pouët.net

so... pouet was flagged as malicious and demozoo was not? i wonder wonder who reported pouet...

Demozoo gets the fraction of traffic Pouet does.

my guess would be:
youtube, bot-crawling links from the video descriptions and running sub-links content through that kind of SW (*) which marks all digitally unsigned and packed/obfuscated files as danger/threat/virus (*: can't recall the name... I think it was two-word, one of them "virus" ... "applyvirus" SW? something like that).

The good part is, that youtube is also google, so they can quickly restore it everything back, right? ... ... :) ... ... *grin*

(saving the link here to centralize) Bero^FR also got same problem w/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb6Ay3PLyLg

Probably it was not a "who" but some brand new system powered by Artificial Stupidity and Machine Laming.

hm. Gargaj: was any reason or event disclosed to you that lead to the flagging?

To quote Gargaj on Discord:

That's only my conjecture, btw, but it seems to be the most reasonable explanation given the timing.

Sounds reasonable. Chrome/Firefox scan downloads so if an exe is getting flagged at that stage, they probably send the URL _and_ the referrer URL to some service -> boom, a lot of Pouet references.

The number of times I've tried to download demos, even Amiga demos which are 680x0 code as opposed to Intel code, and have the downloads blocked because Chrome thinks I'm downloading viruses, is insane! I hate having to manually force it to download them!

And even when I have downloaded them and try to run some PC demos, Windows halts them in their tracks for the same reason, which is frickin' annoying!

blind automatism must be the reason, everything else makes not much sense.

I doubt the malware flagging is triggered by the amount of total hits, but more likely by the amount of fresh malware detections: Higher number of new files due to large party = more false positives due to files not yet blacklisted.

Not sure if alfagoogletubes rating works like this, but other "security" systems just require a single (potentially false and not manually checked) incident to blacklist a resource at least temporarily.

quasi the sudden onset of reports of people downloading small unknown software with multiple names from the same source via a large aggregator. that sounds plausible. nice threat scenario. means: after this, pouet is "certified" clean, so to speak :-D

Is the whole untergrund.net also blocked, or is it only my account? I cannot download my own demos :( My personal website is also blocked. Oh boy. Any advice?

iq: untergrund has those troubles for quite a while now. however you still can dl the stuff from the ftp (at least with ff). but it seems at least not every website on untergrund is blocked. you might try to reach out to scamp.

I haven't worked in Google for several years now, but to put it like this: If the scene.org server had some kind of virus that infected a bunch of Revision releases, which meant Pouët suddenly became a massive hub for spreading said virus, what would you have Google's systems do? (Assume for the sake of the argument that the situation was pretty much indistinguishable from that, given the outputs from the virus scanners run.)

change browser to something better without any links to google?

Like what? Google, Firefox, Safari and Opera was affected - that basically leaves Edge?

Has not Edge switched to the Chromium engine as well?

But that assumption is the crux here; everyone in the chain just gives a little less shit than the previous.

this Firefox fork didnt say anything about any google stuff (not that g stuff could get inside the inner network anyway)

may want to disable such warnings from those other browsers? seem they do no good and put your data to google eh? ;)

I don't remember ever enabling it for mainline Firefox.

My update: Strikes were removed, URLs are back in video description. No notifications at all, just a silent fix, but I guess that's better than having it broken.

With the current state of antivirus SW (basically flagging every executable which is not signed by public key of some large SW vendors) I think the google should do nothing and not care about windows users and people who want to run some executable from web. The amount of false positives I see around retro scene makes the whole concept of AV SW basically void. Does it even catch some real threats nowadays?

Maybe I have very skewed point of view, because as linux user I haven't seen virus on my machine for 15+ years, but pretty much *every* version of Z80 assembler I'm contributing to is flagged by windows defender/Avast/etc... and the best part is that often the AV fails to open the notification (or users are blind? Could be, they probably are, considering some other issues reported by them...), so people keep reporting me things like "executable does nothing, just vanish" ... it's really irritating lately (last ~5 years), I have difficult time to recall version of EXE which was NOT flagged...

Signing makes no difference, btw.