Google Chrome Will Flag Sites With Text Inputs As “Not Secure” Starting October
Google
(Last Updated On: August 17, 2017)

If you haven’t switched your site over to https, you’re going to want to start. Google just sent out word that starting October, Google Chrome will be sending out security warnings that flag non-https sites, if the site has a text input field but it isn’t delivered over a secure network.

The e-mail went out recently, where they indicated that pages that have text inputs on a standard http setup will flag the page as “not secure”. The e-mail reads…

“Starting October 2017, Chrome (version 62) will show a “NOT SECURE” warning when users enter text in a form on an HTTP page, and for all HTTP pages in Incognito mode.“

The e-mail included a few examples of pages with text input fields that Google deemed unsafe.

The URLs include:

Stay! Stay! DPRK Uncensored Visual Novel Now Available On Nutaku

Polygon Fires Nick Robinson For Flirting On Social Media

Etrian Odyssey V: Beyond The Myth Trailer Highlights Fencer Class

Absolver Trailer Breaks Down Character Customization Options

This flag comes from the option to share content via e-mail. So if your site is standard http and you have an option to share via e-mail, Google Chrome could end up flagging your site (and every page) as “not secure”.

Typically an https setup is used for sites that require secure purchases, inputs for personal information, or storing user data.

Most media news delivery sites aren’t on secure setups since they aren’t selling products or collecting user information to deliver goods. Websites that do offer such services are on https setups. Many sites avoid using https due to the hassle of indexing, dealing with certificates, and the risk of losing page rank due to the backend configurations required to re-index all the site’s pages.

Some people fear this may be part of Google’s way to lower the page rank of sites that don’t adopt to their content policy standards, while others simply see it as the net becoming more secure.

Google was recently on the receiving end of a lot of criticism from content creators on YouTube for what some perceived as a Youtube “blacklist”.

A Google document has been floating around containing what people perceive as the keywords that the YouTube algorithm uses in order to flag a collection of videos that may result in the entire account being blacklisted. The document contains keywords such as “Louder with Crowder”, certain phrases that contain “SJW”, any phrase that includes “Sargon of Akkad”, phrases such as “alt right”, “christian”, “undoomed”, “antifa is fascist” or any variation of “antifa”, various phrases that include “cuck”, and anything using the keyword “controversial”.

The list was put together after countless YouTubers reported having lots of (or all) of their videos demonetized after August 8th, 2017, which was part of Google’s new initiative to fight “extremist” content through their new Limited State content policy for YouTube.


Ads (learn more about our advertising policies here)



About

Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years covering video games, technology and digital trends within the electronics entertainment space. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Need to get in touch? Try the Contact Page.

  • MusouTensei

    >using google chrome

  • ThyPancakeConsumed

    Insecurities so obvious, its not even funny.

  • MuFa5a

    how the hell use nsachrome anyway

  • Mr.Towel

    Yay, forcing HTTPS as standard… so it becomes widespread, so hackers feel it’s imperative to crack it, so its exploits become openly known, so we have to search for another format. Genius.

    • Daniel Ream

      If you don’t understand how TLS works (specifically, how it’s trivial to add new encryption algorithms and that this happens all the time in response to uncovered weaknesses) then don’t betray your ignorance.

      There are already well-known attacks on the outer HTTPS protocol, but the information they can reveal is limited.

      Some people fear this may be part of Google’s way to lower the page rank of sites that don’t adopt to their content policy standards

      Take off the tinfoil hat. HTTPS Everywhere is in response to the revelation in 2013 that the US government has been monitoring Internet traffic at a level previously thought inconceivable. It’s $8 a year. Your hosting costs more than that.

      • Mr.Towel

        As long as critical faults aren’t found in the system itself, which is my point. TLS itself is a development from SSL, despite many claiming they are the same, they aren’t.

        And sooner or later someone will find a critical fault on it, which will force IETF to develop another standard. By making it mandatory, it will happen sooner rather than later.

      • Mr.Towel

        As long as critical faults aren’t found in the system itself, which is my point. TLS itself is a development from SSL, despite many claiming they are the same, they aren’t.

        And sooner or later someone will find a critical fault on it, which will force IETF to develop another standard. By making it mandatory, it will happen sooner rather than later.

  • Disqusted

    Sounds like FireFox and their teaming with Soros.

  • Wisdomcube2000

    ““christian”” is a Flagged word? F*** you even more google if that is true.

    • Gorgon

      Sucks for people named Christian.

      Interesting that “muslim” or “buddhist” or any other religion isn’t flagged.

      (edit) Oh wait, “muslim” is indeed flagged also. My mistake.

      • Ryan Stuckey

        Google is reaching SJWs levels that shouldn’t even be possible. I just read Breitbart that they actually have tampons in the men’s room. The free market needs to act wile we are still capitalist or the goverment needs to break them. Google is too far gone.

    • Religious extremism was specifically one of the target topics of the Limited State content policy.

  • Gorgon

    You know, everybody used to laugh at Bing, but it does seem like a better option now. Microsoft at least does not seem to be nearly as corrupt as Google, though they do show some early symptoms of infection. Don’t know how good/bad their browser is now.

    Mozilla is right out, they seem to be in the same boat as Google.

    I guess there’s always open source branches of Chrome and Firefox, but I had only bad experiences with those.

    • Akira Rei

      I may need to use a new browser if worse comes to worse.

    • Wisdomcube2000

      Been using Bing for a while now to get free xbox live time. It is not the best out there in terms of search results, but I still try it first before resorting to other search engines when looking things up.

      As for Browsers, I have seen people recommend Palemoon. Is that one you tried already? Curious to see if it is worth setting up/using.

      • Gorgon

        I’ve tried WaterFox and Chromium about 2 years ago. They were both very unstable then, maybe they have improved since.

    • s_fnx

      If you’re an advanced user you can customize both Firefox and Chrome yourself to disable those kind of warnings.

    • GuyverOne

      I’ve been using Opera browser for a few months now and it works really well.

      • Narmy

        Opera is just Chrome with a different name.

    • Disqusted

      Hijacking your comment to post this. Just saw that Black Pigeon did a video covering various Google alternatives. Might be helpful to people:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmaM-Mar_oA