Netlux.org

General Topics
1

Is this website safe for reading about viruses?

vx.netlux.org

2

URL Analysis results from VirusTotal
Firefox - Clean site
G-Data - Clean site
Google Safebrowsing - Clean site
ParetoLogic - Malware site
Phishtank - Clean site
URL info:
Normalized URL: http://vx.netlux.org/
URL MD5: 0e12e1b23793cb9067944bb11764fbce

3

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/vx.netlux.org#page-3
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/vx.netlux.org#page-4

Report 2010-12-27 07:42:27 (GMT 1)
Website vx.netlux.org
Domain Hash 0984993f3c3fb731bad5279fa7b2ec8b
IP Address 194.44.18.83 [SCAN]
IP Hostname labman.vxheavens.com
IP Country UA (Ukraine)
AS Number 5598
AS Name NETLUX-AS OOO TRK Nadezhda
Detections 2 / 17 (12 %)
Status SUSPICIOUS
Oh my god
http://www.browserdefender.com/site/vx.netlux.org/
Viruses: 101

4

Bob says it’s clean, but Left123 found 101 viruses!!!

Now I am really confused!

5

Urlvoid is better than virus total.Also WOT.

6

Hate to disagree with you regarding WOT
WOT isn’t reliable at all :frowning:

7

Is virustotal?Even if you click at a malware site that is detected by google you will see the error.Virustotal just tell you if it is detected by the browsers.Wot is based on users commens,2 full pages of bad comments about malicious activity on page are enough for me.Also did you check the link browserdefender?101 viruses ;D

Also to prove you that i am right.I just caught a simple example.
URL VOID results for xxx.0002.in.2/18–> Google Diagnostic DETECTED>http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=0002.in
Virustotal–>0 /6>Google Safebrowsing Clean site

As you can see i scanned the same site with 2 diffenent online scanners,the first detected it and i posted the warning message from google.Virustotal says 0/6=not detected by google.

8
Wot is based on users commens,2 full pages of bad comments about malicious activity on page are enough for me
Precisely why I made the comment. Users who aren't experts.

My post simply reflected the result given by Virus Total’s scanner.
They aren’t my opinions.

9

What would you do when some1 is asking your opinion?Maybe you think that the site is clean when the scanner prove something else.When you say “it’s not my comment”,what do you exactly mean?they lie?Why would they,at least at the 4th page i posted there is mcafee comment.I’ve seen comments from different av’s on WOT including mcafee and panda.

10

Dr.Web online check says that though the link is clean, the site itself is in Dr.Web’s malware sites database. I would strongly recommend NOT to visit this site.

11

YOU aren’t reliable at all :frowning:

12

Personal attacks aren’t something I or any one else on this forum enjoy.
They also have no business on this forum. >:(

13

nah, I was just making as silly post as yours was.

Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than “it’s user based” nonsense. Can you?

If WOT is unreliable “because it’s user-based”, then why this forum, for instance, is more reliable than WOT? Most of people here are usual users, too.

I guess forums and other things which are user-based aren’t to be trusted, huh? But then, what can be trusted?

14
  1. Virus analysts and technical info of trustable sources.
  2. Personal experiences of a bunch of users with good intentions.
  3. God :slight_smile:
15
  1. Is user-based and according to bob that can’t be trusted.
  2. No fanboyism!
16

Fanboys do not have good intentions and fail the definition of trustable source :slight_smile:

17

@ Altarir

Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ Perfectly clean but still tagged by WOT
18

We are talking about malicious sites.This site is not marked as RED.
If you see Shazza’s comment at last page it says : http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=68.35.72.131&x=9&y=8
Also it WAS BLACKlisted by http://www.malwareurl.com. It’s not now,that’s why it’s “orange”=be cautious

That means that site HAD a trojan.

19
  1. Altarir is not an array, but a scalar. He’s one person, not many, jeebus.
  2. That it’s clean now doesn’t necessarily mean it always was - and the opposite is valid, too.
  3. Anythin’ else?
20

The fact is that it had a false positive - it never had a trojan. The explanation was posted on the WOT forum.