Recap of “Reinterpreting the Disclosure Debate for Web Infections” Talk at ShmooCon

Written by Guest Poster Kirsten Goodwin

With Google now attaching a “warning” to protect web browsers from infected websites, many people are now debating over the “right time” to disclose the information of infected websites to the public. Oliver Day and Rachel Greenstadt opened their discussion “Reinterpreting the Disclosure Debate for Web Infections” by showcasing some potential scenarios that could occur if companies wait to disclose the information that their website is infected.

The cost of maintaining secure servers is expensive and most companies choose to skimp. Now that a search engine like Google is disclosing this kind of information to the public, most users will pass on visiting infected websites and will instead opt to visit sites that are not infected. Because of this, companies will lose possible market share and profits.

Overall, Google’s new “warning” system forces companies and web hosting providers to better secure their websites so they are not listed as a “bad site” on Google. If this information continued to remain undisclosed, most internet end-users would not realize that any of the sites they visited were infected, and would most likely infect their own computers after visiting sites that they did not know were infected.

###

Would you like to be a Guest Poster for NovaInfosecPortal.com? If so, visit our Contact Page or send us a tweet @grecs. Include “Guest Blogger” in the title of your request.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.