There are still many domains which will fire off a fake av-scanning and encourage a download if you need more up in face action. Some do follow along and some AVs do look the other way. Instead of saying WOT is not 100% then may be tell me which other tool helps? You can be pretty screwed if you want to - all depending on which OS, UAC and so on. But still. We assume worst scenario.
Ok glad we do not have to debate hpHosts at least. Actually we could since Im testing their hosts-file right now. In router which makes whitelistning a pain. I understand where they are coming from though but internet is just not black and white. Like some programs i use, they block but if you untick crap programs are clean. Dont know, guess they are correct and Im becoming careless. Ethical blocking will start and stop where? Check google ads for registry boosters, as one example. Hopeless.
Ive also testing av2009 scanners which only Defender blocked btw 8) Some guy claimed Defender NEVER worked so had to prove him wrong. Was not easy but succeeded in the end. I think MS have improved a lot lately but not the place to debate build-in protection…
No Im not linking directly to malware sites - probably not allowed here anyway. You can pick them up at WOT or hpHosts. The most convenient way is to subscribe to rss-feed in Google reader. Then just scroll down and down, go for those with “scanner” in domain name but fairly obvious which has executables. But this one was from trojaner-doktor I believe, you figure out how to get that in browser. Try .com at the end. There are 1000s to check out so not really much purpose in focusing on one or two - or even a big handful. They keep coming - tons more than is listed at malwaredomains but also a source to test with of course.
Then the game starts, some submit file to AV-company - then they change exe a bit and back to zero. Have seen that happen many times. Sometimes black and white approach is better.
I think hpHosts is overdoing their warning a bit, “WILL infect” - but still take it easy if you get clickhappy with testing. And definitely take it extremely easy if you believe Avast or whatever will protect you.
Last week i submitted a false Adobe flash player site to Avira. They have it now as does Avast but at the time only WOT, or rather hpHosts, worked. adobe.com-newversion. (put info at the end) Very good. Many would fall for that, looks just like Adobe. If you are into social networking where you could stumble upon such a link, perhaps hidden in tinyurl, you will also appreciate WOTs fast blocking. Last night they blocked a fake Twitter service - I can find the info if you want. Should be easy to find, I got twittered about it more than once. How they try to promote themself. I think pros outweighs the cons and also that the cons is a matter of using WOT correctly - for me that is making it transparent unless it has something important to say. Dont really use it much and only in IE8. I know many who should use WOT. Panda deal makes me worry for future though. We will see.
I’d say there are three groups of web ‘checking’ apps:
a) Norton Safeweb / McAfee SiteAdvisor and alikes
b) WOT and alikes
c) LinkScanner / Network+WebShield
I consider
a) most useless, because they’re totally slow.
b) almost useless because it relies on many votes, so quick changes in status (legit site goes infected) can’t get to the users fast. Also because the system is as weak as its weakest link - it’s problematic because the people are the weakest link. Do they have the knowledge? Are their decisions independent or are they looking on previous status so they actually emphasize it? Do they understand all those categories? etc. Also when evaluating this - what is worse - false positive or false negative?
c) This is the way to go. Yep, there are also false alarms but much rarer in both url blocking or actual malware detections.
Comparing WOT to WebShield does not make any sense. Their purpose is completely different. WebShield is for malware and infected sites. Can’t say I completely understand what is WOT good for (I have it installed for few months now), but I’m really not the typical websurfer 8)
It’s not a matter of protection feeling or sensation… it’s effectiveness. I can sleep very very deeply relying on avast protection… But, of course, not a software is perfect. And for searches, I use Finjan.
Well test away - now I say it again. You dont have to wonder for long. WOT have the same concerns as you - which is why it work. Their voting system is not 1+1=2 Some have more to say than others, thank god! I also focus completely on valid sources, not the social user helping user aspect - which will become user tricking user in seconds. Value will be zero and so you can say WOT is useless. All you need is an army of helpers and you can make THISISVIRUS.COM become green. Not how WOT works. Im dont even think highly of user contributions even if ok - im probably thinking hosts-file really - where there are no doubt or debate.
Situation can change - may be someone find a way to mess with WOT big time. So much as everyone will notice. Avast is also not perfect or why update it? I see no reason to avoid WOT for now. Compared to similar service I will claim it is way better and testing can prove that easily. Thought that was common knowledge actually. Money can do much to people so who knows what will happen later on. Could be WOT blows in few months.
Avast is good so sleep tight but Im still saying you can quite easily find downloads Avast will not detect. Ive done this with Avira at full speed many times. Once you see that you understand the value. Pretend worst scenario. You can say the same for Nod32, kaspersky etc. - matter of time and testing. WOT is dumb as a door but works! Luckily users do not surf bad domain sites.
Btw, if you test with hphosts hosts-file including the partial one activated you might run into problems. May be disable for “ease of infection” 8) Firefox and IE8 smartscreen can also take the fun out of clicking but they dont catch all.
But this is not definitely true. Been to many malware distro sites with full green to believe this is true. Today morning. Lemme see… Yep, still green, despite the fact they contain only malware.
There is no definitive about WOT but if you know a source with bad domains suggest they contact them and include in database. I personally like to know it but hphosts is overkill as testing source already. Blacklisting is always behind per definition so that alone makes it not definitive. You can say the same for every thing regarding security. If you compare to similar tools I dont see the competion at all. When I last tested with link extend it got really tiresome. I know hphosts is connected to WOT so unfair or is it? Where are mcafee etc. sources listing sites not in WOT? I think ranking is pretty obvious - today at least. Long time ago I think I read something about Avast wanting to make more use of blocking since requested a lot? People want ad-blocking I bet. But a thinner WOT without all the fluff, only focused on 100% bad sites, might come along then? who knows. Matter of sources I think - technology is already build into Avast right? There are advantages to scanners but also disadvantages, like when they dont work 8)
I and others commented months ago but site is still yellow. Notice who submitted warning. See how many posts he have made in profile. Actually I think he is an employee = 100% trustworthy. 1+1 is not 2 at WOT.
But he could be correct or Im sure he is or was at the time. No reason to believe he would try to make WOT look bad - being a known figure and all. He says urls redirect to malwaresites. Possible they were there and gone today - has he checked? Or they are still there and I cant find them! Could be in a post, could be site was attacked by obfuscated plugin/script or whatever. Does not render whole site yellow or red and yet because of his status at WOT that is the case. This is why not to focus on just any complaint and make use of functionality in plugin meaning focusing on redish sites. Basically make it into a modern hosts-file with no blocking of myspace type of sites or ad-servers like opendns sometimes do.
They do have a forum where Im sure site admins. complain loudly of being flagged wrongly. If this becomes common no one will use WOT anymore. Very simple. No one would use an AV if full of false positives either, just look at how AV-comparatives punish them. Spammers and worse will flood site in 1 hour. Dont think it is common though and can be avoided by understanding and adjusting to rating system - going BAH! to less important things.
