Search Console Incorrectly Identifies WordPress Version and Recommends Update
-
Howdy, Moz fans,
Today I received four emails from Google Search Console recommending I update WordPress. The message reads, "Google has detected that your site is currently running WordPress 3.3.1, an older version of WordPress. Outdated or unpatched software can be vulnerable to hacking and malware exploits that harm potential visitors to your site. Therefore, we suggest you update the software on your site as soon as possible."
This is incorrect, however, since I've been on 4.3.1 for a while. 3.3.1 was never even installed since this site was created in September, 2015, so the initial WP Engine install was likely 4.3.
What's interesting is that it doesn't list the root URL as the problem source. The email states that it found that issue on a URL that is set up via WP Engine to 301 to a different site, which doesn't use WordPress. I also have other redirects set up to different pages on the second site that aren't listed in the Search Console email.
Anyone have any ideas as to what's causing this misidentification of WP versions? I am afraid that Google sees this as a vulnerability and is penalizing my site accordingly.
Thanks in advance!
-
I saw this for a client as well, who I know for sure isn't running WordPress at all. Personally, I think it's a Google mistake.
-
Thanks for that info, but I actually don't see a trace of 3.3.1 anywhere in my source code, so I'm still confused as to how it came up with that info. I do have a meta generator tag but it just contains a credit to Visual Composer.
The site is http://foam-roller.com.
-
Thanks for the response. It's interesting to me that Google doesn't penalize for vulnerabilities - you'd think it'd have some effect since it'd be in Google's best interest not to serve potentially insecure/malicious websites, just as SSL has a positive effect on rankings.
-
Peter is right, what I also wouldn't worry about is that you might get a penalty because of this. Google is very concerned about the security issues that Web sites might have and that's why they're alerting webmasters through Search Console that this is the case.
-
I also get notifications.
On first site in wp-content/uploads there was HTML file with this in header:
so checking works almost perfect. Just file was downloaded somewhere from other authors.
On second site Jooma was identified as 1.5 or less:
and this is correct. But wasn't hacked yet from creation like 5-6 years ago.
I think that this is part of their notifications about updates and pushing internet CMSes to latest versions. This isn't their first nor be last mail. Do you remember wp-timthumb notification? Do you remember Fancybox notification? Do you remember Revolution slider notification? What's equal in all cases? I know - one vulnerability and over 100k sites are at risk. And bad guys knows this and uses such vulnerability for black hat seo.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Pagination for Search Results Pages: Noindex/Follow, Rel=Canonical, Ajax Best Option?
I have a site with paginated search result pages. What I've done is noindex/follow them and I've placed the rel=canonical tag on page2, page3, page4, etc pointing back to the main/first search result page. These paginated search result pages aren't visible to the user (since I'm not technically selling products, just providing different images to the user), and I've added a text link on the bottom of the first/main search result page that says "click here to load more" and once clicked, it automatically lists more images on the page (ajax). Is this a proper strategy? Also, for a site that does sell products, would simply noindexing/following the search results/paginated pages and placing the canonical tag on the paginated pages pointing back to the main search result page suffice? I would love feedback on if this is a proper method/strategy to keep Google happy. Side question - When the robots go through a page that is noindexed/followed, are they taking into consideration the text on those pages, page titles, meta tags, etc, or are they only worrying about the actual links within that page and passing link juice through them all?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
How do I write tags on a youtube video for a local Google search?
I've been reading into tags, and I would like to know what the best ways to do them for a local search are. Right now I have a title that reads similar to, "Keyword1 and Keyword2 in City X" Would I make a corresponding tag that reads "Keyword 1 and Keyword 2 in City X,"? Or would I do "Keyword 1," "Keyword 2," and, "City X," as separate tags? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | OOMDODigital0 -
UK SEO Agency Recommendations
Hi, I am currently looking for a new SEO agency to manage strategies on 3 websites, budget of about £15k pm in total. Any recommendations would be really appreciated as trying to navigate through all the usual sales waffle and hollow promises of most SEO agencies is becoming rather difficult. Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | cewe0 -
Does the SEOmoz Suggested Directory List Need to be Updated?
So, since Google updated their link schemes page (http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66356) with avoid using "Low-quality directories", I've been thinking a lot about what makes a directory "low-quality". Obviously, this is important, or Google wouldn't have mentioned it. I was wondering if someone could explain to me how some of the directories suggested by SEOmoz at http://www.seomoz.org/directories are NOT low-quality, specifically some of the ones marked "General". The page lists stuff like busybits.com, for instance. One that I guess many are aware of, and yea it has a high home page PageRank, and it's got some history, and it's human-edited, ok great. But does it actually add any value to anyone that's not just looking to get a link? A page like http://busybits.com/Business/Others/2/ having (dofollow) listings like "Phone cards, Calling cards" "Insurance in Canada" .... ect. It just looks like an SEO backlink hub. No value at all to a user trying to discover new sites/content. Anyway, back to my main question, how is something like this NOT "low-quality"? Thank you
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MadeLoud4 -
Any e-commerce users recommend an SEO company for link building?
I manage an e-commerce site. I wanted to know if anyone has worked with an SEO company for link-building that they would recommend. I DO NOT want articled directories, bookmarks, etc.. I want real link-building from credible/related sites. If you would give me an idea of the results or the general process they use I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | inhouseseo0 -
Penguin Update Seems To Benefit Wikipedia Etc
I was updating product info on my site which was apparently hammered by Penguin. As I was updating I was "Googling" the products. I noticed that every single product I carry, Wikipedia held the #1 position in search results. Anyone else noticing this? I previously held the number 1 position on 2 of my products but I was knocked down to 60+...
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | chronicle0 -
Attracta.com / "weekly submissions to top 100 search engines"
I recently received an offer from Attracta.com because I have a hostgator account. They are offering different levels of service for submitting xml sitemaps on a weekly basis. Is this a good idea? Thanks for your feedback! Will PS see graphic: Screen%20Shot%202012-02-08%20at%2010.06.56%20PM.png
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | WillWatrous0 -
Drop in non-branded organic search April 1
I saw an intense drop in non-branded organic search for major pages on my site on April 1st this year. The homepage wasn't affected and it's not an annual thing. I've attached a screen shot showing the drop. I'm new to the company and recently learned that they had hired a pretty black hat company last year and I'm worried that this is Panda...although the timing seems wrong. Has anyone experienced panda effects between the two updates? I'd love to get some feedback!! 1ry2a.png
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CIEEwebTeam0