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 Outdated or unpatched software can be vulnerable to hacking and malware exploits that harm potential visitors to your site.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
-
Url suddenlly diappeared from Google search results
Hi, I am facing a big problem wheel Google stop showing a basic url of my site, It was ranked good for more than 35 keywords from 1st to 8st positions, and suddenly I can find it indexed in Google , this is the URL : http://tv1.alarab.com/view-8/مسلسلات-عربية Thnaks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | alarab.net0 -
Links Identified in WMT not on Webpages
Hi, We're currently reviewing one of our clients backlinks in Google Webmaster Tools, Majestic & OSE as we can see many toxic links. However we cannot find the links on the webpages that are listed on Google WMT. We have searched through the website along with checking through the source code. Should we still disavow the domain? Thanks, Edd
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | tomcraig860 -
Google's Related Searches - Optimizing Possible?
Does anyone know how Google determines what suggestions show up at the bottom of SERPs? I've been working with a client to boost his local ranking, but every time we do a branded search for his business his competitors keep popping up in the "Searches related to ______" section.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | mtwelves0 -
Would reviews being served to a search engine user agent through a noscript tag (but not shown for other user types) be considered cloaking?
This one is tough, and I've asked it once here, http://www.quora.com/Search-Engine-Optimization-SEO/Is-having-rich-snippets-placed-below-a-review-that-is-pulled-via-javascript-considered-bad-grey-hat-SEO, but I feel that the response was sided with the company. As an SEO or digital marketer, it seems that if we are pulling in our reviews via iframe for our users, but serving them through a nonscript tag when the user agent is a search engine, that this could be considered cloaking. I understand that the "intent" may be to show the same thing to the bots as the user sees, but if you look at the view source, you'll never see the reviews, because it would only be delivered to the search engine bot. What do you think?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | eTundra0 -
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 -
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 -
I think a virus as enter my wordpress
I think a virus as enter my wordpress and is changing my titles and redirecting urls. Help please. How can i find the virus and werre was is gate to enter my web thank you
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Switching existing website to a Wordpress Site and afraid of losing top spot
I am going to be switching my current site from a standard html site to a wordpress site. I'm kind of paranoid of losing my top spot for the keyterms. If I keep the content the same, and keep the same amount of image alt tags, the same anchor text etc, nothing should change right? Grateful for any advice. Thanks Will
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | willie790