Website Update 2009-09-16

[Eric Van Dusen]

Greetings CFC members,

I would like to announce that some progress has been made regarding the CFC Website. The following base functions have been restored:

1) From the rating list, the TD can be downloaded.
2) Crosstables can be viewed.
3) An updated version of SwissSys CFC Database file, CFCMembers.mde can be downloaded.

Other functions are not working such as name searching and top lists.

Our contractor, EKG is working hard to restore the full function of the website shortly.

I would like to thank every one for their patience.

[Eric Van Dusen]

Greetings CFC members,

I apologize for not including this note with my previous announcement.

From what our contractor, EKG has reported to me, when one accesses the CFC Site with the web browser, one may receive a warning message. This message occurs because Google has not re-scanned our site and given it a clean bill of health. EKG assures me that the CFC web site has been cleaned up and it will not cause problems for web site users.

Again, I will keep posting updates as I receive them from our contractor, EKG.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Eric:

Some members have suggested that now that the CFC site is partially back up, but not Google-scanned yet, there might be some type of notice on the CFC homepage, that, for those getting the Google-warning, the site is indeed now clean, and CFC is now waiting for Google to approve the site once again ( there has been some delaly by Google on doing this ).

Is this a good idea? Can EKG do it, if so?

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

From my testing, it seems that the CFC website is again up and fully functional.

Is a notice as some have suggested above, that the site is clean, and there is delay on Google's part clearing the site, still a good idea or is it not needed? ( when will Google get around to its site clearance? ). Viewers still getting the Google warning will be concerned, and not be willing to access the site unless CFC assures them it is now clean. Maybe we owe this to visitors to the site?

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

I am concerned about a post by Ed Seedhouse a bit ago on ChessTalk:

September 18,2009, 01:52 PM
Ed Seedhouse

Re: CFC Website Update 2009-09-14

Well, google is reporting www.chess.ca as an attack site again as of just a minute ago. So they don't seem to have done anything to actually fix the problem.

A quick glance at the code shows an ancient table based layout with no document type declaration, no significant use of CSS, and over a hundred html syntax errors. A site straight out of the 1990's in other words.

No attempt should be made to fix this mess. It needs to be torn down and started over from scratch.

Is he right that Google has now scanned the new " clean " site, and again given it a failing grade?? Or is it the old Google warning he is referring to, from before the site got " cleaned "?

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

I am concerned about a post by Ed Seedhouse a bit ago on ChessTalk:

September 18,2009, 01:52 PM
Ed Seedhouse

Re: CFC Website Update 2009-09-14

Well, google is reporting www.chess.ca as an attack site again as of just a minute ago. So they don't seem to have done anything to actually fix the problem.

A quick glance at the code shows an ancient table based layout with no document type declaration, no significant use of CSS, and over a hundred html syntax errors. A site straight out of the 1990's in other words.

No attempt should be made to fix this mess. It needs to be torn down and started over from scratch.

Is he right that Google has now scanned the new " clean " site, and again given it a failing grade?? Or is it the old Google warning he is referring to, from before the site got " cleaned "?

Bob

Bob, you can try this link:

http://safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=http://www.chess.ca/

it shows what Google "thinks" ... unfortunately, other than the phrase "Updated 11 hours ago" it doesn't really have a clear indication of the last time the site's contents were scanned.
*OOPS - I see it does say in the text that the last scan was 2009/09/01 (what's with 586 pages at the site!!!?! wow)


There is a reference on their for ways the owner of the site can dig further - I have no idea what that entails, nor do I know whether or not the CFC's web folks have followed up with that (one would hope so ..)

See:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=45432

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Kerry:

Sorry, but I'm still not clear on all this - the " Google warning " that you and Ed are referring to - is it one that has been done AFTER CFC has " cleaned " the site? Or is it just the old warning from before, and CFC is still awaiting Google's scan of the new " cleaned " site?

Bob

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Kerry:

Sorry, but I'm still not clear on all this - the " Google warning " that you and Ed are referring to - is it one that has been done AFTER CFC has " cleaned " the site? Or is it just the old warning from before, and CFC is still awaiting Google's scan of the new " cleaned " site?

Bob

Since the Google warning seems to be from Sept 01, I would say any warning now is the old one. It appears that Google offers some "tools" (procedures) that website owners can use to request a rescan of the website (I presume) or to get more info or whatever.

It seems to depend what browser you are using whether or not you get the warning (in my case, using the latest version of Chrome - a Google-supplied browser - I get the warning, but I just ignore it).

[Steve Douglas]

Hi Kerry:

Sorry, but I'm still not clear on all this - the " Google warning " that you and Ed are referring to - is it one that has been done AFTER CFC has " cleaned " the site? Or is it just the old warning from before, and CFC is still awaiting Google's scan of the new " cleaned " site?

Bob

I hope I can make this clear. :-)

Google maintains a "blacklist" which is just that: a list. Some browsers will consult the list, others won't.

Here are the relevant (for a user) things that the blacklist-triggered warning states:

First thing: "Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 1 time(s) over the past 90 days."

Second thing: "The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-09-11, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-09-01."

Whether or not the CFC can do anything to get Google to drop www.chess.ca from their blacklist is something I don't know. If it's up to automatic scanning, then it may take another 70-odd days when the site will have been "clean" for 90.

Steve

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

If it is going to take another 70 days for Google to declare our site " clean ", then doesn't that bring us back to the suggestion being made by some that the CFC home page have a notice to the effect that the site has been cleaned but Google has not yet got around to declaring it " clean " yet. This would allay the fears of those visitors who get the Google warning.

Do you think CFC should take this step?

Bob

[Steve Douglas]

If it is going to take another 70 days for Google to declare our site " clean ", then doesn't that bring us back to the suggestion being made by some that the CFC home page have a notice to the effect that the site has been cleaned but Google has not yet got around to declaring it " clean " yet. This would allay the fears of those visitors who get the Google warning.

Do you think CFC should take this step?


Hi Bob:

I suggested it before and I definitely think the CFC should take this step. Too many people are panicking and/or wondering what's going on. It should also reduce the influx of queries to the CFC itself. Even though the news may make the CFC look bad, people generally prefer a straight answer. And it's not like nobody noticed that the website of a web-based business was off-line for over two weeks....

Steve

P.S. All that is needed is a message like this:

For those of you who experienced a "reported attack site" warning when navigating here, please be aware that in late August viruses were detected on the site and as a consequence the CFC site was added to a "reported attack site" list maintained by Google. This list is referenced by several browsers as a form of security. Our site has since been cleaned and is presently virus-free. Nonetheless it may take some time before Google considers the site safe and removes it from their "infected" list. We will be continuing to monitor this situation to ensure that the site remains virus-free, as well as pressing Google to drop us from their list. We apologize for any undue alarm that the browser warnings might have caused.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Steve:

Thanks for the model notice - I've now sent it to Stijn de Kerpel, V-P, in charge of office matters for the Executive, to ask that he consider posting it on the CFC Home Page.

Bob

[Steve Douglas]

Ok. Thanks for doing that. I hope they listen (crosses fingers).

Steve

[Stijn De Kerpel]

Hello Steve/Bob,

Yes, I think the message is an excellent idea - I have sent an email to Gerry and Patrick this morning to ask them to put the message on the website.

Bob, I will be in touch shortly on all your other emails.

Thanks,

Stijn.