RSSGoogle Web Accelerator Returns
By Nate Mook | Published October 26, 2005, 12:49 PM
Google's controversial Web Accelerator application that is designed to lessen the time it takes to load Web pages has returned after a four-month hiatus. But the second revision of the application, which is still in beta, does not address concerns with the first release, webmasters say.
In order to speed up Web surfing, the tool automatically downloads URLs linked from the page a user is visiting. The concept is called "pre-fetching," and was also added as an optional feature in recent builds of Mozilla Firefox.
Google Web Accelerator takes pre-fetching one step further and works like proxy server, caching content so users don't have to deal with potentially slow Web servers or network problems. Google has placed servers in North America and Europe to ensure low latency when browsing.
However, the approach was heavily criticized this summer when users reported Web Accelerator was loading administrative links for editing or deleting content. In addition, members of Internet forums using the tool found themselves loading pages previously cached by other users - meaning they can view that user's account information and private messages.
Webmasters were forced to utilize a special HTML tag that detects pre-fetching to block access to Google Web Accelerator altogether.
Google quickly took the Web Accelerator application download offline, saying it had reached its maximum capacity of users. The company also said it would take webmaster concerns into consideration, and reiterated that the program was only in beta.
Now, Google Web Accelerator has returned as version 0.2, but site owners are crying foul once again. "It was evil enough the first time around, but this time it's downright scary," wrote David Heinemeier Hansson from 37signals, maker of an online application called Backpack that experienced problems with the initial release.
"In version 1.0, web masters at least had a fighting chance as the GWA identified its requests with a 'X-moz: prefetch' header," Hansson said. "Not so for version 2.0 of this virus. It ships with a brand new mutation: The header is gone! There's now no way to identify a pre-fetch from a regular request, which means that it’s no longer possible to block the GWA."
In a FAQ on its Web site, however, Google says it supports the prefetch header and downplays any potential risk by stating it does not fetch secure Web sites or URLs with query parameters in them. "Google Web Accelerator only prefetches links that should have no side effects," the company says.
Google Web Accelerator product manager Othman Laraki chalked up the missing header to a bug, which he said would be corrected immediately. "We started rolling out a fix last night and should be visible to all users by end of today," Laraki said.
Still, Hansson is not dropping his "evil" moniker for the service. "Now this naturally doesn't exonerate the vanilla evilness of the GWA concept, but its definitely a step in the right direction."
Google Web Accelerator 0.2 is available for download from FileForum.
Pre-fetching has been around since the dial-up age I remember using a program that would do the same ? with the advent of high-speed internet connections such ad-ons are obselete and redundant. the risk, however is minimal. Use at your own risk.If you are still using dial-up it may save you some time . Does anyone remember the program ?
Score: 0
My concern is google isn't the stable beast it used to be. I've seen google news down probably 10 times in the last year. Everyone has a gmail story of it being down once in a while (which never happens for me and yahoo, and I've used yahoo mail since rocketmail, almost 10 years now,)
Google needs to stay up, not just "five 9's" but "seven and eight nine's" otherwise this "time saved" will be worthless.
Overall I think it's a great project. Google.com (bread and butter) is pretty consistently amazingly fast to load.
Score: 0
> "The concept is called "pre-fetching," and was also added as an optional feature in recent builds of Mozilla Firefox."
Link Prefetching was introduced in Mozilla 1.2 and Mozilla 1.0.2 in November 2002. So it was in Netscape 7.0.1 and Phoenix 0.5, the Firefox name at this time. It has never been an optional feature. However a hidden preference exists to disable it.
http://www.mozilla.org/p...upport_link_prefetching
Recently Google exploited this Firefox feature...
http://www.mozillazine.o...kback.html?article=6310
Score: 0
Seriously, it's GREAT that it doesn't pre-fetch URLs with query parameters, but it doesn't necessarily fix the problem, and I'll explain why.
Let's say I visit the admin page of my blog and it's got a list of users. Now, admittedly, this is bad programming form, but let's say the edit and delete links for my users, or my posts, or whatever, look like this:
http://page/admin.php?action=deleteuser&userid=5
The action=deleteuser and the userid=5 are part of what is called the "query string," and is passed as "GET" variables (vs. POST variables, which usually come from a submitted form) and those parameters are used in many scripts.
If the page is pre-fetched, user 5 might end up deleted. Now, the response is: the paramters of a URL should never instantiate an action (meaning simply loading a page shouldn't in turn cause an action), which is true, but you can't change the web overnight, and there's lots of crappy programming out there.
Now let's say it lists a link like that for me as user #1. It might even delete MY account while I'm browsing.
These days, you have lots of people using either mod_rewrite, which is an Apache module, or using Apache's built in PATH_INFO, which allows me to write a URL like Beta News, or like this:
http://url/article/12345/mytitle
and the 12345 and title are actually disguised "GET" variables as well. So GWA won't realize it's loading something that might as well read:
http://url/article?id=12345&title=mytitle
Therefore, another poorly crafted app may have a link like this
http://url/admin/posts/delete/12345
which GWA might happily pre-fetch, subsequently deleting post 12345.
Evil? Very possibly. All website owners would be wise to make sure no unwanted action is ever initiated via GET parameters.
Score: 0
Exactly. A lot of people switched from query strings to what I call "virutal directories" that are really parameters in order to better play with search engines as well as make things look more logically organized (/States/Wisconsin vs States.php?state=WI). Once you start doing this you usually have to do administrative things this way too, and that's where people are getting screwed. I think Google should turn this into an opt-in policy for web masters and they should use something like the Robots.txt file so we can say where and what to spider. _If_ I opt in I still want to be able to centrally manage where GWA goes and where it can't go.
Score: 0
Man, you started off okay, and then you lost 80% of your readers by flaming.
"and I'll explain why for you n00bs. "
Want folks to read your post? Try *not* insulting them in the first sentance. It does wonders.
All good info though. I encourage those of you who skipped the rest of the post to ignore the flame and continue reading.
Score: 0
Ok, Mr. Sensitivity. Everyone's a newbie at some point. I changed the post, but if anyone is so offended that they skipped it despite the notice that it was going to explain the practice, f' em. If you don't like the manner in which it was delivered, move on. It was goodwill - I'm not responsible for educating webmasters via Betanews forum posts.
Score: 0
Dude, chill. Seriously. What's with the "angry little teacher" routine?
You don't want to help people? Then why the hell post information to educate them? And then why be derogatory to them at the same time?
Rest assured, I'll not try and help you avoid pissing people off. You seem quite intent on doing just that.
Score: 0
Cranky pants!
Score: 0
Um... what was the purpose of your initial reply? Just to suggest that using the word "noob" was going to stop people from reading? You slammed me for "etiquette." I say skip the post if you're so bothered. Don't go out of your way to post something negative because one word bothered you. That's problem with the net, everyone has to chime in about everything.
I added something to this site - an explanation of what the actual problem was, which was missing from this article. People who don't like the manner in which it's said can move on. No "angry little teacher" routine, just an objection to your calling me out.
I don't really care for it when people expect the content but object to the manner in which its delivered.
Score: 0
*chimes in*
*ahem*
That one guy was wrong.
Score: 0
im getting tired of all this google mania, too mutch about google, even if google farts its in the news. Its a bit google with all this google, googling about. AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!make it stop.
Score: 0
I thought it was rather smurfy myself. Smurfette agrees. It's pure smurf.
Score: 0
Heh...I agree. This is what happens when you make it big, though--now there's going to be First Church of the Google Users that everyone tries to make enemies with. Kinda like First Church of the FireFox users sparked hate groups internally (against IE, or Church of Gates, criticised as "monopoly worship" by AppleItes and FireFox followers) and externally (against FF, criticised by the Gaters for being too "open" sourced).
On a more serious note, if Yahoo made it big we'd have the same thing with them, I can already see the headlines--"Yahoo Topples Google", "New Yahoo Toolbar Sparks Concern", "Microsoft CEO: We're not afraid of Yahoo". Just read this article and put somebody's name in it...we only have the news because Google is under the microscope, but that could be any search engine. It's Internet politics.
Score: 0
The project manager of GWA contacted David to say that the missing header was a bug and that they were releasing a bugfix to put it back in: http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000530.html
Score: 0
The Evil Empire just keeps growing!
Nooooooo!
Score: 0
How come every time a small company makes it big, people start calling it evil?
Score: 0
Jealousy.
Score: 0
Cuz they usually generate a seething debate filled with flames and folks getting *way* too emotional about something that normally wouldn't have any affect whatsoever.
It's called Trolling. Popular among immature, angst-ridden, social deviants who do not have the capacity to meaningfully contribute to the topic and take that frustration out in such ways.
Slashdot.org happens to be a great breeding ground and launchpad for these stains, where they gained most of their now infamous notoriety.
Score: 0
Cause Google, Microsoft, etc, have what we call, a monopoly. That means, they sufficating the little guys, and not letting them grow.
Score: 0
If you actually knew what a monopoly was, I'd have to argue with you, but since you obviously don't, I'll not waste my time.
Score: 0
Yeah, but Google is an excellent search engine - all the other tools are optional. Did you just get up one day and say "Hey, Google's too successful now so I'm never gonna use them again!?!?"
Score: 0
I don't use Google. I use Yahoo for everything.
Score: 0
Google is not a monopoly and I still can't find anything wrong with them. I don't like Microsoft and have 1000 reasons to hate them.
IMHO google is releasing quality, free software that kick some serious a**es. And I love to read that the devil (Bill Gates) is so afraid of google that he pay interviews to say he's not, great!
Please someone who flame google tell me what's wrong with the company, from a rational point of view.
Score: 0
Well, if you wish to subject yourself to an inferior product-- that's your prerogative....
Score: 0
Did you read my comment? I was defending Google.
But thanks anyway.
Score: 0
Inferior product = google
Score: 0
I would like to point out that unlike Microshaft users CHOOSE google every day for their search. If something better came out and it got coverage people would use that....Microsoft is in a different position. You choose them once in a while and most of time get no choice (oem). Because there is no choice people use their software, and because people use their OS developers build software for their OS. So simply if you dont like it make something better. Don't give me Linux crap, when did more complex start meaning better. Even Apple buys into this nowadays (dashboard). The answer is a simple, more effective search engine and a faster simpler better looking OS beats your monopoly.
Score: 0
Actually, I'm merely satirizing the unfounded paranoia on the internet regarding Google. You clearly misunderstand my point, but anyone who uses "cuz" generally lacks the comprehensive ability to see even the least subtle forms of satire.
Score: 0
Which is why almost everyone uses it, of course. :p
And it's also why there's no less than 4 stories related to Google on the BetaNews front page.
Score: 0