Are you replying to something else? I don't see the connection to a problem affecting a small number of websites or the suggestion of reporting them all to a browser maker to indirectly inform them.

▲

sublinear 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No. This is a very old debate I'm bringing up. The criteria for being listed as an "infected site" is not clear enough.

▲

306bobby 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Your example is how the site got infected. The types of infection is listed 2 or so paragraphs above that

	▲	sublinear 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What makes you so sure that kind of malware isn't being distributed by otherwise trusted 3rd-party scripts? That's the standard definition of a supply chain attack. If the website maintainer was acting maliciously or incompetently, it wouldn't be a supply chain attack anymore.

▲

akerl_ 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If I’m about to enter my credit card information on a site that’s compromised, I don’t care if it’s because of infected first party code or infected third party code. I want my browser to say “bro this site is fishy, maybe don’t”.

	▲	6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]