Is there any alternative for this piece of software?
I know of these
http://www.browserdefender.com/download/
http://hautesecure.com/download.aspx
http://www.trendsecure.com/portal/en-US/tools/security_tools/trendprotect/download
http://securebrowsing.finjan.com/
Which one is the best?
Another one is Avg Linkscanner
There is no “best”. Use the one that works best for you and doesn’t slow down your browsing.
Hi 
I Use… WOT
On Both My… Laptop - & - Desktop
In Both… Firefox - & - IE8
Tip!
If You Register Your - WOT
You get extra settings
And…
You get to Sync all your WOTs 
I Love - WOT :-*
As it has saved me from disaster quite a few times.
Super Light - & - Problem Free…
WOT - Rocks! 8)
I use WOT too. Veri good.
WOT is BIASED… ;D
If the majority of WOT users who are registered are Democrats then most Republican websites will be blocked.
If 5 people don’t like my website, they may rate my site with WOT as bad
Hi
WOT doesn’t work like that :
You’re not allowed to rate a website as…
Like - or - Dislike
Good - or - Bad
Cool - or - Rubbish
You rate a website on whether it’s… Safe - or - Not Safe!
From - WOT
[b]How reliable are the ratings?[/b]The reliability of the reputations improves as the system gathers more supporting evidence in the form of users’ ratings and information from trusted sources. The rating window shows an icon composed of tiny human figures indicating the amount of supporting evidence: one figure represents the smallest amount of confidence, five the greatest. A minimum confidence level means that we have only a little evidence and we encourage you to give your rating to improve the reliability.
Can a site’s reputation be manipulated?
In order to keep ratings more reliable, WOT tracks each user’s rating behavior before deciding how much it trusts the user. WOT applies sophisticated algorithms to detect and eliminate any manipulation of reputation. If a user bases their ratings on how pretty the site is or what’s the phase of the moon, her ratings won’t be trusted. You must prove yourself before we take you seriously. The system will ignore all ratings created by a user attempting to manipulate the reputation data.
Sure! … Some people try to manipulate the WOT ratings >:(
But! … Someone will usually notice and put things right 8)
Hally
Another vote for WOT.
btw, @hally,
your post looks good and tidy. 
nmb
Hi nmb
Thank You!
Hally
I use WOT too
-Flock
-Mozilla
-IE8
McAfee SiteAdvisor is useless and can even rate sites with known malware as safe.
WOT is OK but too subjective for my liking.
Finjan
Six reasons to use Finjan SecureBrowsinghttp://securebrowsing.finjan.com/index.htmlGives you the highest rate of malicious code detection:
• Scans the current form of a page as it available on the Web now, in real-time.
• Detects malicious content based on code analysis, rather than using signatures like anti-virus products.
• Provides the most accurate page safety rating based on the actual page content, rather than database lookup of web address like URL filtering products.Ensuring your privacy:
• Doesn’t track each and every URL you visit.
• Doesn’t require your identification details.
• Doesn’t install additional programs or change settings of your desktop.
[b]How does it work?[/b]http://securebrowsing.finjan.com/help.htmlFinjan SecureBrowsing is a security extension for your browser that scans and classifies web addresses to provide you with safety rating of URLs before you visit them. Proactively alerting you to potentially malicious web addresses in links of search results, ads and other selected web pages, SecureBrowsing protects you from webpages that could be used to compromise your privacy and identity.
Unlike other products in the market that are based on static databases containing information on web domain reputations, Finjan’s SecureBrowsing scans each URL as it currently exists on the web, each time the address is displayed in your browser.
I use both WOT and Finjan, I agree with YoKenny that WOT can be to subjective but at the same time Finjan sometimes causes glitches and fills web pages (Myspace ect.) with rows and rows of green check marks. Can be very annoying to say the least.
WOT
Finjan for realtime scan. LinkExtend for reputation values (though may slow down browser).
Hi malware fighters,
WOT is the better of the reputation scanners and while they do not scan all the redirecting links, just as the realtime DrWeb online URL checker they are quite worthless in the case of a recent malcode injection etc.
There I best trust http://www.unmaskparasites.com/ but also here malcreants react by injecting after the Google check round has finished to be missed for the further period. Whenever they were scanned against the Norton_Safe_Web online scanner is quite good and give all details of threats found.
The avast shields are the best around and very accurate. The best protection however is working a Mozilla browser like Firefox or flock with the NoScript extension installed (I also use RequestPolicy additionally) - in that case you are protected against in-browser malcode of the past, present and future - no malicious script can run, no malcode can land on your OS via the use of a browser,
polonus
Thank you polonus. Again, it is multi-layered defense that gives the best protection.
There is little difference between Site Advisor and WOT. Both are reputation scanners that are subject to those doing the ratings … like or dislike / safe or unsafe … it’s virtually the same thing on those 2 applications. Any one can post these ratings and this would include owners of malware distributing web sites, malware writers, as well as other malcreants.
If I were one of the above mentioned malcreants, I would be doing ratings on SA & WOT everyday.
It would be best if those 2 applications were discontinued because those who reply on them will be infected sooner rather than later.
@ Hally
When I said Bad, I meant Not safe.
I was emphasizing on the manipulative probability of WOT
I used to use WOT for a long time but not anymore after I found many good sites as Unsafe
@ nmb
Compared to others
I don’t think Hally’s post looks neat and Tidy ;D
A Little More Info
WOT Services Ltd. (formally known as Against Intuition, Inc.) was founded in 2006 by two graduate students: Timo Ala-Kleemola and Sami Tolvanen.
[b]McAfee SiteAdvisor is useless and can even rate sites with known malware as safe.
WOT is OK but too subjective for my liking. [/b]Yokenny Your words ring true, so I used them. If Folks insist on clicing on every site lets call this browsing by its proper name Russian Roulette
@ pinnacle
How to play with WOT
Yokenny nice catch,