CNET Deletes Thousands of Old Articles to Game Google Search

Tech news website CNET has deleted thousands of old articles over the past few months in a bid to improve its performance in Google Search results, Gizmodo has learned.

Archived copies of CNET’s author pages show the company deleted small batches of articles prior to the second half of July, but then the pace increased. Thousands of articles disappeared in recent weeks. A CNET representative confirmed that the company was culling stories but declined to share exactly how many it has taken down.

[…]

Taylor Canada, CNET’s senior director of marketing and communications. “In an ideal world, we would leave all of our content on our site in perpetuity. Unfortunately, we are penalized by the modern internet for leaving all previously published content live on our site.”

[…]

CNET shared an internal memo about the practice. Removing, redirecting, or refreshing irrelevant or unhelpful URLs “sends a signal to Google that says CNET is fresh, relevant and worthy of being placed higher than our competitors in search results,” the document reads.

According to the memo about the “content pruning,” the company considers a number of factors before it “deprecates” an article, including SEO, the age and length of the story, traffic to the article, and how frequently Google crawls the page. The company says it weighs historical significance and other editorial factors before an article is taken down. When an article is slated for deletion, CNET says it maintains its own copy, and sends the story to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

[…]

Google does not recommend deleting articles just because they’re considered “older,” said Danny Sullivan, the company’s Public Liaison for Google Search. In fact, the practice is something Google has advised against for years. After Gizmodo’s request for comment, Sullivan posted a series of tweets on the subject.

“Are you deleting content from your site because you somehow believe Google doesn’t like ‘old’ content? That’s not a thing! Our guidance doesn’t encourage this,” Sullivan tweeted.

[…]

However, SEO experts told Gizmodo content pruning can be a useful strategy in some cases, but it’s an “advanced” practice that requires high levels of expertise,[…]

Ideally outdated pages should be updated or redirected to a more relevant URL, and deleting content without a redirect should be a last resort. With fewer irrelevant pages on your site, the idea is that Google’s algorithms will be able to index and better focus on the articles or pages a publisher does want to promote.

Google may have an incentive to withhold details about its Search algorithm, both because it would rather be able to make its own decisions about how to rank websites, and because content pruning is a delicate process that can cause problems for publishers—and for Google—if it’s mishandled.

[…]

Whether or not deleting articles is an effective business strategy, it causes other problems that have nothing to do with search engines. For a publisher like CNET — one of the oldest tech news sites on the internet — removing articles means losing parts of the public record that could have unforeseen historical significance in the future.

[…]

Source: CNET Deletes Thousands of Old Articles to Game Google Search

That’s a big chunk of history gone there

Nearly every AMD CPU since 2017 vulnerable to Inception bug

AMD processor users, you have another data-leaking vulnerability to deal with: like Zenbleed, this latest hole can be to steal sensitive data from a running vulnerable machine.

The flaw (CVE-2023-20569), dubbed Inception in reference to the Christopher Nolan flick about manipulating a person’s dreams to achieve a desired outcome in the real world, was disclosed by ETH Zurich academics this week.

And yes, it’s another speculative-execution-based side-channel that malware or a rogue logged-in user can abuse to obtain passwords, secrets, and other data that should be off limits.

Inception utilizes a previously disclosed vulnerability alongside a novel kind of transient execution attack, which the researchers refer to as training in transient execution (TTE), to leak information from an operating system kernel at a rate of 39 bytes per second on vulnerable hardware. In this case, vulnerable systems encompasses pretty much AMD’s entire CPU lineup going back to 2017, including its latest Zen 4 Epyc and Ryzen processors.

Despite the potentially massive blast radius, AMD is downplaying the threat while simultaneously rolling out microcode updates for newer Zen chips to mitigate the risk. “AMD believes this vulnerability is only potentially exploitable locally, such as via downloaded malware,” the biz said in a public disclosure, which ranks Inception “medium” in severity.

Intel processors weren’t found to be vulnerable to Inception, but that doesn’t mean they’re entirely in the clear. Chipzilla is grappling with its own separate side-channel attack disclosed this week called Downfall.

How Inception works

As we understand it, successful exploitation of Inception takes advantage of the fact that in order for modern CPUs to achieve the performance they do, processor cores have to cut corners.

Rather than executing instructions strictly in order, the CPU core attempts to predict which ones will be needed and runs those out of sequence if it can, a technique called speculative execution. If the core guesses incorrectly, it discards or unwinds the computations it shouldn’t have done. That allows the core to continue getting work done without having to wait around for earlier operations to complete. Executing these instructions speculatively is also known as transient execution, and when this happens, a transient window is opened.

Normally, this process renders substantial performance advantages, and refining this process is one of several ways CPU designers eke out instruction-per-clock gains generation after generation. However, as we’ve seen with previous side-channel attacks, like Meltdown and Spectre, speculative execution can be abused to make the core start leaking information it otherwise shouldn’t to observers on the same box.

Inception is a fresh twist on this attack vector, and involves two steps. The first takes advantage of a previously disclosed vulnerability called Phantom execution (CVE-2022-23825) which allows an unprivileged user to trigger a misprediction — basically making the core guess the path of execution incorrectly — to create a transient execution window on demand.

This window serves as a beachhead for a TTE attack. Instead of leaking information from the initial window, the TTE injects new mispredictions, which trigger more future transient windows. This, the researchers explain, causes an overflow in the return stack buffer with an attacker-controlled target.

“The result of this insight is Inception, an attack that leaks arbitrary data from an unprivileged process on all AMD Zen CPUs,” they wrote.

In a video published alongside the disclosure, and included below, the Swiss team demonstrate this attack by leaking the root account hash from /etc/shadow on a Zen 4-based Ryzen 7700X CPU with all Spectre mitigations enabled.

You can find a more thorough explanation of Inception, including the researchers’ methodology in a paper here [PDF]. It was written by Daniël Trujillo, Johannes Wikner, and Kaveh Razavi, of ETH Zurich. They’ve also shared proof-of-concept exploit code here.

Source: Nearly every AMD CPU since 2017 vulnerable to Inception bug • The Register