Last modified: 2014-02-22 18:05:08 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T63477, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 61477 - Unexpected explicit image found in search results - possible search bomb?
Unexpected explicit image found in search results - possible search bomb?
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
lucene-search-2 (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Unprioritized normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2014-02-18 06:11 UTC by Mr. Stradivarius
Modified: 2014-02-22 18:05 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Mr. Stradivarius 2014-02-18 06:11:36 UTC
So, I did a search on the English Wikipedia for the text "welcome", and I restricted the results to multimedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=welcome&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=1

When I did this, the first result that came up was [[:File:Anus.jpg]]. (Warning: neither the search link nor the file link are safe for work.)

The file description page doesn't have any mention of the text "welcome", and I couldn't spot any other reason why this image should turn up for a search for "welcome".

Also, the same search on Wikimedia Commons does not return Anus.jpg as a result.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=welcome&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=1

My first thought was that it could be MediaWiki's version of a [[Google bomb]], but I don't know if this is true or not. Sorry if this is a false alarm, but this is a very strange result to get from this search, so I thought it was worth reporting here.
Comment 1 Andre Klapper 2014-02-18 11:35:07 UTC
I have seen this topic ("interesting" image search results) brought up before on a Village Pump, but cannot find it now. But it's not a "new" issue.

Using the CirrusSearch backend via
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=welcome&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=1&srbackend=CirrusSearch
this seems to not be a problem anymore.
Comment 2 Krinkle 2014-02-18 11:51:45 UTC
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #1)
> Using the CirrusSearch backend via
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:
> Search&search=welcome&fulltext=Search&profile=images&redirs=1&srbackend=Cirru
> sSearch
> this seems to not be a problem anymore.

(helped me find bug 61483.)
Comment 3 Chris Steipp 2014-02-19 18:32:47 UTC
Moving to Cirrus will give us many more options for tuning the search, so we can hopefully avoid these situations.

Chad/Nik, assuming that this is the result of a vandal trying to game the search results, do you feel like we can adequately respond to something like this in the future? We've been talking about the hiding content attack, but this actually seems like a more common form of someone trying to be annoying.
Comment 4 Nik Everett 2014-02-19 18:49:26 UTC
The big advantage Cirrus has over lsearchd in this department is that indexing is pretty fast.  So if you found something like this you could edit the page to remove whatever caused it to show up and it'd reindex within a few seconds.

Beyond that, Cirrus gives us the ability to peer into the index and see what it contains so if some one comes up with some crazy way to get it in there that we aren't expecting then we have a much higher chance of figuring out what they did and stopping it in the future.
Comment 5 Chris Steipp 2014-02-21 21:47:51 UTC
I think the general consensus after digging into it with Chad is that we're really not sure why this particular issue is happening, and lsearchd is woefully short on debugging information.

Since we're moving to Cirrus where this particular issue doesn't exist, I think we can say this is being addressed, and both Nik and Chad have this on their radar to watch out for as we migrate to the new system.

I'm going to close this for now to get it off the security queue (WONTFIX, because their isn't a "Fixed by an unrelated thing we're working on"). Feel free to reopen it if there is something actionable we need to do, or Nik/Chad if you want to keep digging into this for Cirrus.
Comment 6 Mr. Stradivarius 2014-02-22 17:50:28 UTC
That seems sensible to me. Thanks for looking into it.

Also, if the issue doesn't require fixing as such, how about making this a public bug? That will help to avoid duplicate reports, and will allow others to ponder what might have caused it.
Comment 7 Chad H. 2014-02-22 18:04:35 UTC
Done.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links