882
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
882 points (99.8% liked)
Technology
55643 readers
3779 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Where can one get a hold of these documents?
This appears to be the original blog post, but I'm not finding a way to download this. https://sparktoro.com/blog/an-anonymous-source-shared-thousands-of-leaked-google-search-api-documents-with-me-everyone-in-seo-should-see-them/
Is this not leaked past this one person?
Edit 2: No, these appear to be normal public docs.
Edit: seems these are the docs? https://hexdocs.pm/google_api_content_warehouse/0.4.0/GoogleApi.ContentWarehouse.V1.Model.QualityNavboostCrapsCrapsData.html
Grab it while it's still up: https://github.com/yoshi-code-bot/elixir-google-api/commit/d7a637f4391b2174a2cf43ee11e6577a204a161e
Wait why is that commit still up if this is a data leak?
It's not a data leak, it's a a leak of internal documentation in a google api client which supposedly contains "leaks" of how the google algorithm might works, e.g. the existence of domain authority attribute that google denied for years. I haven't actually dig in to see if its really a leak or was overblown though.
Internal documentation leaking is still a data leak, it's just a subset of a data leak.
If it was sensitive information that commit would have been purged by now. The original PR (on the Google Clients repo) has no mention of problems, and there are no issues of discussions around rewriting the git history on that item.
This makes me think this isn't actually a problem.
My org is less practiced on operational security than Google and we would purge that information within minutes of any of us hearing about it. And this has been on blog posts for a while now.