[Windflier]

Just to be clear for everyone, the infected site is the Taitz site...

Has this actually been verified? I read over a week ago that moonbats were planting false warnings about her site being infected, when it was not. She's also got a debunking message up about this on the site.

[snowsislander]

Has this actually been verified? I read over a week ago that moonbats were planting false warnings about her site being infected, when it was not. She's also got a debunking message up about this on the site.

I am not running Windows, so I am not running any Windows scanners and I am not personally seeing any local scanner warnings.

However, the Google message seems to me to be specific enough to warrant calling the Taitz site infected:

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 12 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 4 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-08-01, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-08-01.

Malicious software includes 5 scripting exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 2 new process(es) on the target machine.

Malicious software is hosted on 3 domain(s), including cybercrime-protection.cn/, security-alerts.cn/, mcafee-malware.com/.

1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including security-alerts.cn/.

This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS6245 (NETWORK).

Could Google be mistaken? Yes, they certainly could. But I think the odds are good enough that there is a problem that I don't hesitate to call it infected.