Dumped SiteAdvisor (McAfee), suggestions please

[Fly]

(Windows XP Home Edition IE 7)

I was automatically updated from version 2.6.x to 2.8.x, to my dismay.

To keep a long story short: it seems that McAfee/the SiteAdvisor (not the same!) have taken gathering of personal (I'm not buying the 'anonymous' story) data to a new level.

Also, in 2.8 a BHO (browser helper object) was added.

So I'm through with the SiteAdvisor.

Useful functions of the SiteAdvisor: when you visit a page you see the SiteAdvisor rating, ratings are shown when doing a Google search.
I never 'trusted' the ratings, it was more like: if it's red, stay away, other websites may or may not be safe.

I'm sure there are a number of alternatives for the SiteAdvisor, but I really don't have the energy or time to make this a full research project.
I'd appreciate suggestions for alternatives. Effectiveness and not spying on me are probably the most important criteria, it being free is nice too.

I think Zonealarm has something, but I'm not sure if it would go along with McAfee.

(Why not dump McAfee immediately ? The McAfee Virusscan Plus is already paid for, on one occasion when it really mattered McAfee protected me, having difficulty finding replacement software that I trust and works well on this aged computer, and I'm considering buying a new computer, with of course new software)

[rainbow1112]

Web Of Trust http://www.mywot.com/
Norton Safe Web http://safeweb.norton.com/ Need NIS09 to run
TrendProtect http://www.trendsecure.com/portal/en-US/tools/security_tools/trendprotect

[lordpake]

http://www.mywot.com/ Since I participate in both SA and WOT, I can recommend WOT as replacement for it.

[jmonge]

there is not a bid deal gettig notify of malware,the main purpose is be able to stop the malware in real time,not getting an alert about it,i think i belive;D
not need an alerter,need a blocker.my 5 cents.

but if you need an alerter like the big M,try WOT

[fax]

-{ Quote: " I think Zonealarm has something, but I'm not sure if it would go along with McAfee." }-

Probably you refer to ZA ForceField.
But it is much more than ratings sites (sandbox, keylogger scrambler, etc)

Cheers,
Fax

[jrmhng]

You could get an av with a web scanner.

[cheater87]

WOT is great. You can set it to block dangerous sites after you do a free registration :)

[cruelsister]

Finjan SecureBrowsing is about the same. It comes as a extension for Firefox and as a control for IE. Free, by the way.

http://securebrowsing.finjan.com/index.html

and also:
* 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.

[Einsturzende]

Everything is better than deceptive SiteAdvisor, when I saw yellow for Agnitum`s site (and for some other competition-like to McAfee`s products), I give red to SiteAdvisor.

[Fly]

Thank you for your replies.

But I'm wondering, what is the business model of mywot and the finjan thing ? I understand these two are for free.

Generally, things don't come for free, and if there is not a business model, I'd like to know more about the background.

That gives me a little perspective, especially regarding privacy and trustworthiness.

(The SiteAdvisor was/is for free, and look what they have done with it ...)

[cheater87]

Wot is free because its a firefox and IE extension that is not controlled by a huge corporation.

[IceCube1010]

Hi

What about Browser Defender? It's free and works quite well.

Ice

[emperordarius]

I don't trust those kind of programs. They can give incorrect ratings because of the reviewer's stupidity. If you are going to install that kind of program, you should use something like LinkScanner or Finjan. I don't think you even need them though, a good av will do the job.

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "I don't trust those kind of programs. They can give incorrect ratings because of the reviewer's stupidity. If you are going to install that kind of program, you should use something like LinkScanner or Finjan. I don't think you even need them though, a good av will do the job." }-agree 100%

[IceCube1010]

I'm not sure if Browser Defender has suggestions from dumb users. Some kind of Threat Expert outfit? It also gives a lot of valuable info about the selected site.

Ice

[smith2006]

You may want to try Haute Secure.

http://hautesecure.com/

It can be used with Firefox, Internet Explorer & Opera.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Finjan SecureBrowsing is about the same. It comes as a extension for Firefox and as a control for IE. Free, by the way.

http://securebrowsing.finjan.com/index.html

and also:
* 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." }-

Sigh.

Actually, it does track every URL ! (I'm not sure if there is some kind of opt-out, since I stopped the installation after reading the EULA or whatever it's called.) It clearly states that each URL you visit is sent to their server.

About 'non-personal information': what is personal and not personal is certainly open to debate ! (Understatement)

I don't like such a tool to send information about EVERY website I visit to whoever. If that would only be done in specific cases, on request, that might be ok.

The only way to really be safe, is not to have that information stored ANYWHERE, by ANYONE.

Hautesecure also collects information, more than I like ! (see their privacy policy).

I'm not sure what to think of WOT, browser defender or other stuff.

The thing is, since I no longer have the SiteAdvisor or any substitute, I don't know what website is safe ! So I can't just visit any page that 'pretends' to give information or a 'safe' download. (I used the SiteAdvisor basically as a blacklisting utility: staying away from red sites, but not really trusting the green or grey sites, worked almost always perfect, in combination with my own expertise to determine whether a site is safe, based on certain things (I've seen plenty of dangerous 'green' sites)).

So I'm asking for advice.

Thank you for your time and effort.

[cruelsister]

I hate to tell you this, but no site can be considered safe anymore.

http://www.scmagazineus.com/Researcher-finds-server-with-stolen-FTP-credentials/article/118756/

[Einsturzende]

Ok then, you can consider every site as a potentially malicious, and with above tools you can consider some sites are certainly malicious, Tools such as WOT etc. is good information/orientation tools nothing more and nothing less.

[cruelsister]

It seemed to me he wanted absolutes. Just pointing out that there are none.

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "Ok then, you can consider every site as a potentially malicious, and with above tools you can consider some sites are certainly malicious, Tools such as WOT etc. is good information/orientation tools nothing more and nothing less." }-but even if these tools give you info about sites,it does block or help you avoiding getting infected,it is just a warning tool.

[djohn]

I use WOT just for helping hand.If its green does not mean its safe but if its red I avoid it all together.I keep my nod32 web Access protection browser set in active Mode for more stronger filtering and put more trust in that then any extension.

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "I use WOT just for helping hand.If its green does not mean its safe but if its red I avoid it all together.I keep my nod32 web Access protection browser set in active Mode for more stronger filtering and put more trust in that then any extension." }-i think that nod32 web Access protection is better choice:thumb:

[Saraceno]

All the good ones have been mentioned.

There's also Browser Defender for IE.
http://www.browserdefender.com/

[jmonge]

my site advisor for websites is my H.I.P.S program going nuts after blocking a malware.i remember last week i try or test antivirus2009(spyware)without any
vm or sandbox app and ProcessGuard got nuts but at the end it blocks it in real time with out any side effects.like 3 or 4 pop ups and it was block,then i scan my pc with SUPERAntiSpYWare and MalWareBites and found nothing.:thumb:

[virtumonde]

-{ Quote: "

There's also Browser Defender for IE.
http://www.browserdefender.com/" }-

Who on wilders uses IE? :)

For the OP ,if during your browser sessions with siteadvisor you wanted to enter many sites that Siteadvisor marked as Dangerous,than a program like this might be useful to you.
I use it a while ago but except for warez sites and screensaver,sites, i did not seen Red Rating,yelow on a few sites for spam emails.And of course some green sites got hacked in the meantime and the addon failed to keep up with the changes.
I think that these products are waste of bandwith,not to mention privacy concernes.
I've seen some good real time detections from finjan and linkscanner, and like emperordarius wrote i'll go with one of these .

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "Who on wilders uses IE? :)

For the OP ,if during your browser sessions with siteadvisor you wanted to enter many sites that Siteadvisor marked as Dangerous,than a program like this might be useful to you.
I use it a while ago but except for warez sites and screensaver,sites, i did not seen Red Rating,yelow on a few sites for spam emails.And of course some green sites got hacked in the meantime and the addon failed to keep up with the changes.
I think that these products are waste of bandwith,not to mention privacy concernes.
I've seen some good real time detections from finjan and linkscanner, and like emperordarius wrote i'll go with one of these ." }-hahhhahaa i do;D ;D

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Who on wilders uses IE? :)

For the OP ,if during your browser sessions with siteadvisor you wanted to enter many sites that Siteadvisor marked as Dangerous,than a program like this might be useful to you.
I use it a while ago but except for warez sites and screensaver,sites, i did not seen Red Rating,yelow on a few sites for spam emails.And of course some green sites got hacked in the meantime and the addon failed to keep up with the changes.
I think that these products are waste of bandwith,not to mention privacy concernes.
I've seen some good real time detections from finjan and linkscanner, and like emperordarius wrote i'll go with one of these ." }-

Are you recommending browserdefender (since I don't want to send information about every URL I visit to someplace) ? I'm not quite sure if that's what you're saying.

It seems like I've to make a choice between browserdefender and WOT, unless someone has something to add. Any particular pros and cons for either one ?

The website of browserdefender just seems a little weird. Like, a website that anyone could set up.

And btw, I use IE 7. It can be quite safe if one uses it the right way. Like: higher than normal security settings, for ALL zones (I've never had any use for a zone with normal or lower than normal security settings), using security software that is tailored to IE, for example monitoring changes made to IE/attempts to change settings of IE.
It's a matter of finding a security setup that works for you.

And it's not as if Firefox is that safe (about the NoScript issue: can be done in IE 7 too, although it's maybe less convenient), look at the sheer number of vulnerabilities that are discovered frequently. And, for as far as browsers are a target, FireFox has a substantial market share, unlike a few years ago.

[virtumonde]

-{ Quote: "Are you recommending browserdefender (since I don't want to send information about every URL I visit to someplace) ? I'm not quite sure if that's what you're saying.

" }-

I need to improve my english .
I was trying to say that i don't find them useful.
If u think u'll need such an app,go with the one with the largest database,i think between those two you've mentioned Wot is used by most users ,and has ratings for a large nr of sites,since browser defender doesn't support firefox.

[djohn]

-{ Quote: "i think that nod32 web Access protection is better choice:thumb:" }-
I think so.

[djohn]

-{ Quote: "Are you recommending browserdefender (since I don't want to send information about every URL I visit to someplace) ? I'm not quite sure if that's what you're saying.

It seems like I've to make a choice between browserdefender and WOT, unless someone has something to add. Any particular pros and cons for either one ?

The website of browserdefender just seems a little weird. Like, a website that anyone could set up.

And btw, I use IE 7. It can be quite safe if one uses it the right way. Like: higher than normal security settings, for ALL zones (I've never had any use for a zone with normal or lower than normal security settings), using security software that is tailored to IE, for example monitoring changes made to IE/attempts to change settings of IE.
It's a matter of finding a security setup that works for you.

And it's not as if Firefox is that safe (about the NoScript issue: can be done in IE 7 too, although it's maybe less convenient), look at the sheer number of vulnerabilities that are discovered frequently. And, for as far as browsers are a target, FireFox has a substantial market share, unlike a few years ago." }-
I use IE7 vista protection on and IMO I feel that IE7 in vista with UAC On which also enables protection mode on is safer then fox alone with out extensions and fox is safer with extensions providing the extenesion have no Big security holes.with windows XP maybe a different story altogether.Also I believe the driver behind the keyboard is the most critical for safe surf.

[Espresso]

http://www.robotgenius.net/technology/rgguard.jsp

Robot Genius RGguard
The term “Malware” refers to spyware, trojans, viruses, network worms, and rootkits—any installed programs that infects computers and wreaks havoc on computer security and performance. Increasingly, malware is used as a means of stealing personal information, such as credit card numbers or identities. Using the Web, hackers disseminating malware take advantage of free online content dispersal and frequent online updates to circumvent security measures. Reliable protection against malicious attacks necessitates an in-depth knowledge of malware its locations and characteristics.

RGguard: Proactively Prevents Malware Infections
RGguard from Robot Genius, provides users and companies with a first line of defense against malware. A lightweight browser plug-in enhancement, RGguard works in tandem with the Robot Genius RGcrawler data to prevent malware infections.

RGguard browser plug-in proactively warns users of danger while they browse the web by marking up search results links with color-coded safety ratings. It alerts users by recognizing not just the domain but also the full path URL that points to each instance of malware. The exactness of alerts reduces false positives and keeps restricted sites to a minimum.

Key Benefits
Lightweight and unobtrusive, works with all browsers.
Zero-day threat protection against all types of malware.
A powerful, fully automated method for blocking links to malware and warning users of URLs containing malicious executables.
Virtually no impact on system performance or system resources.
Exactness of alerts reduces false positives keeping restricted sites to a minimum, and also keeps ‘noisy’ security alerts to a minimum.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "I need to improve my english .
I was trying to say that i don't find them useful.
If u think u'll need such an app,go with the one with the largest database,i think between those two you've mentioned Wot is used by most users ,and has ratings for a large nr of sites,since browser defender doesn't support firefox." }-

Thank you.

[IceCube1010]

Browser Defender is in the Pctools family and here is the link for Firefox:
http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53698

Ice

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Browser Defender is in the Pctools family and here is the link for Firefox:
http://www.pctools.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53698

Ice" }-

Pctools ? :o

Is that also the case for the IE 7 version ?

[IceCube1010]

they have a different version for ie, 2.0.5.95. The Firefox version is 1.9 I believe. It dosen't slow down browsing and it contains some good info on sites.

Ice

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "http://www.mywot.com/ Since I participate in both SA and WOT, I can recommend WOT as replacement for it." }-

+1, WOT is superior in oh... so many ways!

[Fly]

Sadly, all the services mentioned (not tied to an antivirus suite or something like that), collect data somehow. (Generally: see privacy policy) And I understand that's the rule, not the exception. Unless you just visit a service's website to scan one particular URL, and leave it at that.

I need to give this some thought.

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "Sadly, all the services mentioned (not tied to an antivirus suite or something like that), collect data somehow. (Generally: see privacy policy) And I understand that's the rule, not the exception. Unless you just visit a service's website to scan one particular URL, and leave it at that.

I need to give this some thought." }-

Not the job of an av or AS to define what is appropriate or not when browsing, that is why these need to build up a profile derived from community and personal input to complement inept link scanners...

All link scanners that take no inputs from users fail to defend appropriately since they rely on too small a number of people to build their white/black lists...

I'd rather loose a bit of privacy than be without the protection a free service such as WOT provides... That is for as long as it maintains it's integrity.

[cheater87]

Ewww its part of the PC tools corporation. I'm not going to try it now.

[Saraceno]

I tried a few of them as well, don't have any of them at the moment, but from what I recall, found no slow downs with Browser Defender.

The site is simple, but to give pc tools credit, they also run http://www.threatexpert.com/ and it's very informative and up to date.

Also, if you don't like it, it uninstalls with no dramas.

[andyman35]

-{ Quote: "Sigh.

Actually, it does track every URL ! (I'm not sure if there is some kind of opt-out, since I stopped the installation after reading the EULA or whatever it's called.) It clearly states that each URL you visit is sent to their server.

About 'non-personal information': what is personal and not personal is certainly open to debate ! (Understatement)

I don't like such a tool to send information about EVERY website I visit to whoever. If that would only be done in specific cases, on request, that might be ok.

" }-

Since site checking is done 'on the fly' with Finjan,rather than using a static listing,then the only way this can be done is by sending the information to their server.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "
To keep a long story short: it seems that McAfee/the SiteAdvisor (not the same!) have taken gathering of personal (I'm not buying the 'anonymous' story) data to a new level.
" }-

Hi, could you expand a bit on the privacy issues and why's the new version worse in this respect? Thanks. ;)

[JRViejo]

doktornotor, perhaps you want to check this past Wilders post: New SiteAdvisor - Privacy Concern (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=218321).

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "doktornotor, perhaps you want to check this past Wilders post: New SiteAdvisor - Privacy Concern (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=218321)." }-

Sorry, I haven't mentioned that... Already did look there before asking and that's definitely not something I'd consider a privacy issue but rather a bad design (should be per-user, i.e. %APPDATA% so that proper permissions apply). So, anything else beyond this?

[Einsturzende]

-{ Quote: "Sorry, I haven't mentioned that... Already did look there before asking and that's definitely not something I'd consider a privacy issue but rather a bad design (should be per-user, i.e. %APPDATA% so that proper permissions apply). So, anything else beyond this?" }-
not privacy, but "monopolism", they tagged Agnitum (outpost FW creators) with yellow, (past) prosecurity site with red, those are some samples that I remember, after that I uninstalled SiteAdvisor...
Also there is annoying habit of SiteAdvisor to always send something to home on port 443, while in settings that is strictly configured not to do.

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Hi, could you expand a bit on the privacy issues and why's the new version worse in this respect? Thanks. ;)" }-

I'm not going to mention all possible issues here but:
One of the new things is the BHO (=browser helper object), which can show up too now if you get the 2.6 version, unlike in the past.
You always got the toolbar, although it was not always visible, but it was active (in IE 7) anyway.

I wonder what that BHO is for. Many pieces of software want to get a greater grip/more control on your computer. For example, Adobe's Acrobat Reader, had (has?) some of that stuff, although by some mystery it is no longer present on my computer !

[acr1965]

I like this little button-

http://www.iecustomizer.com/

[Phant0m]

McAfee SiteAdvisor - I decided to drop this product when their free version (v2+) begin using UPSELL.dll which caused conflicts with with games, made them run very, very slow.

The information I found on the file UPSELL.dll over the Internet claimed this file to be associated with Spyware / Adware, I looked for sometime afterwards for official description for this file but never found.


TrendProtect - I observed a very annoying bug (when on Google Search) and reported it on 10/20/2007, they never did fix or even responded back.


Browser Defender - Seems promising, but they haven't included site ratings for some popular search providers like 'Live Search' which MSN / Sympatico sites uses. E-mailed them number days ago, they never e-mailed back or release an update to address this.

[IceCube1010]

-{ Quote: "McAfee SiteAdvisor - I decided to drop this product when their free version (v2+) begin using UPSELL.dll which caused conflicts with with games, made them run very, very slow.

The information I found on the file UPSELL.dll over the Internet claimed this file to be associated with Spyware / Adware, I looked for sometime afterwards for official description for this file but never found.


TrendProtect - I observed a very annoying bug (when on Google Search) and reported it on 10/20/2007, they never did fix or even responded back.


Browser Defender - Seems promising, but they haven't included site ratings for some popular search providers like 'Live Search' which MSN / Sympatico sites uses. E-mailed them number days ago, they never e-mailed back or release an update to address this." }-

Never used Live Search but you are 100% correct. I only use Google and Yahoo so that is why I never noticed that.