb.google.com/safebrowsing/update?version=goog-black-enchash:1:-1
http://sb.google.com/safebrowsing/update?version=goog-sandbox-text:1:-1
http://sb.google.com/safebrowsing/update?version=goog-white-domain:1:-1

Nice.

Why does it need a Whitelist ? So that it doesn't embarrass itself or something.

probably the need to have a whitelist is to do comparisons against the black list so the algorithem doesn't go crazy or get headaches with every existing site out there.

I find these files disgraceful.

Hmm Seems fair Josue.

So then doesn't Google's algo go after sites like this (Blogoscoped) and isn't it literally astronomical to add them to the White List.

Trying to navigate to these websites in Firefox 2.0b2 triggers "phishing website" warning.

"Jake's View says he found..."

This is so funny. I always have difficulties dealing with nicknames, but in this case Jake would be more appropriate. Dontcha think?

No actaully "jakes view" is the users handle. In former life in the MUD's and IRC s, one of the most important things is to use the right handle....

So if my id is "Says he found", you'll say:
"Says he found says he found a very interesting..."?

Nope, I wont say that... I'll rephrase..." 'say he founds' points to ... blah blah ".. and that's the crazy thing about handles..it does disrupt the conventional language rules.

We recently had this debate..why do RL (real life) rules germinate within the SL (Second Life) world .. why do we want to treat both real world and cyber world within the same conditions ??

There is an odd entry in the whitelist:
+http://210.101.95.14:9070/www.sparkasse.de/frontend/login/index.php/target_tmpl=blzsearch&s_localLinkType=banking&s_linkType=/index.php?email=manfred.zeilert-online.de

Why is there an email? Seems like a normal t-online customer address?

JoJo you think thats a funny entry ... did you see blogdechester.com wp install with his username and password ..

http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/archives/2006/09/13/google-leaks-bloggers-password/

DaveN

Nope, these lists are not good. If you use Firefox with the check for bad sites enabled, google get's to know every URL you visit. Same goes for the Google Toolbar, of course. In my opinion, this loss of privacy is not worth it.

Fabian, firefox 2 downloads the list to your hard drive by default. It does not check with google everytime unless you enable the advance checking.

Fabian, this is how every Phishing Filter works (if you use IE7, Microsoft will you the sites 3 times, actually 4. It sends a report to Microsoft and 3 providers who power it)

Bob makes an excellent point. It's not enabled by default.

In my opinion IE7s Filter owns Safe Browsing.

Honestly it sucks.