Avast says my page is infected - how?

[Michael (alan1998)]

If it's dead then just remove it. You're blaming Avast! for an issue on your website. Fix the coding and it will most likely be unblocked. If you don't get rid of it, it won't be unblocked. Simple as that.

Why do you insist it's us, when an Avast! employee actually came and took time to explain to you why Avast! is detecting your site. If you remove what Milos told you to remove, you should be fine.

[polonus]

See what is on that server there for your IP: 81.27.85.11 -> http://support.clean-mx.de/clean-mx/portals.php?as=AS25577&sort=id%20DESC&response=alive
some issues long, long overdue and active for over 1000 hrs and more.
Content after the < /html> tag should be considered suspicious.

9627:  was apparently removed,

polonus

[Anthony Miller]

If it's dead then just remove it. You're blaming Avast! for an issue on your website.

Yes, I cant find your dead link in the code in the page flagged as dangerous.
Dead links were not your original complaint
I dont see why I should take responsibility for links to other websites or what's on them.
Users follow links at their own risk and it's up to them to buy decent anti-virus software.
It is not professional for someone to claim my site has an ico virus and then not be able to identifiy where it is.
I am not interested in how much time Avast have used up - as a publisher they, not I, are responsible for what they say about me.
You have provided a sceengrab from a page that is not the page you are complaining about.
Mr Damage wouldn't even know what a gzip file is let alone have time to upload one.
I think you are idiots / parasites

[Anthony Miller]

See what is on that server there for your IP: 81.27.85.11 -> http://support.clean-mx.de/clean-mx/portals.php?as=AS25577&sort=id%20DESC&response=alive
some issues long, long overdue and active for over 1000 hrs and more.
Content after the < /html> tag should be considered suspicious.

9627:  was apparently removed,

polonus

I'm sorry I dont understand this page but I think, to quote Victor Meldrew, it is probably bollocks

[Marty Caine]

I was the UKIP Gentleman as Anthony so quaintly put it that first pointed out to him that Avast had flagged up a warning, not really sure what my political allegiance had to do with it but hey oh, I actually thought at the time I was doing him a favour, one that I have since come to regret.

I did an online scan of the malkm.com site and recieved the following message



And have since shown him this but apparently it is now all a conspiracy concocted by Avast and UKIP to discredit him in someway, I know Pearshaped is a comedy site but this is actually the funniest thing I have ever seen come from it.

Anthony there is an issue which Avast has picked up on and simply because Norton hasn't that doesn't make it inferior it actually makes it better, I do hope you find out what the problem is in the end because contrary to your own belief you are at present alienating anyone who uses avast from visiting your site and I know a lot of people do use it.

Btw the original virus warning came up on http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/TimTyler.html

[AdrianH]

See what is on that server there for your IP: 81.27.85.11 -> http://support.clean-mx.de/clean-mx/portals.php?as=AS25577&sort=id%20DESC&response=alive
some issues long, long overdue and active for over 1000 hrs and more.
Content after the < /html> tag should be considered suspicious.

9627:  was apparently removed,

polonus

I'm sorry I dont understand this page but I think, to quote Victor Meldrew, it is probably bollocks

Or is that what keeps your ears apart?

Whether you like it or not, if you place a website on the internet, you ARE totally responsible for its contents and anything that leads users to other sites.

Checking your site for html compliance is very telling indeed.    http://validator.w3.org/check#         Result:    670 Errors, 332 warning(s)

Quite stunning for such a small site, clearly you would benefit from some professional help.

Whilst you seek help you should also visit this link http://ico.org.uk/ and take advice about your legal obligations regarding running a website in the UK/EU.

You are breaking multiple laws and could face very considerable penalties for non compliance.

[Anthony Miller]

HTML compliance is not the issue.  My view of HTML is
1) Does it work?
2) Is it dangerous

The answers to this with regards to my site are

1) Yes
&
2) No

You claimed my site has malicious code.
Now you are claiming it is not HTML compliant.
They are VERY different things.
Much Microsoft HTML is not actually compliant but they get away with it
so I dont see why I shouldn't just make it up.
It is not dangerous and you haven't found a link on my site that is dangerous
and I have no intention of employing someone to write bad code for me
when I can write bad code myself.

"you ARE totally responsible for... anything that leads users to other sites"

No, I am not.  Quote me the legislation so I can ignore it.
I am intensely impressed too that our website may host malware when it hosts no software of any kind.
Surely people either think it is or isn't dangerous which is a binary issue
as should be identifiying which pages exactly contain malicious code and what that code does/doesn't do
something you have consitently failed in.

Anyone would think you just didn't want ordinary people writing their own code

[AdrianH]

Ignore it?  That says it all.

Clearly you are not worth talking to. What I will do instead is flag your site with the ICO.

You can debate with them in court. The first glaring legal omission is worth a £50,000 fine. 

[Anthony Miller]

One might have thought that simply identifying the malicious code you are complaining about would be a simple enough task.

There is not a law forcing people to write totally HTML compliant code and there are endless arguments as to what that is.

If you can get the ICO to do anything useful you are doing considerably better than I am

[Milos]

Sorry Dead Links are NOT Viruses

Neither is it Avast's initial complaint about my website
about ico and gzip files

If you cant even get the page your quoting code from right it's a bit Laurel and Hardy, isn't it?

Hello,
I didn't say that dead link is virus, but the server returns error 404 page with the mentioned iframe with blocked URL.

Milos

[Anthony Miller]

Sorry Dead Links are NOT Viruses

Neither is it Avast's initial complaint about my website
about ico and gzip files

If you cant even get the page your quoting code from right it's a bit Laurel and Hardy, isn't it?

Hello,
I didn't say that dead link is virus, but the server returns error 404 page with the mentioned iframe with blocked URL.

Milos

So what?  The 404 or Not Found error message is a HTTP standard response code indicating that the client was able to communicate with the server, but the server could not find what was requested.  I suggest you take it up with the server in question.   I am not going to go through all my pages removing ancient html links that are out of date to keep the IT industry happy.  They remain as they are for historical reasons unless you can prove they are a DANGER which a 404 error on its own is not.

As to the server we rent space on the web we are not self hosting so I am not responsible for Everything that goes on at that IP which hosts many many other websites - if you have a problem with them ...take it up with them.
In the mean time my own inimitable crappy HTML will continue to infect the internet until such time as anyone can prove it is dangerous or the ICO fine an open mike night £50,000

[DavidR]

It isn't standard for  a 404 error page to do anything other than tell you of something not found. It is not standard to have a iframe tag in to another site (malkm.com, which is infected) in the 404 error page.

This is what I was saying in my first reply, hacking the 404 error page is quite common, so you should check it to ensure that hasn't got anything on it that you didn't place there.

http://sitecheck2.sucuri.net/results/www.malkm.com


This will be my last reply (I'm an avast user not an avast employee) as you don't seem to understand or care, so I'm clearly wasting my time.

[Anthony Miller]

The index.php page belongs to the web space provider
and as far as I'm aware they like it like that and it's always looked like that for as long as I can remember.
I'll ask them if they're happy with it but I guess they are...
It hasn't changed in ages but maybe what it redirects to has changed.
I suppose we could delete line 22 - it doesn't do anything useful... but I'm not sure we have admin rights.
Maybe we should move webhost...

It's still not the page you were originally complaining about though...
And I'm still waiting for you to discover the magic *.ico and *gzip files that dont exist

[polonus]

That server is open to abuse and misuse all sorts as you could have established from the clean mx link I gave for the same IP your domain is on. Certain hacks and malware on domains there are being left open for 6942.8 hours. Concluding from these facts,  it does not seem security is a first priority out there. How is that for what you call "bollocks"?. We here in this forum section went through literally thousands and thousands of such sites, so we know what we talk about, but going into denial  always remains an option. 

polonus

[Anthony Miller]

Never the less it does not seem very logical to blame our website for EVERYTHING that is on a server that hosts many sites as we have no control over it.  Neither would I be liable for a £50,000 fine as I am not the webhost.  I mean, come on.

Where do you suggest I move the site to if you dont like that server?

Also what qualifies as Malware?
Not all crap software is malicious and not all malware is potentially or even intentionally malicious?
Some is very malicious but it's a spectrum...

For all I know Avast could have commerical reasons for not liking our server host.
Sophos disables several programs by default that are perfectly harmless.
It's not always a straight line between intentionally and unintentionally malicious software

And still no one has explained where the *.ico and *.gzip files are
There may well be an error with the site BUT the error message returned
does not bare much relation to what you now say is wrong.
So how is anyone supposed to fix anything?

"That server is open to abuse and misuse all sorts"

Well obviously any private domain hoster is going to end up hosting an awful lot of rubbish
and yes, indeed, dangerous code ...but does that make it okay to block website A
because there may be an error on website B
because they're both on the same IP
One might argue not.

And how do I know even if I was to move the website to a different server that I wouldn't end up back at the same problem?