Finjan Secure Browsing updated (finally!)

[acr1965]

Looks like Finjan Secure Browsing has finally been updated to be Vista compatible. I am giving it a test run now. New version is 1.3.1.9.

[RedDawn]

acr1965,

Do you have a link, I'm still getting version 1.314 at Mozilla's (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4892) and Finjan's (http://securebrowsing.finjan.com/) site. I haven't tried the download for IE8, maybe that's the one that has been updated?

Thanks.

[raven211]

Looks really good. I wish it was available for Opera, but not much is... :(

[ance]

I remember this post:

{QUOTE->
Haha well ironically enough i can't get finjan to hit on any websites that are malicious, i dunno, don't have the time tonight to play around <-QUOTE}

:-\

[tesk]

But Opera is working together with Haute Secure.

http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2008/06/06/

[raven211]

{QUOTE-> But Opera is working together with Haute Secure.

http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2008/06/06/ <-QUOTE}

Yep, but I've not seen it in action ever.

[acr1965]

{QUOTE-> acr1965,

Do you have a link, I'm still getting version 1.314 at Mozilla's (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4892) and Finjan's (http://securebrowsing.finjan.com/) site. I haven't tried the download for IE8, maybe that's the one that has been updated?

Thanks. <-QUOTE}

I am using Finjan for IE and trying it on IE7. So far no memory issues as had happened in the past with Vista.

[Wildest]

I can't seem to find much useful information on the effectiveness of this product, even after doing a search here.

Is this still recommended over products such as LinkScanner and WOT.

[firzen771]

{QUOTE-> I can't seem to find much useful information on the effectiveness of this product, even after doing a search here.

Is this still recommended over products such as LinkScanner and WOT. <-QUOTE}

simple answer, no.

[acr1965]

Actually appears that the memory problem with IE in Vista persists.

[Wildest]

{QUOTE-> simple answer, no. <-QUOTE}
Thanks, glad I didn't have to waste time testing this.
:thumb:

[virtumonde]

{QUOTE-> simple answer, no. <-QUOTE}
Each with it's own opinion.Wot is not a realtime scanner ,Finjan vs Link Scanner,i would go with Finjan anytime.
Seen more malicious sites detected by Finjan during my use of it.

[ance]

{QUOTE->
Seen more malicious sites detected by Finjan during my use of it. <-QUOTE}

My experiences with Finjan: I have to wait up to 10 seconds until the scan is finished, and it never found any malicious site. I think it's a completely waste of time :(

[virtumonde]

Yes the waiting time although not 10 seconds,was the main reason i stopped using it.But did u encounter malicious sites and Finjan did not detected them?

[ance]

{QUOTE-> But did u encounter malicious sites and Finjan did not detected them? <-QUOTE}

I had installed AVG LinkScanner and Finjan Secure Browsing, while AVG LinkScanner flagged some sites Finjan Secure Browsing never detected any malicious page.

[firzen771]

{QUOTE-> Each with it's own opinion.Wot is not a realtime scanner ,Finjan vs Link Scanner,i would go with Finjan anytime.
Seen more malicious sites detected by Finjan during my use of it. <-QUOTE}

finjan almost never detected any sites as malicious, it reminded me a lot of antibot... i liked linkscaner but i did not like the fact it had to be running with ur system and culdnt be an addon like others.

[jmonge]

you guys you worried to much about websites been infected when you know that with a properly configure browser/firewall and also worry about the payload instead this is the one that brings the pc damage;D

note:an infected websites can not harm my pc without bringing a payload infection other wise just close the browser:)

[overangry]

{QUOTE-> Is this still recommended over products such as LinkScanner and WOT. <-QUOTE}
IMHO WOT is the best link scanner, if you go to smileycetral dot com with its add-ware infested product and browser hijacker it will get flagged by WOT, but be given the ok from all the other link scanners.:o
I tested the leading products about one month ago, when I was after a link checker.

[firzen771]

{QUOTE-> IMHO WOT is the best link scanner, if you go to smileycetral dot com with its add-ware infested product and browser hijacker it will get flagged by WOT, but be given the ok from all the other link scanners.:o
I tested the leading products about one month ago, when I was after a link checker. <-QUOTE}

WOT isnt a linkscanner, its only a site rating tool using a database, AVG Linkscanner is a linkscanner as is finjan.

[overangry]

{QUOTE-> WOT isnt a linkscanner, its only a site rating tool using a database, AVG Linkscanner is a linkscanner as is finjan. <-QUOTE}
Noted;D But the user has a better indication of whether a site/link is regarded as safe opposed to using the link scanners.
The purpose of these tools are to indicate to the user that the site/link is reasonably safe to enter or visit.
WOT does this better...:)

[Spiral123]

I would like to see the Better Business Bureau publish a business site reputation rating system or have that implemented in others. Unless they already have and I am unaware of it.

[firzen771]

{QUOTE-> Noted;D But the user has a better indication of whether a site/link is regarded as safe opposed to using the link scanners.
The purpose of these tools are to indicate to the user that the site/link is reasonably safe to enter or visit.
WOT does this better...:) <-QUOTE}

maybe, but using a database is highly unreliable, it may give u a good general idea if the site is good or not, but when a site's been hijacked recently, a linkscanner is the only one that wuld alert u to an exploit like that. so proactivly, linkscanner is much better.

[overangry]

{QUOTE-> but when a site's been hijacked recently, a linkscanner is the only one that wuld alert u to an exploit like that. so proactivly, linkscanner is much better. <-QUOTE}
Yes, I see what you mean

[acr1965]

{QUOTE-> maybe, but using a database is highly unreliable, it may give u a good general idea if the site is good or not, but when a site's been hijacked recently, a linkscanner is the only one that wuld alert u to an exploit like that. so proactivly, linkscanner is much better. <-QUOTE}

Actually I have not seen many link scanner products (finjan, Link Scanner Lite, Dr. Web's link scanner, etc) able to detect when sites get hijacked. A web site checker like WOT may only rely on historical data but its data base seems updated frequently enough to alert most users to a malicious site. At least it seems to be able to do so with as good an accuracy (or better) than the link scanner programs.

For new exploits on web pages- not yet recognized by link scanners- the process of getting the web site to the database of the link scanner is similar for the real time and historical scanners. A web site is infected, someone stumbles upon the site and the exploit takes over, eventually the exploit is reported back to the link scanner developers who try to figure out a way for their link scanner program to recognize the exploit for inclusion into their database. The historical link scanner is somewhat similar. Someone stumbles across the site and once the exploit is recognized the site is reported back to the developers for inclusion in their database. Either way it is similar in process. It just seems the historical checker with an active and up to date database is more accurate than the real time scanners.

It seems these days rogue downloads disguised as legit software is the en vogue exploit. Real time link checkers don't do much for these anyways.

[firzen771]

{QUOTE-> Actually I have not seen many link scanner products (finjan, Link Scanner Lite, Dr. Web's link scanner, etc) able to detect when sites get hijacked. A web site checker like WOT may only rely on historical data but its data base seems updated frequently enough to alert most users to a malicious site. At least it seems to be able to do so with as good an accuracy (or better) than the link scanner programs.

For new exploits on web pages- not yet recognized by link scanners- the process of getting the web site to the database of the link scanner is similar for the real time and historical scanners. A web site is infected, someone stumbles upon the site and the exploit takes over, eventually the exploit is reported back to the link scanner developers who try to figure out a way for their link scanner program to recognize the exploit for inclusion into their database. The historical link scanner is somewhat similar. Someone stumbles across the site and once the exploit is recognized the site is reported back to the developers for inclusion in their database. Either way it is similar in process. It just seems the historical checker with an active and up to date database is more accurate than the real time scanners.

It seems these days rogue downloads disguised as legit software is the en vogue exploit. Real time link checkers don't do much for these anyways. <-QUOTE}

exploit detection isnt purely off a signature database... and id rather have exploit protection than some site rating tool telling me if the site is safe for children... ::) thers lot of exploits that are used over and over and those are ones linkscanners will usually catch, most of the time ur not gunna see a brand new exploit that was created just that hour, typically its exploits that are already out ther.

[ance]

{QUOTE-> Yes the waiting time although not 10 seconds <-QUOTE}

I tested it again and sometimes the waiting time is more than 10 seconds, goodbye Finjan Secure Browsing :(

[muf]

{QUOTE-> I tested it again and sometimes the waiting time is more than 10 seconds, goodbye Finjan Secure Browsing :( <-QUOTE}

Hehe, yep I too dipped my toe in the Finjan Secure Browsing pool of water. Unfortunately, it turned out to be more like swimming in treacle. Slow slow slow. It was taken to my front door and had a size 11 shoe up it's backside. Goodbye!

muf

[acr1965]

{QUOTE-> exploit detection isnt purely off a signature database... and id rather have exploit protection than some site rating tool telling me if the site is safe for children... ::) thers lot of exploits that are used over and over and those are ones linkscanners will usually catch, most of the time ur not gunna see a brand new exploit that was created just that hour, typically its exploits that are already out ther. <-QUOTE}

My point was that for the new exploits a historical rating tool like WOT seems to respond to their database as fast (or faster) as the realtime scanners like link scanner.

[firzen771]

{QUOTE-> My point was that for the new exploits a historical rating tool like WOT seems to respond to their database as fast (or faster) as the realtime scanners like link scanner. <-QUOTE}

ye thats great site ir rated, but what happens if ur already at the site or if ur forwarded to a bad site, what is WOT gunna do for u other than just turn red and provide absolutely NO protection...

[dw426]

{QUOTE-> ye thats great site ir rated, but what happens if ur already at the site or if ur forwarded to a bad site, what is WOT gunna do for u other than just turn red and provide absolutely NO protection... <-QUOTE}

The point of WOT is not protection, IMHO, it's information. You shouldn't even rely solely on a real-time scanner, much less a database built by the users of WOT (It's really nothing more than a more accurate, more regularly updated SiteAdvisor). Who's to say Finjin or even LinkScanner is going to get it right? They have FPs just like AVs do, and, what happens if you're on a website that was clean when you entered, but had something malicious added to it while you were there, you hit "refresh" and boom, you're infected (if you don't have other protections in place that is). Sounds wild, but entirely possible.

I can confirm Finjin is now incredibly slow, why that is I have no idea. However, Avast's web-scanner is there for me doing the exact same job, and WOT is there to inform me of what MIGHT be on the website. Even if WOT is wrong, Avast has my back.