SiteAdvisor -- strange

[jcollake]

I will make this short and sweet, as I've written enough about it:

1. I had previous trouble with SiteAdvisor over a false positive on a freeware utility I authored. The RED rating persisted months after the false positive was fixed (on their end by Avertlabs, their R&D arm).
2. I was contacted a couple years (approx) later by a salesperson for Mcafee Secure. They wanted me to buy certification for thousands a year. I didn't have that kind of money, but knew their power. I didn't mention the previous problem, and so told her 'maybe next month'.
3. She makes a strange request that I email her to confirm the conversation (get domain name for sure?)
4. A month later they try to call and I don't answer. She emails. I say I don't have enough money.
5. THE NEXT DAY their highest ranking (in post count and 9/9) reviewer bot with over 2 million site reviews (http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=19138) (1000+ average a day) comes and reviews my site saying only I have malicious content and such, giving no specific example because there is NONE. I have NO OTHER negative comments since the first incident, which a mistaken reviewer later recanted (a long freaking time).
6. I remain GREEN, thanks to my previous false positive (ironically)
7. They call back again, last chance opportunity .. The price is now 1/4 of what it was originally. I decline and we both say 'oh darn'.

Does this sound strange? A bit extortionist, or is that just coincidence? They may make me RED now as I've expressed my concerns publicly. It just upsets me because I remember how I was hurt before, and know others are being hurt.. meanwhile those who can 'pay up' can do whatever they want, so long as it isn't detected as malware (several examples of that.. e.g. FreeCreditReport.com, check them vs on Web of Trust). I would have went RED and had to 'pay up' their insanely high prices. Some would call this extortion I think.

I dunno, maybe I am jumping to conclusions.. but why allow reviewer bots? And I could see salespeople, eager for commission, independently pulling this off. I was given a specific email address, and always talked to the same person.

[SirPeterPan]

???
Give more information.

[jcollake]

Ok.

2 years (or so) ago:
Initial false positive rating issue was also reported and debated in this forum. I had a false positive on MakeService.exe, a freeware utility I authored to turn normal Windows applications into services. This caused a RED rating of my entire web site. Mcafee's Avertlabs acknowledged and fixed the false positive. 3 months later, FINALLY my site went GREEN again.

Time passes, only positive comments from users.

Current:
I get a phone call from the sales rep, as stated above. This is real high pressure sales. I mean, worse than car salesmen. When I said I didn't have the money, they wanted to explorer my credit cards with me to find out (that pushy). It was a woman though, who later transferred me to a man. I said I simply couldn't afford what they wanted, but stalled them and said maybe next month. I did not mention my previous problem with SiteAdvisor.

A month passes. She calls. She calls. I don't answer, etc... She emails. I say,"I just don't have the money". Within 24-36 hours (trying to nail it down due to time zones) their highest posting 'bot' reviewer says of my site:

-{ Quote: ""Virus infection site, designed to infect your machine with malicious code that performs functions without your knowledge or consent. It is a technique frequently used by cyber-criminals to escape detection. Either this domain or a subdomain off it is dangerous. Keep clear of sites like this."
" }-

Notice no specific information because there is no malware. I run a clean site, PERIOD. It was either some false positive or an out-right lie (I favor the latter). My total rating continues to be GREEN, thankfully -- else business would suffer substantially (as it did before in their last 'oopsie').

I say 'bot' because at 2 million posts, averaging over 1000 a day, all with the same generic texts. Don't tell me that's a human.. Note: This is actually their TOP reviewer, showing just how wide-spread this potential scheme may be (or perhaps size obfuscates, I don't know).

So then I get a last minute call. The price has dropped to 1/4 of what it was. "I must act now", she uttered. She said she didn't know how Intel would change things and the price could go up. I couldn't, I didn't even have that much money. Well, I had it, but owed it to the IRS -- so that's not having it, that's holding it ;). She literally asked about my credit cards at this time, lol. Doing me this huge favor, and perhaps she was in her mind. Little did she know that I'd been attacked on SiteAdvisor by their top reviewer all the sudden... or did she know?

What is up with the bots anyway? Is it because the bots can post whatever without legal consequences? They clearly approve of them, as they allow them to continue. Are they behind them? If not, who is? Are they using and abusing that power? Do they have power even, or is it all up to the site scanner? I don't know.

Was this a coincidence combined with aggressive sales tactics, or was it an extortion attempt? I don't know.

Further specific info can be provided on request. My site is Bitsum Technologies, http://www.bitsum.com (hopefully still green, though who knows now that I've dared criticize their sales practices). The contact's name is [withheld in case she is somehow innocent]. I can supply it to law enforcement though, should they choose to investigate. I really believe if you connect the dots, it is hard to conclude it is anything but a very odd coincidence OR old-fashioned extortion in the digital age. I can't say which, only the authorities can.

These puzzle pieces just fit together too well... I don't know though, and would like independent analysis.

Thank you for reading.

[jcollake]

And written about here: http://bitsum.blogspot.com/ .. I will revise once I've calmed down. It is just an adrenaline rush when it all 'comes together' and you realize what just happened. I knew the timing was suspicious, as I'd had NO other negative reviews since that first incident (and that negative reviewer recanted, he misinterpreted my response). But when I saw the first strange negative review came right after my reply... Well, that sent up red flags. This woman also seemed very worried about what Intel might do and change. This was one of the reasons I had to 'buy now', lol. Of course, they had a reason to buy today, every day.

[Mr.PC]

Why do you use SiteAdvisor?
WOT (http://www.mywot.com/) is much more reliable.

[jcollake]

I do. Sadly, not everyone else in the world does.

[jcollake]

They removed bitsum.com, then restored it.. unsure what they are doing. I did give them notice i would be contacting the authorities. Destruction of evidence is a felony, so I assume they won't do that once their legal team advises them.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Why do you use SiteAdvisor?
WOT (http://www.mywot.com/) is much more reliable." }-

I second that. Plus the WOT extension itself is far faster & more reliable on all of the browsers I have used it on. The Chrome SA extension was always sluggish I thought. SA also 'green lights' sites that I would think were not so safe or possible rogues. I used SA when I ran McAfee as an AV. Because it only worked with Firefox & IE I had quite a time to compare it with WOT (which I also used on Chrome). SA isn't bad, but I would recommend WOT above it any day.

[jcollake]

While I agree, WOT is GREAT -- What I am talking about is potential criminal extortion and a direct link between their highest posting 'reviewer' bot and their 'site certificate' sales people.... Nobody has any comment on that? Please read the rest of the bullet points. I am a site owner, I wouldn't use SiteAdvisor myself in a million years.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "I do. Sadly, not everyone else in the world does." }-

But, wouldn't the same apply to SiteAdvisor? Not everyone in the world uses it. ;)

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "But, wouldn't the same apply to SiteAdvisor? Not everyone in the world uses it. ;)" }-

EVERYONE who searches Yahoo uses it
EVERYONE who has Mcafee installed (or comes with their PC uses it)
EVERYONE who uses AOL uses it (I think)
EVERYONE who has downloaded any of any many apps that have the SiteAdvisor toolbar bundled in, uses it.

This argument where 'Oh, it doesn't matter' is either legal spin from McAfee, or something. There is no argument where you can say it doesn't matter if tens or hundreds of miliions of customers get a big warning when they visit your site.

And what is this argument? If not everyone uses SiteAdvisor, then they can practice illegal business practices and/or bad site ratings? You understand they called me up for thousands of dollars, then (and only then) their top-rated reviewer bot posted a non-specific malicious review of my site?

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "While I agree, WOT is GREAT -- What I am talking about is potential criminal extortion and a direct link between their highest posting 'reviewer' bot and their 'site certificate' sales people.... Nobody has any comment on that? Please read the rest of the bullet points. I am a site owner, I wouldn't use SiteAdvisor myself in a million years." }-

The best thing you could, IMO, is to show at your website what is going on. But, don't simply and directly "attack" McAfee. Show evidences to your visitors that, in fact, your website is clean.

You can point them out to services like -www.urlvoid.com , -http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/default.aspx

[jcollake]

Updated above -- to point again to the ISSUE at hand:

You understand they called me up for thousands of dollars, then (and only then) their top-rated reviewer bot posted a non-specific malicious review of my site? My site remains GREEN because there is NO THREAT, but this bot that has now made over 2 million reviews goes and says there is as a 'warning shot' or something. You would understand more if you got the strong sales pitch.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "The best thing you could, IMO, is to show at your website what is going on. But, don't simply and directly "attack" McAfee. Show evidences to your visitors that, in fact, your website is clean.

You can point them out to services like -www.urlvoid.com , -http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/default.aspx" }-

They, themselves, rate my site as Clean. So does Web of Trust. It was a bot that make a bad review. The entire site rating did NOT change.

Further, they have the burden of proof since they are making the accusation. I am defending myself against an anonymous, unspecific attack made by their top rated bot. It didn't say where malware was, or anything like that.. because there is none.

Hey, If I said there was malware on YOUR site.. then you're reaction is the same?

Does nobody READ what I wrote?

Bitsum.com - CLEAN on Web of Trust
Bitsum.com - CLEAN on SiteAdvisor (my issue is their top rated bot trying to make my unclean with no specific evidence given.. oh, immediately after I turned down their latest sales proposal)

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "While I agree, WOT is GREAT -- What I am talking about is potential criminal extortion and a direct link between their highest posting 'reviewer' bot and their 'site certificate' sales people.... Nobody has any comment on that? Please read the rest of the bullet points. I am a site owner, I wouldn't use SiteAdvisor myself in a million years." }-

Yes, I understood the implications. To be honest I am not sure what to say, nothing surprises me any more with big corporations. It does seem like extortion.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "EVERYONE who searches Yahoo uses it
EVERYONE who has Mcafee installed (or comes with their PC uses it)
EVERYONE who has downloaded any of any many apps that have the SiteAdvisor toolbar bundled in, uses it.
[...]
" }-

Couldn't I just go around and say:

EVERYONE who doesn't search Yahoo doesn't use it?
EVERYONE who does not have McAfee installed doesn't use it?
EVERYONE who hasn't download any application bundled with this toolbar, doesn't use it?

There are always two sides of the same story. You make it sound like you have no other way than buying the certificate; like you're bound to the doom of SiteAdvisor, or something like that.

Rather than complaining in a place where won't get you nowhere, make your voice be heard, using proper channels, one being your website. That's my humble opinion.

[jcollake]

I'm sorry, please no more replies... nobody is reading what I'm writing. I will let the FBI handle the potential extortion.

My rating continues to be GREEN on BOTH SiteAdvisor and Web of Trust. That is because there is no threat.

Yes, I do feel I can attack an anonymous top-ranked, highest-posting bot that says my site has malware with no mention of where or what -- just a generic text. There is no malware.

Scan it yourself. But the point is EXTORTIONISTIC business practices.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Couldn't I just go around and say:
There are always two sides of the same story. You make it sound like you have no other way than buying the certificate; like you're bound to the doom of SiteAdvisor, or something like that.
" }-

Do have the thousands of dollars it cost for a cert each year? So small businesses can't operate? Paying McAfee is now a cost of doing business? I am FORCED to buy a certificate, or ELSE? Is that what you just said?

Or I am supposed to 'convince' all these Site Advisor users (who never make it to my site) that Site Advisor is wrong? Ha!

If they called you up with high pressure sales tactics asking for thousands of dollars, then the next day some anonymous bot ranks your site RED.. you have no complaints? Well then you must work for them ;o.

[m00nbl00d]

-edit-

OK. This is what you're talking about:

-http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/bitsum.com

It clearly shows that McAfee, themselves, via SiteAdvisor, has found no problems with it.

According to the community of users, 17* say it's clean, 1 that unsolicited e-mail is sent and 1 other that it contains adware, spyware or virus.

What bot are you talking about? What top reviewer? The way I understand it, SiteAdvisor, itself, reports the site has GREEN.

If some user has no idea on how to rate a website... well... that's another thing, and perhaps is your right to ask McAfee to verify it or not?

Just my opinion.

-edit-

* So what top reviewer is that? The bigger % of community users report it GREEN as well. Not red.

My guess is that McAfee is just trying to make business... by contacting owners of websites they or users add to be rated.

There's no illegality in this, AFAIK. It's up to you to want it or not. You keep telling them you don't have enough money. Say you DON'T want it, and perhaps they won't get back at you anymore?

I get the same from phone companies. If I don't say NO, they will keep on trying.

[jcollake]

THIS site reviewer - http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=19138 - It is their top reviewer in posts, over 2 million individual site reviews to date. Apparently they endorse these bots going around make accusations, else they'd shut them down. And don't tell me that is a person. This bot comes and reviews my site the day after I turn down their proposal. It didn't change my rating, thankfully. So, you may be right that Site Advisor's own algorithm makes the final determination, which is why my SITE is still GREEN.

Doesn't anyone understand? I guess you'd have to be in business for yourself, trying to feed your family, to understand the consequences of actions like this. And, No, as much as Mcafee would like -- I am NOT paying them thousands of dollars a year as a 'right to do business'.

That 1 that says unsolicited email was sent was later RECANTED BTW... It was a misunderstanding. I essentially have ALL POSITIVE reviews, except one BOT that made its non-specific negative malware accusation the day after I turned down their sales pitch.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Yes, I understood the implications. To be honest I am not sure what to say, nothing surprises me any more with big corporations. It does seem like extortion." }-

Thank GOD someone understands. I was starting to think I was in the Twilight Zone.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "THIS site reviewer - http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=19138 - It is their top reviewer in posts, over 2 million individual site reviews to date. Apparently they endorse these bots going around make accusations, else they'd shut them down. And don't tell me that is a person. This bot comes and reviews my site the day after I turn down their proposal. It didn't change my rating, thankfully. So, you may be right that Site Advisor's own algorithm makes the final determination, which is why my SITE is still GREEN.

Doesn't anyone understand? I guess you'd have to be in business for yourself, trying to feed your family, to understand the consequences of actions like this. And, No, as much as Mcafee would like -- I am NOT paying them thousands of dollars a year as a 'right to do business'.

That 1 that says unsolicited email was sent RECANTED BTW" }-

Maybe I'm not understanding, but there's contradiction in what you say.

1.) McAfee SiteAdvisor does not rate your site red. It rates it GREEN. As you mentioned.

2.) Why would McAfee have two separate bots (programs): one for crawling websites for malicious content and one to add comments to contradict what the other one deems to be safe? Makes any sense?

If you don't agree with what that user, or bot as you call it, then ask McAfee to review your website and to remove the comments regarding non-existing threats.

That's what I'd do. Sorry, I don't know what else to say. That's what I'd do.

Regarding their e-mail, they're just trying to make a business with the domains that get rated. Nothing illegal.

[jcollake]

You don't find it strange a 'bot' comes and fires a 'warning shot' that could have made a lesser known site go RED (potentially, undetermined on that) the day after I turn down their sales pitch?

Doesn't it bother you they let bots rate sites at all? Yes, this is a bot. No human does 1000+ reviews per day, all the same text. 2 million and counting site reviews. That is a BOT. And it has been there since 2006, so don't tell me they haven't noticed it. It is #1 in their reviewer rankings page. It is shown right there...

So, no it makes little sense to me, unless maybe a band of salespeople there are using this bot as a means to extort businesses by firing a warning shot (or a crippling shot in some cases).

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "You don't find it strange a 'bot' comes and fires a 'warning shot' that could have made a lesser known site go RED (potentially, undetermined on that) the day after I turn down their sales pitch?

Doesn't it bother you they let bots rate sites at all? Yes, this is a bot. No human does 1000+ reviews per day, all the same text.

So, no it makes little sense to me, unless maybe a band of salespeople there are using this bot as a means to extort businesses by firing a warning shot (or a crippling shot in some cases)." }-

I'm just finding it odd; it's the first time such situation comes to light. I've never seen any other website owner making such claims - extortion.

As I suggested, contact with McAfee and ask them to review the website for threats. If they say they find none, then ask them to remove the comment(s) by the bot/user, because the comment(s) are misleading your possible visitors.

Now, if they don't do that... then something is wrong, and I agree this sounds off.

But, that would be my first move.

-edit-

If they say they do find threats on your website, ask them for real evidence.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: " ...unless maybe a band of salespeople there are using this bot as a means to extort businesses by firing a warning shot (or a crippling shot in some cases)." }-

I think this is probably what indeed is happening. The sad fact is that some people would be so scared of a negative review, or the like, they would pay the spondoolies (£££)!

I'm glad you have stood your ground.

[jcollake]

I have contacted them. I told them I am turning this over to the FBI. This is serious stuff. 2 years, no incidents, then next day after their last sales pitch a 9/9 ranked reviewer (bot, come on, 2 million reviews) attacks me. It is extortion. You had to hear the phone calls.

I will let the authorities handle this, and am retaining counsel just in case. Yes, my site is GREEN.. but for how long? If I dare criticize McAfee's aggressive and potentially illegal sales practices do I go RED? I like the poster who said I should have just paid up. LOL. Yea, let's all pay McAfee thousands of dollars a year for the right to exist on the internet, lol ((SARCASM)) -- Do NOT pay McAfee for their useless certification.

I mean, this is just like the MOB.. as if I'm paying protection money.

Anyway, few seem to understand. My point is made though. Now that Intel owns them, I hope they clean the mess up. You can bet that I am not going down without a fight though. If they rate my site RED they will be sued.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "If they rate my site RED they will be sued." }-

If it does indeed come to that, good luck! I have had a few problems with my shady ISP (British Telecom), which I won't go into here, but if you stand your ground & make enough noise, it is surprising how some of these corporations back down & suddenly become all apologetic.

It never fails to amaze me what some of these (insert expletive of your choice) corporations try to get away with. I think their execs/salespeople have all been reading Sun Tzu too much.

Remember: All warfare is based on deception. ~ Sun Tzu

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "I have contacted them. I told them I am turning this over to the FBI. This is serious stuff. 2 years, no incidents, then next day a 9/9 ranked reviewer (bot, come on, 2 million reviews) attacks me. It is extortion. You had to hear the phone calls.
" }-

Allow me to understand.

You already contacted with them and asked to review what this bot says in its comment(s)? If they (McAfee) found it clean, to remove such comment(s)?
Did they answer they wouldn't do that? Rather, you'd have to buy a certificate?

If this is was the case, then yes, I'd agree it's extortion. Was it the case?

-{ Quote: "
I will let the authorities handle this, and am retaining counsel just in case. Yes, my site is GREEN.. but for how long? If I dare criticize McAfee's aggressive and potentially illegal sales practices do I go RED? I like the poster who said I should have just paid up. LOL. Yea, let's all pay McAfee thousands of dollars a year for the right to exist on the internet, lol ((SARCASM)) -- Do NOT pay McAfee for their useless certification.

I mean, this is just like the MOB.. as if I'm paying protection money.
" }-

If the extortion is what is really happening, then don't let them laugh at you!

By the way, which user advised to pay for the certificate? Are you referring to SiteAdvisor users ratings? (If you're mentioning me... I didn't advice such. Just wishing to clarify.)

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "I think this is probably what indeed is happening. The sad fact is that some people would be so scared of a negative review, or the like, they would pay the spondoolies (£££)!

I'm glad you have stood your ground." }-

Thank you. Yes, a negative rating would be bad. The last time they had a self-admitted 'mistake' it almost ruined my business. They didn't care though. Not one bit. 3 months later they got around to fixing their own darn mistake.

Too bad I'm in debt and couldn't pay them, as that one poster suggested. Apparently people really think this is a cost of doing business. NO, being forced to pay a security company to protect you against being accused of harboring FAKE threats is EXTORTION.. if that is what is going on here by a few salespeople or by the company. I make no claim that it absolutely is, but the timing is too suspicious.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Allow me to understand.

You already contacted with them and asked to review what this bot says in its comment(s)? If they (McAfee) found it clean, to remove such comment(s)?
Did they answer they wouldn't do that? Rather, you'd have to buy a certificate?

If this is was the case, then yes, I'd agree it's extortion. Was it the case?
" }-

No, but I informed them of the strange rating by this reviewer with 2 million+ reviews. They took no action (as of yet). Other than to briefly take my whole site off their database, then put it back up the same as before - GREEN, except for that bot's malicious post (which REMAINS).

-{ Quote: "
By the way, which user advised to pay for the certificate? Are you referring to SiteAdvisor users ratings? (If you're mentioning me... I didn't advice such. Just wishing to clarify.)" }-

It may have been you I misunderstood. If so, I apologize for misunderstanding. I had heard that comment posted elsewhere on the MANY other sites who complain about inaccurate or misleading SiteAdvisor ratings. They are ruining small businesses left and right, while the 'big guys' who CAN pay the HUGE fees can do whatever they want.

Case in point - FreeCreditReport.com. Their legitimacy is debatable. You sign up for a 'free trial'. In small print, they say if you don't cancel within 7 days, you get billed $14.95 monthly from then on. You know the sort of scam. Well, THAT company has a D rating at the BBB and over 11,500 complaints in the last 36 months at the BBB. Still, not even YELLOW for them. Ok, SiteAdvisor isn't for business practices you say -- maybe it should be.

So, bad guys, so long as nothing is detected as malware can do WHATEVER and the good guys have the pray no 'mistake' is made that cripples their business in the months it takes to get their own (SiteAdvisor's) mistake fixed.

In my case, I really think that bot was an attempt to make me pay. Who runs this bot? Clearly they approve of it. And, does anyone doubt he is a bot? Again - http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=19138

...

Lastly, it really isn't that laughable to compare this practice to that of the mafia. After all, if I paid them, that's what I'd be paying to protect myself from. Not real threats, only false accusations from McAfee.

[jcollake]

@moonblood: Yes, I had misunderstood you (just looked) -- when you said:

-{ Quote: "You make it sound like you have no other way than buying the certificate; like you're bound to the doom of SiteAdvisor, or something like that." }-

That is kind of the truth, or how they want the truth to be. They have A LOT of power, as seen the last time they made a mistake. So...

Look, I just wanted to report what was going on mostly to protect myself against them rating me RED for criticizing them.

The authorities can determine who controls that bot and if any salespeople are involved.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "No, but I informed them of the strange rating by this reviewer with 2 million+ reviews. They took no action (as of yet). Other than to briefly take my whole site off their database, then put it back up the same as before - GREEN, except for that bot's malicious post (which REMAINS).



It may have been you I misunderstood. If so, I apologize for misunderstanding. I had heard that comment posted elsewhere on the MANY other sites who complain about inaccurate or misleading SiteAdvisor ratings. They are ruining small businesses left and right, while the 'big guys' who CAN pay the HUGE fees can do whatever they want.

Case in point - FreeCreditReport.com. Their legitimacy is debatable. You sign up for a 'free trial'. In small print, they say if you don't cancel within 7 days, you get billed $14.95 monthly from then on. You know the sort of scam. Well, THAT company has a D rating at the BBB and over 11,500 complaints in the last 36 months at the BBB. Still, not even YELLOW for them. Ok, SiteAdvisor isn't for business practices you say -- maybe it should be.

So, bad guys, so long as nothing is detected as malware can do WHATEVER and the good guys have the pray no 'mistake' is made that cripples their business in the months it takes to get their own (SiteAdvisor's) mistake fixed.

In my case, I really think that bot was an attempt to make me pay. Who runs this bot? Clearly they approve of it. And, does anyone doubt he is a bot? Again - http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=19138

...

Lastly, it really isn't that laughable to compare this practice to that of the mafia. After all, if I paid them, that's what I'd be paying to protect myself from. Not real threats, only false accusations from McAfee." }-

Well, I did know that McAfee has scare tactics in their e-mails, making people to believe their computers are infected, and they should by McAfee products.

But, considering I had never heard of a situation like yours, regarding SiteAdvisor, I was wondering if all was nothing but a tremendous coincidence, the contact to buy the certificate, that is.

I may have misunderstood you initial post, as well. It also sounds improbable for a human to have as many post as that "user". When I first looked at it, I saw "1,278.06 posts per day", and for some reason associated with the number of posts since 2006, which could be plausible, I suppose. Not "2,047,009" posts... sounds off, indeed.

But, considering that by now I'm aware of what truly happened, indeed it all sounds off.

I just hope you're able to get things right, as they should.

[jcollake]

Thanks moonblood. I get upset and I often type/write badly, so I am easy to misunderstand. I am glad you agree something doesn't seem right. I don't understand why bots even are allowed to exist. Well, whatever.. let's pray I don't go RED all the sudden for some made up reason. If so, I guess I'll have no choice but to devote my life to suing those people. My family depends on my business income. If I lose it for even a month, I'm dead. DEAD. I'd have to start legal proceedings then. I can't have another situation like I did with their last mistake, I couldn't survive it.

Perhaps others will now step forward and tell of similar stories, as I KNOW I am not the only one....

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "Thanks moonblood. I get upset and I often type/write badly, so I am easy to misunderstand. I am glad you agree something doesn't seem right. I don't understand why bots even are allowed to exist. Well, whatever.. let's pray I don't go RED all the sudden for some made up reason. If so, I guess I'll have no choice but to devote my life to suing those people. My family depends on my business income. If I lose it for even a month, I'm dead. DEAD. I'd have to start legal proceedings then. I can't have another situation like I did with their last mistake, I couldn't survive it.

Perhaps others will now step forward and tell of similar stories, as I KNOW I am not the only one...." }-

Awful situation, indeed. You could, besides any legal actions, which always take their time, do what I mentioned. Provide explanatory information at your website regarding this situation and point your website ratings to other services like the ones I mentioned.

I a list with alike services, which I have to find the file where I saved such services urls.

I mean, it's a start. This will let users know that, in fact, the rating by that bot/user is nothing but a misleading comment/rating. These users, in turn, would perhaps let their friends and relatives, using McAfee SiteAdvisor, that things are, at least, a bit shady.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Awful situation, indeed. You could, besides any legal actions, which always take their time, do what I mentioned. Provide explanatory information at your website regarding this situation and point your website ratings to other services like the ones I mentioned.
" }-

I intend to do that, as have other sites --
http://www.snapfiles.com/siteadvisor.html
http://siteadvisorclassaction.blogspot.com/2008/06/mcafee-site-advisor-run-amuck.html
Google for HUNDREDS (or maybe thousands) of other incidents

MY STORY will stay published here:
http://bitsum.blogspot.com/

If this was just some strange coincidence after 2 years suddenly a bot makes a negative review right after I say I can't pay... Well, even then, I'd still like to know why they allow this bot to go around making accusations. I mean, most sites don't encourage bots... And there really seems to be a circumstantial connection of this bot and their certification sales team (or a portion of it).

Reviewer Central (shows all reviewers): http://www.siteadvisor.com/analysis/reviewercentral/

Notice the BOT that posted on my site is their TOP rated BOT in count, (pharmalert), so there can be no lack of awareness of the issue.

And, yes, I will ask them to remove that malicious review that has no proof or backing evidence of any kind, and see what they say. However, after last telling my contact she should 'come clean' now before she is charged too in the eventual investigation by the FBI, I am not sure she will respond. FWIW, she hasn't, to any of my mail, since this happened. Of course, my mailings weren't the friendliest in the world... I did demand an explanation though.

Intel (the new owner), please clean house. You made a purchase of a highly dysfunctional unit as a whole. The entire operation from top to bottom needs cleaned out. I deal with security companies all the time as part of my work. NONE have demonstrated the apathy of McAfee. It is as if they want to be sued.

[Bambo]

About the stupid bots (or humans) making declarations of what is red or not you should check Nirsoft and his struggles, over the years! http://blog.nirsoft.net/category/antivirus-issues/ Here is good one Antivirus companies cause a big headache to small developers (http://blog.nirsoft.net/2009/05/17/antivirus-companies-cause-a-big-headache-to-small-developers/) Download all his stuff, do a scan with X AV if it even permits downloading package that is. Very good test of how little you can trust scan result. Is not necessarily a shocker whatever you have on site can get flagged. Your suspicion sticks deeper than that but don't expect too much from bots.

Since this is a known "feature" for many years I think the real problem is Mcafee and others (including WOT) do not have a strategy for how to deal with it. They should of course not contact an obvious malware domain and ask for a meeting. But on the other hand they should also not blacklist/warn against obvious legit sites, not without further human based check. I know WOT encourage site admins to chat on a forum. If I had a business that would not an approved solution. I would not be interested in talking with whoever random person from the internet. WOT them self should take the initiative in cases where question marks are huge and many. Figure it out! Dont know current level of interest by Norton, Mcafee but they are worse as in there is very little you can do to change judgement. You can find sites where users are commenting like mad, warning away or the opposite and nothing really seem to happen. WOT is more direct in comparison but from a legit site admins point of view they should provide the "proof" so to avoid jumping to conclusions, making mistakes.

[jcollake]

I agree. Remember, these companies are making a HUGE profit. They need to invest some of that in making sure their results are reliable. Instead, it surely goes to CEO bonuses or to shareholder dividends. That's how corporations do things. I guess maybe nothing will ever change that... unless somehow consumers finally banded together and 'shut down' these unethical companies by not doing business with them. Unlikely ;(

[Phant0m]

jcollake! I know exactly how it feels. I’m now speaking out about McAfee and the SiteAdvisor product. I started by posting about this all and by adding big bold red text centered onto the near top of my message board index page labeled ‘McAfee SiteAdvisor RED flagging MntOlympus’ that points to my post.

Further steps will be made, but it is good to band together and be informative about the problems with McAfee company and the product SiteAdvisor.

I wish you all the best in your mission.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "jcollake! I know exactly how it feels. I’m now speaking out about McAfee and the SiteAdvisor product. I started by posting about this all and by adding big bold red text centered onto the near top of my message board index page labeled ‘McAfee SiteAdvisor RED flagging MntOlympus’ that points to my post.

Further steps will be made, but it is good to band together and be informative about the problems with McAfee company and the product SiteAdvisor.
" }-

Yes, it is important to band together. My site is GREEN (has been this whole time), so I am taking a big personal risk in doing this. Most people, once they finally get their problem solved, say 'Thank God' and don't dare do anything to ~ Snipped as per TOS (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/faq.php?faq=wilders_tos#faq_wilders_tos_1) ~ McAfee. In this world, there is justice, and right now big corporations are not behaving as they should. Sometimes it takes lawsuits to 'spank' them for their greed (which is the motivating factor every time).

So, who will actually stand and fight? What site owners will? We will see.

The number of businesses, and subsequent families they have hurt is untold. If you go to legal forums, you will be told that false positives aren't actionable. They say that to everyone. This is not true at all. More than one case has been brought, and WON against McAfee itself and SiteAdvisor.

Although my site stays Green, I take a personal offense to any reviewer bot saying my site has malicious software. They can try to say they are not liable for the comments of bots, but the problem is that bots are really algorithms. Their presence is obvious, given the review counts, so they give implicit permission for these algorithms to operate on their databases.

As for my possible extortion... I still wonder, would they really get that ballsy? I just don't know. I mean, if you heard them on the phone.. You'd see. You know how 'that type' are. Buy TODAY. Right NOW. Every time you hear that, you know something isn't right.

[jcollake]

Quote from their McAfee Secure Certification Marketing Materials (emailed to me from mcafee.com, so absolute proof):

"Annotation in Search Results – McAfee’s SiteAdvisor (www.siteadvisor.com) is a free download that is being used on over 350 million computers. It adds the McAfee SECURE trust mark next to the green check mark in 20 + search engine (Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc…) for our clients. This makes your result jump off the page. Here’s a link to what this looks like: http://www.mcafeesecure.com/ms/?p=4"

That's right, 350 million is the install base. So, to those who say, "But there are those who DON'T USE this or that", well.. there are OVER 350 MILLION that do (according to McAfee's own figures). This has surely grown by now and may not even be all-inclusive on indirect usage/reliance (e.g. viewership in search engines).

[jcollake]

Strangely, I am now watching the post count of that bot (http://user.siteadvisor.com/forums/member.php?u=19138) decrease. It was the #1 poster by count, again highly visible.. so no secret. Perhaps they are covering their ~ Snipped as per TOS (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/faq.php?faq=wilders_tos#faq_wilders_tos_1) ~ already? It was 2million+ only hours ago.

Actually, I think this is a fluctuation as they take sites 'offline' to rescan them.. but I'm still not sure. It seems to go up, and down.

[jcollake]

I asked why a specious negative remark was made by a reviewer bot, and informed them that they are liable for it. We'll see if my contact replies, or if they are taking this seriously. I am risking it all to defend other businesses that get routinely victimized. Watch my site rating. If it goes RED due to my criticisms, then we'll know they have no validity what-so-ever, meaning it is simple defamation to some 350+ million users (by their own count).

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "I think this is probably what indeed is happening. The sad fact is that some people would be so scared of a negative review, or the like, they would pay the spondoolies (£££)!

I'm glad you have stood your ground." }-

At what cost though? Appearing insane? Most people would assume I'm crazy to think someone tried to extort me. But I saw it happen. I feel like I saw a UFO, lol. Fortunately I have full documentation of everything, even the phone calls.

I wanted the public to be aware of these practices. I do not know how wide spread they are, but the fact that the #1 (in count) ranked bot did the malicious review suggests.... Well, you guys fill in the blanks.

[jcollake]

Also, for those looking for updates regarding my request to have McAfee explain that bot's rating and remove it - NO word from McAfee at all, keeping with tradition. I really hope law enforcement takes over. I am SOOOooooo tired of seeing greedy people/corporations get over on the 'lower' classes. From 'free trials' (with hidden membership/renewal fees) to theft, to out-right extortion.. I'm just sick of it. I see it every day, in different forms. The BBB is there, but companies with D and F ratings continue operating and making millions (and remaining GREEN on Site Advisor). Who is looking out for the consumer? And can anyone be trusted to look out for the consumer, or at some point does greed always take over? Even companies that lose big class action lawsuits seem to go right back to doing the same thing, just slightly tweaked... and maybe with a new name. Is this the America we want? AmeriCorp?

[Bambo]

Is kind of sad you are posting this on a security forum and no one seem to call you insane 8) I guess most are aware security companies have a long history of questionable marketing and are careful not to exclude the option that Mcafee really are using dirty tricks, the step above scare mongering, number juggling via carefully proportioned graphs, inventing weird buzzwords called "features" and such oldies.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Is kind of sad you are posting this on a security forum and no one seem to call you insane 8) I guess most are aware security companies have a long history of questionable marketing and are careful to exclude the option that Mcafee really are using dirty tricks, the step above scare mongering, number juggling via carefully proportioned graphs, inventing weird buzzwords called "features" and such oldies." }-

Yea, I agree. I am preaching to the choir. I will not post anymore, unless McAfee responds (0% chance of that in my opinion). After giving them some time to respond and 'make things right', I will report the incident to the proper authorities and let them look into it to determine if any crime has been committed. Their initial reaction will be to think I'm surely crazy, but a violation of law has occurred, so maybe if I make a concise and compelling presentation I can educate them into understanding how a crime possibly occurred. Maybe relatives I have that work for the FBI can help, maybe not. The deciding factor will be if their superiors care or not. If it was some average Joe, you can bet they would. A corporation? I'd give it a 50/50 shot. Sometimes they seem to care if corporations violate the law, other times they don't and let that get settled in the civil courts.

[jcollake]

-- LAST one -- Just if anybody ever determines who controls or owns that pharmalert bot, or why McAfee allows these bots (algorithms) to operate on their database, do let me know please. That is the key to whether this was a coincidence, or extortion. It will also allow law enforcement to properly investigate, so you'll be doing your civil duty.

[jcollake]

Well, SiteAdvisor removed ALL my positive user ratings from the past (which were all positive, except that one that was later recanted), but LEFT the one malicious/malware rating. I hope this isn't a pre-requisite to a full site RED rating, perhaps for my criticisms? because they better be able to prove I host malware.. which I certainly do NOT. I know this can not be proven because it is not true. Oh well.. we'll see I guess. I do not appreciate attacks on my character. I have good cause to question extremely strange timing of a presumed 'accident'. Excuse me for speaking out. How dare I... If I'm not GREEN, then who is.

My site is http://www.bitsum.com BTW ...

Site Advisor rating (has been GREEN for years since that last false positive on MakeService): http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/bitsum.com
There WAS 17 positive reviews there, 2 negative (one recanted tho). Now there is 1 negative by a highest ranking bot reviewer (a normal bot to a normal person that doesn't look closer). Thanks, anonymous bot making vague, non-specific specious accusations. Thanks a bunch. Why did my user comments all disappear? Some were from USERs with rankings of 9/9 -- yes, real people.

[CiX]

-{ Quote: "Well, SiteAdvisor removed ALL my positive user ratings from the past (which were all positive, except that one that was later recanted), but LEFT the one malicious/malware rating. I hope this isn't a pre-requisite to a full site RED rating, perhaps for my criticisms? because they better be able to prove I host malware.. which I certainly do NOT. I know this can not be proven because it is not true. Oh well.. we'll see I guess. I do not appreciate attacks on my character. I have good cause to question extremely strange timing of a presumed 'accident'. Excuse me for speaking out. How dare I... If I'm not GREEN, then who is.

My site is http://www.bitsum.com BTW ...

Site Advisor rating (has been GREEN for years since that last false positive on MakeService): http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/bitsum.com
There WAS 17 positive reviews there, 2 negative (one recanted tho). Now there is 1 negative by a highest ranking bot reviewer (a normal bot to a normal person that doesn't look closer). Thanks, anonymous bot making vague, non-specific specious accusations. Thanks a bunch. Why did my user comments all disappear? Some were from USERs with rankings of 9/9 -- yes, real people." }-

Weird, they removed all positive reviews :lurking:

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Weird, they removed all positive reviews :lurking:" }-

Glad I have at least one witness. Yea, WTF. I did have a *temporary* DNS change, for the first time ever, because my web host was having troubles so I went to the backup web server. Turns out it still has a couple quirks, so I then went back to the original (once it finally went back up). Anyway, MAYBE it is due that? But why leave only the RED review? I dunno.

I am not out to be a corporate crusader, I want to get back to work.. preferably WITH the 350 million plus potential clients of SiteAdvisor, without having to PAY them for not dafaming me, which is a possibility given the recent incidents. I mean, I am struggling to explain it, I feel weird saying it is possible. I am careful with my language, it is only possible until proven, but their possible defamation OTH is provable by default (as they made the accusation). Still there is no details on where or what adware I have. None of my software has adware, viruses, or trojans. NONE of it. I don't bundle with toolbars, I don't show ads.. WTF?

Well, so long as my site stays GREEN .. but if it goes RED, then that's just messed up... and I guess they want to escalate this.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "Glad I have at least one witness. Yea, WTF. I did have a *temporary* DNS change, for the first time ever, because my web host was having troubles so I went to the backup web server. Turns out it still has a couple quirks, so I then went back to the original (once it finally went back up). Anyway, MAYBE it is due that? But why leave only the RED review? I dunno.

I am not out to be a corporate crusader, I want to get back to work.. preferably WITH the 350 million plus potential clients of SiteAdvisor, without having to PAY them for not dafaming me, which is a possibility given the recent incidents. I mean, I am struggling to explain it, I feel weird saying it is possible. I am careful with my language, it is only possible until proven, but their possible defamation OTH is provable by default (as they made the accusation). Still there is no details on where or what adware I have. None of my software has adware, viruses, or trojans. NONE of it. I don't bundle with toolbars, I don't show ads.. WTF?

Well, so long as my site stays GREEN .. but if it goes RED, then that's just messed up... and I guess they want to escalate this." }-

I just found the same crap regarding one of the biggest technologies blogs around here. SiteAdvisor rates it red, but doesn't explain where exactly is the adware, viruses, etc.

[jcollake]

UPDATE: They now restored ONE of the green ratings. The green rating from the past was from a 9/9 ranked reviewer (a real person) who was apologizing for the false positive that happened years ago. I dunno... Maybe this is their way of calling a truce, and so long as my site as a whole stays green, I'm not going to complain more about that bot that made the unfounded accusation that persists to this day, or of the 16 other positive reviews that were removed.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "I just found the same crap regarding one of the biggest technologies blogs around here. SiteAdvisor rates it red, but doesn't explain where exactly is the adware, viruses, etc." }-

And it is nice to know I'm not alone!! I would really still like to know who/what these bots are, who runs them, and why they are allowed to flagrantly operate on the network (thus operating on the database)... BUT.. like I said, frankly I'm not gonna stir the hornets up if they leave me alone.

[jcollake]

They did respond to an email through the 'standard' channel (though I may have hit the wrong selection, I don't know). Anyway, they are in touch now through a different channel. I do not know how this affects things. I do not know if the niche I was in contact with earlier (if I was in contact, they never replied after NO on the sale) this will have any impact on.

The support seemed polite and willing to hopefully remove this defamatory remark by a bot. Simply put, bots make mistakes, and this is a mistake.. so let's remove it. The removal of comments, and restoration of them adds some crazy twist that I don't know WTF to be honest.

All I know, is at this point.. please, just do the right thing. Scan me a million times a day. If you think there is malware, show me where and I'll show you its not. There is no such thing on my site, period. There is no even adware. Well, anyway.. who does like vague, non-specific, highly defamatory, remarks from an anonymous bot with a 9/9 ranking? Not me.

I hope SiteAdvisor finds a good way to work around this. If any members of their staff are reading.. I have no intention of taking this further, I simply want to continue to be rated appropriately GREEN (as there should be *NO* question) and you've got no problems from me.

To SiteAdvisor's credit, they have kept bitsum.com properly GREEN for years now. This has never changed throughout this whole ordeal. Let me make that clear.

[jcollake]

They did refuse to remove the bot's comment. I made it clear it was a bot, and bots make mistakes -- and therefore their mistakes should be cleaned up... but they still do not feel it is appropriate to remove. At least as of their last response. I do not understand why they removed all those green user ratings, then are so hesitant to remove an invalid bot rating.. but whatever..

I do give them full credit for keeping my site appropriately rated GREEN.

[jcollake]

Just when things started to die down, they rated my domain ProcessLasso.com as RED without EVEN as explanation. There are NO bad scans of files, NO bad user reviews, NO bad links. WTF?!?!?! I mean, do they realize the criminal and civil penalties were to intentionally do this to me? I say intentional hesitantly, as who could imagine such.. but where is the explanation? I have requested the site rating be changed.

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/processlasso.com

Maybe coincidence, but for the first time in a long time I had NO orders today. This might very well explain it. I mean, what would you do? There is no threat.. they confirmed that themselves. They can go willy-nilly rating sites RED without even an excuse.. while companies with D and F ratings at the BBB go right on operating GREEN? Hello!?? Am I in the twlight zone?

[Phant0m]

??? What are you and your site involved in? :P


"McAfee TrustedSource web reputation analysis found potential security risks with this site. Use with extreme caution.


What is TrustedSource™?
Web reputation McAfee tests websites for web reputation using the TrustedSource™ system. This system collects security data from tens of millions of sensors located in more than 120 countries. McAfee's proprietary technology analyzes traffic and linking patterns, website behavior, content analysis, site registration and hosting, to develop an overall reputation rating for the website."

[Phant0m]

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/processlasso.com/downloads/startat40/

"Many green downloads

In our tests, we found a small fraction of downloads on this site that some people consider adware or other potentially unwanted programs."

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "??? What are you and your site involved in? :P
" }-

You know, if it didn't sound so freaking crazy, I'd say a hell-bent extortionist(s) inside SiteAdvisor who is intent on being caught. I mean, that's messed up. No reason at all even given for that RED rating. Other than me criticizing what could be, and more and more seems to be, a targeted extortion attempt.

[Phant0m]

You should consider yourself lucky, I’ve been Red zoned for years, they saying crap about two of my old projects. The entire time, no evidence giving that merits the red flagging or even a notch on their nuisance score.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/processlasso.com/downloads/startat40/

"Many green downloads

In our tests, we found a small fraction of downloads on this site that some people consider adware or other potentially unwanted programs."" }-

What programs would those be? Note that ALL the files scanned were GREEN in the link provided. They ALL show '0' or '1' (the lowest level) as the 'nuisance rating'. So, what files?? I have now removed even the GREEN files, though they are still there for you to evaluate all you want - http://www.processlasso.com/other.php (power user utils, compression algo, misc stuff I have..).

This is referring as if I were responding to SiteAdvisor, and defending myself. I mean, WTF are you talking about?!? I DO NOT HAVE ADWARE. PERIOD. I don't have anything harmful to anybody. You know what is harmful? A bad rating.

[jcollake]

For clarification (to those who receive automated replies via email), since I did some edits, even my advanced utilities and projects (compression algorithms, power user utils), all that was reported GREEN in their own scans. So, there was no question, ever, of anything. There isn't a RED spot on the page, or any link, anywhere.. at all.. period. All lowest on nuisance factor. Yet, RED. Do they not care if consumers trust them or not?

[jcollake]

I guess a lawsuit is the only way to settle the matter. If they insist. I have the backing of someone with the resources to pull it off, so let's have at it. You tell me why my site is RED, and should be RED. Tell me that. Tell us all that.

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "I guess a lawsuit is the only way to settle the matter. If they insist." }-

Remember that McAfee is now owned by Intel so the money flow will never stop;D

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Remember that McAfee is now owned by Intel so the money flow will never stop;D" }-

Haha.. That's funny. Maybe it means they can pay the damages. Now my completely legitimate, in every way, ethical practices have backfired on me. I could have been 'that slimeball' and paid off McAfee like everyone else. Instead, I chose to stand up and do the right thing. I paid the price for doing so. That is our society I guess, apparently.

It is funny unless it was your family depending on income from your legitimate software and site. And that is without question legitimate, ok? I know people want to 'trust' the man -- but look at their own scan links, ALL green. Or go by Web Of Trust, or Norton SafeSite, or anywhere else that didn't previously possibly try to extort me for their certification here recently.

[SweX]

-{ Quote: "It is funny unless it was your family depending on income from your legitimate software and site. And that is without question legitimate, ok?" }-

Relax, i'm on your side of course, and I fully understand your feelings:)

All i'm saying is that I really don't think that you would like to go down that road and face McAfee. Do you REALLY?
I wouldn't anyway since I got a feeling that it would cost more than it would be worth.

Though, I don't think you are the only small developer that are having this sort of issue with an security vendor.

[jcollake]

I'm sorry, I'm just frustrated and worried about next month's rent. Maybe coincidence, maybe not, no orders today.. for the first time in a long while. Since ProcessLasso.com is on the same server as Bitsum.com (it is a subset site), then I have to assume they intend to, without any cause ever mentioned, escalate this further. It isn't my choice. I want to be left the alone. I thought I was, but then ... Well, to heck with it. Another business destroyed, if only I'd been a slimeball, then I could have 'paid to play' as a previous poster suggested.

[SweX]

Don't need to be sorry we understand :)

Tell your story to Gizmodo or some similar site so you will get some exposure so more people and perhaps even McAfee them selfs can see how they are treating you.

Or send an email to an executive over at Intel HQ and tell them that McAfee don't listen to me, and therefore my business are going very bad etc...
And it's all due to the damn RED rating they have given me!

I would have tried knocking on the Intel HQ first to give them a chance.:thumb:

[jcollake]

Yea, I had plans to make money, but I have to try every approach imaginable. Those who are afflicting this pain, who I imagine are laughing, won't be for much longer.

[Bambo]

There must be some sort of manual intervention on SiteAdvisor or how else can Nirsoft.net be green? http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/nirsoft.net Practically any AV scanner will flag whatever of his stuff, literally whatever! Almost as good an AV test as eicar.org Comments shows why humans can't be trusted either btw., amazing ignorance. "Experienced Reviewer" label changes nothing.

This is about Mcafee but I hope those who feel WOT and others, including dns blocking services, are absolutely essentials take notice as well. All you have to do is close eyes and imagine you have a shop/business and stuff to sell - and some knowledge about how majority have no clue of of FPs. This should be addressed before they go on air. Not just white list option for the techies but ways for site admins to communicate/complain, must be fast and easy. Also it should be mandatory that they send an email to site admin explaining why site has been indexed and how to deal with it.

[gerardwil]

What is wrong with the Nirsoft net?

Gerard

[Bambo]

Nothing but his tools are typically seen as "virus" of some sort by just about any AV. Can be a few or many but almost guarantee for hits. He has written about his struggle with security services on his blog. Good Nirsoft.net is green but I find it hard to believe same bot dealing with Bitsum is also checking Nirsoft. Would freak out.

If X person don't know much about computers and technical system tools that person might think content is a bit questionable. That person should not evaluate things he/she have no clue about. Not a message easily sent and bots are even more impossible to communicate with.

[jcollake]

I found a lawyer in their locality to take the case... others who have had their LIVES DESTROYED and Families go HUNGRY because of SiteAdvisor, or your refusal to pay their certification fees in particular, please contact me at jeremy@bitsum.com . Thank you.

I don't care how much money they have. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. The lawyers can twist this however they want, but every day damages are compounding. Since (as usual) I get no response from them.. well, maybe I will in a week or two, and they'll tell me to F off again without looking into it.

I am also making a criminal complaint of extortion against McAfee and SiteAdvisor.

[jcollake]

There IS manual interevention. That is a fact. Else how can an ALL GREEN site like PROCESSLASSO.COM go RED? (reverse with Nirsoft). Do they ever use YELLOW? ;p. This manual intervention is further in their Certification program. You pay, you get green. You don't pay, you apparently get rated red by their top posting anonymous bot. Hmm...

Anyway, they are going to be in for a rude awakening, as of all the people on the internet, there is NO attacking my integrity. Of course, lawyers come up with crazy stuff, but there is NO DOUBT of my integrity.

[Johnny123]

-{ Quote: "I found a lawyer in their locality to take the case...

I am also making a criminal complaint of extortion against McAfee and SiteAdvisor." }-I hope you're successful. The ordeal you describe is one of the reasons why I am totally opposed to SiteAdvisor, WOT, etc. WOT isn't any better, in spite of what some may say. Maybe they don't try to extort money for a green rating, but they do have false positives. These false positives, as you have experienced, have consequences beyond being just a PITA. I wish you good luck!

[Phant0m]

The volume of rogue infections for the past couple of years was incredibly high in my local area, setting them up with Wot really helped these people to avoid potentially dangerous websites. Which mounted to lot less work for computer technicians but increased loyalty.

So I believe in site ratings, and the potential it has. I personally been using Wot for awhile now, and I haven’t noticed any issues with it this far, but If I do, It’s definitely worth contacting Wot in good faith that they’ll promptly respond and address the true false positive.

No question about it, we rather NOT see any false positives in the first place, but this is a far from perfect world we living in. When a product has good intentions, and potential, and I’m using their product, I’m willing on providing a moment of my time and report any bugs and false positives that I observe, up until I don’t see the expected end results.

Now McAfee SiteAdvisor, I sent out a very detailed e-mail on the 19th, and still no response back, nor wanted end results.

[jcollake]

Just when I thought that rating an ALL GREEN EVERYWHERE site as RED/DANGEROUS was the extent of their damage, they now block ALL EMAILS from bitsum.com to SiteAdvisor and Mcaffee support. That's right, they bounce right back. It isn't like I harrassed them. I was polite, asked for their help in correcting these matters. I was less polite with the McAfee Secure team, but who cares how polite I was to those who make unsolicited calls to me to sell me certification that costs thousands, then suddenly I have all these problems when I finally say NO.

I am prepping a formal FTC complaint and need other stories. I don't think any eclipses my own, where a fully green site (in every way, by their own scans) is rated RED shortly after I refuse to pay for their certification, but cases of injustice should be reported to me so I can include you in this complaint. Other actions are also going on I can't mention.

REMEMBER, THERE WAS NO FALSE POSITIVE THAT CAUSED THIS PROBLEM. IT JUST WENT RED. NO FILES ARE RED. NO LINKS ARE RED. NO REVIEWS ARE RED.

[Phant0m]

For the error message why it bounced back, can we see just this error message?

[jcollake]

The ENTIRE message most recently rejected follows, including my contents
Note this first started after I emailed my McAfee Secure contact. Later that day, I sent a second email and it bounced. This one is from SiteAdvisor support though. Their server rejects it as disallowed.
Please note: I use Google gmail, but send from bitsum.com
------------------------------------------------------------

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

support@siteadvisor.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 Denied by policy (state 18). [EDIT: That is eighteen, not a smiley)

----- Original message -----

MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.177.10 with SMTP id bg10mr3310887wbb.148.1295807908175;
Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:38:28 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jeremy.collake@gmail.com
Received: by 10.227.8.152 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:38:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1295766527.4d3bd3ff30edd@dmz-cerberus-1.sa-cluster>
References: <201101220140.p0M1evmZ002813@dalsadoss2.prod.mcafee.com>
<1295766527.4d3bd3ff30edd@dmz-cerberus-1.sa-cluster>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:38:28 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: M8spaCwMq8_bNj1q1LJM7HrLVXs
Message-ID: <AANLkTikAXD=D5nAexfFVLfPXh4bK83iTsCfJDeppaRnn@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ticket ID #YEJ-31169-461] Invalid/mistaken RED rating
From: Jeremy Collake <jeremy@bitsum.com>
To: McAfee SiteAdvisor Support <support@siteadvisor.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00248c0eefcc105ec4049a87cabb
- Hide quoted text -

Hi,

I will be patient. Please note that I was previously called by Mcafee Secure
to get certification, and all these problems happened after I finally said
No. I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but it is all I can think
of given that, as you see, EVERY download is rated GREEN, EVERY link is
rated GREEN, and the sole user review is from a 9/9 ranked review and it,
too, is GREEN. Yet the site is RED. I dunno.

Again - ProcessLasso.com --
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/processlasso.com

I act with the strictest ethical guidelines. Please do correct this apparent
misunderstanding as soon as possible. My reputation, which I've built up
over 10 years, eclipses your own, so in many ways correcting this improper
rating 'fixes' your legitimacy too, as I am well known in the 'techie'
community, and right now they are stunned (yes, this issue has already
picked up media traction, though I am trying to slow that to give you a
chance to fix it).
<http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/processlasso.com>
Thank you,
Jeremy Collake
Bitsum Technologies

[Phant0m]

lol! That proves it then. :thumbd: to McAfee

[jcollake]

And I THANK you ALL for giving me your time and attention. We all have our problems, and I am glad to see there are those out there willing to help others.. With that attitude we can 'come back' as a society, IMHO ;)

I posted on Site Advisor's own forums now, their own community is scratching their heads... and I haven't even told half the story.

[Bambo]

But why would a security company accept email from an address associated with a known malicious site? ;) Do they have a page for spam block list? You better check.

[Phant0m]

What you saying don’t make any since, McAfee SiteAdvisor provides e-mail to be used if your site was wrongly rated.

[Bambo]

Let us hope it does not make sense.

[Phant0m]

“McAfee welcomes feedback about its site ratings and encourages site owners to contact us ...” -

If they going to be black listing flagged domains by their e-mail servers, you’d think they be smart enough to mention this little detail. So the honest people won’t be wasting their time, trying to e-mail and dispute the site ratings giving.

I know my website been in the SiteAdvisor Red Zone for longer than a couple of years now, I now for the first time sent a e-mail to them disputing the site rating giving, this was on the 19th. It was obvious that my domain wasn’t black listed at that time, because I promptly received an automatic e-mail response from them. But I never received anything additional since, and no changes to the false site rating.

So what happened to jcollake, they manually set the policy to have him blacklisted from further contacts.

[Bambo]

Was actually a joke but then again... If their system is completely messed up who knows. There is no logic to site being red either, or is it green, red, green, red.

[jcollake]

So now they are digging in my past and they find PEBundle.. it scans safe by McAfee, *IS* safe, but they see the word 'bundle'. Now, this utility is like VMWare's ThinApp or MoleBox, it bundles a single application with its dependencies. So, there is some misunderstanding. Sadly, there are a couple false positives too, of this product I discontinued long ago. It being an EXE manipulation tool, such things are expected.. especially since it has been off the market.

HOWEVER, McAfee is NOT one of the false positives, and you'll see the rating of that file is GREEN. So, it does NOT explain my site's RED rating.. though may give them some excuse, lol.

I dunno, they are really digging... I guess checking me out, but come on. Just do the right thing. I fear my attempt to get them to do so will cause further harm.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Was actually a joke but then again... If their system is completely messed up who knows. There is no logic to site being red either, or is it green, red, green, red." }-

There is logic. $$$$

[jcollake]

... And I have proof previous emails got through, they added the block after I asked for an explanation. Them responding to those previous emails proves this. Also, I emailed from a GREEN domain.

[jcollake]

Federal Trade Commission Complaint

Look, I am going to be straight up, I am going to first make a complaint to the FTC over this issue. I don't have a lawyer (yet). I likely will soon though. First things first, and I am being advised, so I guess I sort of do have a lawyer in a way. This is going all the way.

I have to get all my ducks in a row. Note that if McAfee would simply cease and decist in their defamation campaign against me and others, then this wouldn't be as much a problem. However, unlike other sites, once I get my personal problem fixed (as I did years ago), I am not turning the other cheek and chalking it up to a bizarre mistake. This is twice now. I am battling on behalf of ALL THOSE affected by SiteAdvisor. I'd MUCH rather be coding, but McAfee leaves me no choice.

Again, for involvement in FTC actions email jeremy@bitsum.com. Please note I only will take people with false positives or misunderstandings not fixed in a timely manner. I need to show a pattern of negligent behavior regarding improper site ratings. I mean, how many sites were improperly rated RED for a month or more? Most anti-virus false alarms are fixed within 24 hours because they realize the importance of them. A whole site advisory to 350 million+ users is even worse, and so requires MORE attention.. not less.

There is no money in this, only bills and lost sales. I may at some point call for donations to help with expenses, but will foot everything I can. I don't care if it takes everything I have. I will battle them to my grave. Nobody calls me a scammer, nobody. All I have is my integrity. That's it. Without it, I am nothing.

Any McAfee representative who wishes to simply discuss a change in their POLICIES so that they GET THINGS RIGHT is also welcome to contact me. If FTC action isn't necessary to make changes, then I won't do it. If it is, then I'll do it. Simple as that. The changes I ask for are not for me, but for the broader community. Someone has to stand up and really care about businesses hurt every week by this crap.

[jcollake]

To update everyone, now both sites are GREEN after a hard fought battle. It is at this point that so far EVERYONE says 'thank God', and moves on.. hoping to not be victimized again. I've been victimized twice, so no more of that. So, I am going to continue on behalf of other sites victimized. There are several web ratings sites, and I've only had troubles with SiteAdvisor. Their business practices MUST be changed by themselves, or the FTC will do it for them.

It appears, from the posts, that the person who finally fixed the problem was the person not associated at all with SiteAdvisor (according to him). This person, the owner of the bot that first defamed bitsum.com. Yea, not affiliated, but lotsa power I guess ;). I do not know if he realizes he is taking all the risk of defamation lawsuits. Say a company goes out of business before even realizing they were put out of business by a false positive at SiteAdvisor... because of your automated bot that uses IPs (which don't account for colocated servers at all, afaik).. What then? SiteAdvisor would throw their hands up and say "Not us", it was our "Reviewers". The 'Reviewer' would say, 'not me, it was my bot.. '. Sadly, the latter defense wouldn't hold much water.

If you wish to support me in my efforts to get SiteAdvisor to reconsider their policies and agree to a totally new rating system that is 1/100, instead of GREEN or RED (they don't seem to use YELLOW much), and that mandates any reviewers using automated tools be non-anonymous, then please comment at my blog so I know I have support: http://bitsum.blogspot.com/2011/01/processlassocom-now-properly-rated.html

Also, I have limited time, so need help of all types... donations of time or skills are appreciated... or hosting.. whatever.

[Bambo]

Apparently FPs and FTC is not new to SiteAdvisor. Check this interview with the guy who founded SiteAdvisor and later sold it to Mcafee. http://mixergy.com/siteadvisor-chris-dixon-interview/

-{ Quote: "Interviewee: Well sure, there always are. Raiding millions of websites. There’s gonna be errors, inevitable. Some of it also is companies I would consider, who have now been sued by the FTC, and settled. Complaining we had false positives. First of all there’s a he said/she said thing going on right, but, even then I’ll admit there were, certainly were. Raiding millions of websites using bots, there’s gonna be errors." }-

[jcollake]

The founder is now somewhat eccentric, and not so involved since he sold off that malfuctional piece of crap. McAfee was not bad back when he founded it, but now it is more greedy than usual corporation with a terrible company culture.

Edit.. Later I saw it was the siteadvisor founder previous poster responded to.

[Phant0m]

I’m still waiting for a response to the e-mail I had sent off to McAfee SiteAdvisor on the 19th, I knew It would be a complete waste of my time to e-mail them and dispute the false rating.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "I’m still waiting for a response to the e-mail I had sent off to McAfee SiteAdvisor on the 19th, I knew It would be a complete waste of my time to e-mail them and dispute the false rating." }-

They might respond, some day, but in both my incidents other channels were much more effective. I took them ALL.

[Phant0m]

I also put that other old red flagged file (no changes, same file hash and everything) back up on the server, the one which supposedly to be ‘Generic trojan,Artemis’. I want them to fully clear me of ALL falsely detected files on my domain ... but I guess that is asking to much? :dry:

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "I also put that other old red flagged file (no changes, same file hash and everything) back up on the server, the one which supposedly to be ‘Generic trojan,Artemis’. I want them to fully clear me of ALL falsely detected files on my domain ... but I guess that is asking to much? :dry:" }-

Hey, it isn't like they would hire more people just to stop defamation of businesses more expiediently.. (sarcasm).

[jcollake]

And you should restore that file, it takes less time to fix a false, positive if they can rescan it.

[Phant0m]

That's what I said. ;)

There is two red flaggings, one file I still had up, the other I removed but now I have it back up on the server.

[Phant0m]

They can simply re-scan it, but the file is still flagged by their engines, plus several other used engines shown on VirusTotal page http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/report.html?id=a4454cae3b35086d57068c21647ca25d8309698b853c6ccf8979dda4e339fbab-1263981303


That was the installer file, I extracted and ran the same test on the main application file, had pretty much similar results.

[Phant0m]

The different scanners never did like the fact that I use run-time packers and scramblers, but that doesn’t automatically give rights to flag my files. Malware is commonly seen being masked by run-time packers, so they figure they target all run-time packed files, and worse slap big threatening labels on these files.

[jcollake]

Yea, I know, I was just validating your comment. I thought it was more a question, sorry about that. I was on my phone, so could hardly read well.

Anyway, even though round #2 of my personal problems are fixed, I am not just dropping this and letting the next innocent business go down. I will remain an outspoken opponent to SiteAdvisor *until* they have demonstrated to me that they have corrected what I perceive to be *serious* flaws in their system. If their turn-around time is too slow, hire more employees.. and take a little less corporate bonus/profit. If their accuracy is bad, try a different way. Things need fixing, and eventually the FTC will force SiteAdvisor to change if they don't make their own changes (in my opinion).

[Phant0m]

That’s admirable quality you have, good stuff. :thumb:

[jcollake]

Admirable or stupid one ;). Everyone else, once they solve their problem, they 'just let it go' and hope to stay under SiteAdvisor's radar. Since I am 100%, unquestionably legit (probably why I'm so broke, lol), and have been victimized twice now, I feel I sadly am the one who needs to speak up. That last RED rating on ProcessLasso.com is still unexplained to this day. I provided a potential explanation, as they had none (a temporary DNS change I did to a backup web server). Apparently that bot (who is a human that makes 2 million reviews) rates sites by IP addresses, apparently not accounting at all for co-hosted servers (though I don't know that.. I do know there was no good reason to ever rate that domain RED). Of course, that bot never made any rating of processlasso.com, which is why it is still a mystery. Instead, he had made a specious accusation about bitsum.com, later recanted in less than confidence inspiring words. And I do still find the timing awful coincidental... Too coincidental for me. Maybe that's all it was though. At least it is fixed now. I have also 'opened up' my blog to search engines, so we'll see if there ie enough community support for an FTC complaint. The more signatures the better, though only one is needed.

[jcollake]

Above edited (as always), noting that bot never posted on processlasso.com (no RED there anywhere, except site rating). The bot posted on bitsum.com, but I was speculating the same cause of that bot's mistake was processlasso.com's mistake.. just guessing, as that's all I can do, for no explanation was provided. Props to those at the SA forums though, which is where anyone who has a problem needs to go to get actual action taken. It turns out the volunteers are left to do all the work, while McAfee takes all the profit (seriously).

[Phant0m]

I laughed when reading your Pharmalert quote that you had posted over at McAfee SiteAdvisor forum, where they mention about the “infection that caused...”.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "I laughed when reading your Pharmalert quote that you had posted over at McAfee SiteAdvisor forum, where they mention about the “infection that caused...”." }-

Yea!! I mean, what a recantation... Thanks a bunch for that, I thought to myself. And funny that this bot who has NO AFFILIATION with SiteAdvisor:

1. Has the power to fix this rating instantly, despite admitting reviews don't count for anything (as they don't, so he has connections or did it himself)
2. Was highly concerned about me correcting my comments about the false rating within minutes of it being fixed. I should have taken 10 days, lol.
3. Is running a really high risk of having someone file a defamation lawsuit against him, and SiteAdvisor would just say 'we don't censor or endorse our reviewers comments'.. leaving him out to dry (if he really isn't affiliated, as he claims)
4. I don't mind saying 'as he claims' because of what he has said.. In his recantation he says "The owners of this web site now claim that the infection that caused it to be listed in a malware database has been addressed. The review at 11/24/2010 no longer applies, and this site is safe." ... Great recantation (sarcasm) since there never was any infection. He refuses to admit his bot is ever wrong, which is scary in and of itself. Every engineer knows any rating algorithm will be prone to errors, and denial of such is.. just scary.

[jcollake]

edited above (notice for email readers) -- funny to read the actual recantation, if you call it that. At least it is green, though he certainly admits no mistakes.

[jcollake]

One other thing... I find it extremely strange to have no user reviews (after they wiped out my old ones in what they say now was part of a database cleanup to speed the site, pfft), given my large and loyal user base. Maybe it is just that nobody has had a chance to go comment... surely they aren't blocking or rejecting good comments.

[jcollake]

You guys will find this amusing: https://community.mcafee.com/message/171530#171530

He will probably anonymously (coward) attack me, as he has before, and has done to 1.9 million other sites... but we'll see. I feel he has an OBLIGATION to show his real name and not hide behind some alias, to prove he is not working with SiteAdvisor, as he claims. When you make 1.9 million accusations, some of them I KNOW to be specious (statistics would tell you that, but I know from personal experience).. Well, he should lay himself 'out there' too, as he demands of us.

I am not so sure he isn't working with McAfee Secure, that bad rating from him came 36 hours after saying NO.. 36 hours... maybe coincidence, but how can we know if he hides behind an alias?

[jcollake]

Would you believe they have done this to me a THIRD time?!?!?

ALL DOWNLOADS GREEN (AND IT SAYS ALL SAFE)
ALL LINKS GREEN
NO COMMENTS

Domain rated RED: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/prolasso.com

I had taken down my blogging critcisms of them when they fixed this the last time it happened (right after I turned down highly aggressive sales pitch if you remember).

Are they intentionally running my business into the ground?

They now bundle McAfee with SUN Java, so if you think the 350 million install base was bad, geez...

Look McAfee, I had shut my mouth, not criticized you.. but this is ABSURD. You have rogue employees or something. I guess since they thought they got away with it last time they could just do it again.

UPDATE: This is in their forums (which I thought were closed at first) -- https://community.mcafee.com/message/171749#171749

[Bambo]

Seems like a messed up company. Your rouge accusation make much sense, this can't be accidents. There are idiots all over the place so why should security companies be without. There must be some hope since they allow you to go "crazy" on their forum. You even get help by a veteran moderator - who does not really stand up for Mcafee ;) Seems odd to me, such people are usually more addicted to their pets than owners them self. If all Mcafee invested interests on such a forum were all go go Mcafee you would have been shut down long time ago. Just the way you post will be enough. They are either strangely open to complaints or your case is simply too compelling. They are not sure it is wise to shut you up perhaps. Will just add to your evidence should you contact muscles to deal with them. Question of course is if "they" listen and may be also stop repeating errors! Seriously messed up situation regardless of someone is targeting you or everything is result of error upon error. May be they, or some of them, really are trying to fix it but also mess that up because system is not willing to be fixed since set up to be flawless and so cannot be tinkered with, lol. You are trapped in an evil loop. Very nice being able to ignore Mcafee crap but of course you can't.

Btw, you have taken screenshot of your posts at Mcafee right? You and they might suddenly disappear from there. You know, by mistake as in an error ;)

[jcollake]

Yes, I took screenshots of everything, showing the full GREEN scan, then RED rating. Of their management acknowledging the problem, etc...

So, the next day we have:

+ Management refuses to correct, or even explain the problem, despite two past prior mistakes. They don't even give me the benefit of the doubt, ON THIS SAME SITE AS ALL THREE TIMES (different domains though)!
+ Sales plummet as my small business I worked a decade to build is driven into the ground
+ Yes, I've threatened FTC, criminal, and civil complaints. While some say I am making it worse, HOW MANY TIMES is this going to happen?!? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me three times -- I must be an idiot.
+ Still no correction and the page is just as it was yesterday, ALL GREEN except RED SITE RATING OVERALL.

URL: http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/prolasso.com <--- Check it out, ALL GREEN, ALL SAFE, EVERYWHERE.. except the SITE RATING.

THANK YOU for understanding. The fact is that given SiteAdvisor's MASSIVE market share, the FTC will FORCE them to act ethically. They can't do this to small businesses for NO REASON GIVEN.

[jcollake]

As I read your post more closely, I understand it even more fully. Yea, who knows what is going on.

Further, I'm not the only site owner to come in upset. Their 10 day standard period of 'fixing' their problems is 10 days of death.

The reason moderators and senior staff don't stand up for McAfee (at least not publicly, I did have that one guy PM'ing me with the diagnosis of paranoid psychosis, despite him not being a doctor, lol). Anyway, it is because they are OFTEN in arguments with SiteAdvisor themselves.

SiteAdvisor has MANY obvious improvements that could be made (e.g. making some attempt to notify a site owner when the rating changes, that is pretty easy given the DNS registrant info). Another good idea is resolving 'improper bad ratings' in less than 10 DAYS!!! My God. Neither has been adopted. I'm sure every one of their senior supporters would approve of both being adopted, but this is the worst run company I have EVER seen. I have even had EMPLOYEES agree with ME and get trapped by SiteAdvisor management, never to be heard from again.

Really, if people heard just how HIGH PRESSURE their CERTIFICATION SALES are, then you'd understand why I come to speculative conclusions in the absence of ANY other explanation. I mean, it was seriously the most high pressure experience I've ever had. It was 'buy RIGHT NOW, or you're crazy'... that kind of thing.

[jcollake]

I want everyone to know, the *IF* the pressure ever gets too much for me, now that SiteAdvisor has shut down my business without any cause even given 3 times, and my death results from this pressure (heart attack, whatever)... please know it was SiteAdvisor that killed me. I would feel it an honorable death to die to correct the sins of this mega corporation harming countless businesses every day, in my opinion.

[m00nbl00d]

Considering your past actions didn't result in anything, because it started all over again, perhaps, you should take a different approach: Make it public in as many on-line services as you can. I guess a really bad press would make them change their unprofessional attitude.

The media are always up for a good scandal. ;D

Maybe it's a crazy idea, but desperate times call for desperate measures. ;)

[jcollake]

Well, after 4 days they finally decided to change the unexplained misrating. As SOON as they did, sales jumped up considerably. It was like going 0 to 60. This shows the impact of SiteAdvisor and their enormous install base, and even higher visibility base (with all Yahoo searches using them, etc..).

Since I have been attacked three times by this company, I've had about enough. I simply must protect my family and try to protect other families out there. Who knows how many businesses went out of business because of an errant rating by SiteAdvisor, maybe never knowing why they went out of business.

Further, SiteAdvisor's management has refused to adopt obvious and repeated suggestions to improve the accuracy and quality of its ratings, or mitigate the potential damage to innocent victims.

Therefore, this time, I am NOT hiding my criticisms. The truth is the truth, and if SiteAdvisor dare rate me RED for telling the truth, then they will only compound their existing problems with me.

http://www.bitsum.com/images/mcafee_siteadvisor_3.png

[m00nbl00d]

I'm glad that, at least for now, things are OK, and I hope they remain OK. I've been at www.bitsum.com and I see you provide 3 rating services. Perhaps, you could add more like BrightCloud, owned by Webroot -http://brightcloud.com/support/lookup.php (I'm not sure if it allow a link to directly provide the rating or if the domain needs to be input; I have JavaScript disabled, so I can't say whether or not it would give a direct link), AVG LinkScanner on-line -http://linkscanner.explabs.com (this one allows to provide a direct link for the domain to be verified) , Google Diagnostic -http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=bitsum.com

More exist. But, I'd say that, at least, AVG and Google would be two well known services/companies and would have a decent weight to help your visitors decide about a RED rating from McAfee?

-edit-

I'm aware that Webutation already has a Google Safebrowsing rating, but a direct link for Google's service would, most likely, have more weight?

[jcollake]

OK, new development:

Due to this incident (presumably) McAfee has finally realized that human controlled bots can NOT be allowed on their network because they are essentially algorithms operating upon their database. They spoke clearly that they do not wish to have their own algorithms amended or replaced with user algorithms. Therefore, they BANNED the top-ranked reviewer by post count (over 2 million posts), as it was clear they were not 'Real Experience' reviews which SiteAdvisor wants.

This reviewer, while he may not have influenced my rating, did post defamatory remarks saynig I had malware and viruses. He then was forced to recant twice, as the first recant was so indignant and offensive it wasn't much better than the accusation (he was on a real power trip, thinking he was infallible or something). Anyway, he did recant again, so I guess I give him credit for that.

This change in policy, which I and others have long advocated, is a sign of CHANGE at SiteAdvisor. Once the ball of CHANGE is rolling, anything can happen.

That said, some people were not happy, and someone mysteriously attacked one of my domains on MyWOT. MyWOT had it fixed within HOURS (if not minutes), a state I hope SiteAdvisor someday reaches.

For this action, I've again hidden my criticisms of McAfee, giving them a 4th chance to make changes. This is the first time they have EVER made such a large and obvious policy improvement. So, it is a good sign.

---- There also may be more to the story, I feel I am missing a 'piece' of foul play to which McAfee won't admit for legal reasons. However, I may just be paranoid on that one ;). THAT SAID, It is a MYSTERY as to why my domains were rated RED these last two times. No threats were detected, no bad reviews, no nothing.... Soo.... I still am left guessing on that one.

[Bambo]

Well you better check urlvoid http://urlvoid.com/ for your domains, on a daily basis. You don't want to cross virtual people with large blacklists :) Those people know how to submit and tick "malicious" faster than you complain. The total fail called SiteAdvisor is huge but there are loads of similar services. As you know there is a risk of no human research and that they simply bend over. WOT is cool as long as you and the little forum can control it. If I had a non specified number of people ready to red flag your stuff it would be red flagged at WOT. Or green if it was red. Very dynamic and open ;)

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "I'm glad that, at least for now, things are OK, and I hope they remain OK. I've been at www.bitsum.com and I see you provide 3 rating services. Perhaps, you could add more like BrightCloud, owned by Webroot -http://brightcloud.com/support/lookup.php (I'm not sure if it allow a link to directly provide the rating or if the domain needs to be input; I have JavaScript disabled, so I can't say whether or not it would give a direct link), AVG LinkScanner on-line -http://linkscanner.explabs.com (this one allows to provide a direct link for the domain to be verified) , Google Diagnostic -http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=bitsum.com

More exist. But, I'd say that, at least, AVG and Google would be two well known services/companies and would have a decent weight to help your visitors decide about a RED rating from McAfee?

-edit-

I'm aware that Webutation already has a Google Safebrowsing rating, but a direct link for Google's service would, most likely, have more weight?" }-


All good ideas, but they did fix this still unexplained rating (finally). So, I don't have anyone to defend myself against. The attack the next day at MyWOT was fixed within HOURS there ;).

What I've done is purchased MyWOT certification for bitsum.com. It was affordable for me, while McAfee Secure costs MUCH more and was waaayyy out of my budget. So, I'm now 'official' with MyWOT.

Still, so long as we have multiple ratings services -- none of whom notify the site owner on a ratings change unless you've paid for that -- it is very hard for site owners to keep up with them all. I mean, I still don't know how long my last RED at SA was RED before I discovered it.

[jcollake]

-{ Quote: "Well you better check urlvoid http://urlvoid.com/ for your domains, on a daily basis. You don't want to cross virtual people with large blacklists :) Those people know how to submit and tick "malicious" faster than you complain. The total fail called SiteAdvisor is huge but there are loads of similar services. As you know there is a risk of no human research and that they simply bend over. WOT is cool as long as you and the little forum can control it. If I had a non specified number of people ready to red flag your stuff it would be red flagged at WOT. Or green if it was red. Very dynamic and open ;)" }-

I will check, and you just scared the crap out of me ;o. It is true though. Honestly, even if these people are usually trying to act ethically, their sheer power makes it rife for corruption. If anyone INTENTIONALLY causes me trouble, there really isn't much I can do but close up shop and declare bankruptcy.. move my family in with ??? dunno where we'd live.

[jcollake]

And, for the record, I never tried to make enemies with ANYBODY. However, when someone comes and says I have 'malware, viruses, trojans, etc..'. Then they 'recant' with something almost as offensive, forcing another recant.. Well, my gripe with him ended then, though I did have other suspicions. I never complained about this person again. Just FYI, he never could show why he said that either... not even show a false positive, or anything.

SiteAdvisor decided to remove that reviewer because bots are really algorithms. Since they KNOW these algorithms are operating on their databases, they then become legally responsible for their rather harsh comments. THAT was what spurred the change, I believe. I was as surprised as everyone to hear of the removal. It could be there are unknown other factors too, we do not know the whole story I don't think, as my former ratings are still totally unexplained.

It was NOT my fault, all I EVER DID was defend my integrity when it was ATTACKED. So, blame McAfee if you want to blame somebody, if the attacker is listening ;) Or blame your own sources, or maybe consider that you shouldn't have been making millions of generic, automated site reviews without at least being able to explain why a site was reviewed so harshly. Maybe it was on some 'list', but why was it on some 'list'? You see, that's the whole thing. As McAfee said, let them do their job, they just want 'Real Experience' reviews.

The timing, with the problems occurring after I turned down McAfee Secure, I dunno about that... just coincidental, I guess. However, the high-pressure sales meant high commission, so it isn't implausible that someone added my domain to a list as a 'warning shot' that I need to buy this certification. There is an INDICATION that something FISHY went on, that we do NOT KNOW.

[Bambo]

Have you not wondered what would have happened if you did pay up when that was suggested by Mcafee? Business is business.

Not sure how "safe" or effective it is to use blocking services for purposes like extortion but if you plan to red flag something at WOT, lets say a hacker forum with goodies - AND they become aware of the "attack" I put money on a greener than grass outcome, heh. http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/hackforums.net as an example. Actually a pretty good one considering Malwarebytes suddenly thought it was a good idea to remove from their black lists. http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=36808 extortion? Nah ;) Notice the marketing focused CEO overrules the guy who actually did the blocking, in the same thread. How it is and good luck. Of course site does not appear in all glory unless you sign up, appear innocent on surface but definitely is not. I am a member, must know the enemy - scriptkiddies... Quite an entertaining section on social engineering though.

I forgot to mention that Malwarebytes gave the site a 50% discount for a month. Higher than regular folks ever get. CEO was so so sorry. There is a thread about this on that forum, they basically laughed their butt off, heh. Good fun was had by all.

[jcollake]

Yes, I HAVE wondered what would have happened if I did pay up. *IF* the problems occurred at all, I'm guessing they would have been fixed more quickly -- but that is sheer speculation.

Some people are now very upset with me because McAfee banned that bot reviewer (yes, a human controls the bot, but I am calling it a bot). They are saying it was due to a temporary false spam positive at clean-mx.de, some German web site. However, in the comments they said NOTHING of spam or mail problems, ONLY an *infection* was mentioned. Specifically, he said I had 'malware, viruses, and trojans'. There was no maybe in the sentence. Like I said, he had to recant twice because his first recant was so offensive, as if he and his 'sources' are infallible.

I find it ironic this 'good citizen' may have attacked my domain at MyWOT, so don't believe he did. That just happened to occur the moment he was suspended.

Now these people are mentioning some network of dedicated volunteers who protects us all (and maybe accidentally kills businesses every once and a while). Has it occurred to anyone that this group may they have a little too much power?

All I know is they blame ME for McAfee's decisions. ALL I EVER DID WAS DEFEND MY INTEGRITY AGAINST DEFAMATION.

In the meantime, I did 'pay up' at MyWOT, where my reputation (for many years) has been sterling. I could actually afford them, and, frankly, I can't fight any more. So, anyone who wants to take me down, I'll just be dead. I'm seriously letting you go ahead and kill me, if you choose. I know there is no other choice. Yes, it probably will result in a divorce and potential suicide, amongst other problems, but who cares... I know some of us haven't matured enough to know the 'real world', and how hard it is to support a family.

[Bambo]

Mcafee is leader of screwing up as of today but all these services should be questioned. Hard core followers you seem to have run in to do not think outside their own little box/hobby and people in charge might tend to appreciate such eager users. Security on steroids becomes dumb.

Both green and red can be interesting to manipulate with and I don't tihnk regular users have a clue or is interested in getting one, generally they accept what is fed to them - why such services have potential power as "guides". Also why you see even a hacker forum complain about a block. Nobody wants that, everyone feels stepped on and will go for green/approved any day. If possible to game a system some will do just that. Avast just added "Web reputation" as a feature. Anyone can vote = I am 100% skeptical. Oh there was another list of sites to check your domains against :) Click,click.

[jcollake]

What other list? Please provide it if you can, I will definitely make sure my sites are checked against it.

This whole thing bothers me more and more the deeper I am sunken into it.

I fear we are creating chaos. The anonymous internet, gotta love it... and hate it if you dare try to do small business (but get big enough to be noticed).

There is another SA reviewer who does the same automation, but was not banned AFAIK. He is lashing out at me on MyWOT now, as he holds substantial power there. Well, not so much lashing out, as making this argument that this 'anonymous group of good people' must be kept both anonymous, and in-power. He goes on to not really care about the innocent victims, who are apparently collateral damage. It is weird, and scary.

I fear power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The arrogance of the first recant to the defamation made it clear that this is some kid, thinking of himself as infallible. It must be somebody without ANY bills to pay, with 2 million site reviews, lol.

[Bambo]

Well it is a build-in feature from the Avast AV program. You need to install it. Later I will check your domains and post if some of them are not ok. Weird feature since they already do malware blocking via web shield (active code check) and network shield (blacklist). Seems to be "by popular demand" or "we must also have one of those" to me. But too early to be judgmental towards that, for now I don't see the point though. Avast is not known to be experimental and they have millions of users. They must know something we don't ;) I am only interested in RED way of thinking. Do not think security products should be used in marketing and that is what GREEN is all about. Ask WOT or the Mcafee sales person. Potential problems with both. RED should be dealt with by professionals not amateurs, communities - also not messed up professionals of course.

[jcollake]

AMEN to that.

As an aside, thinking about it, I'm almost sure that reviewer that was banned was a teenager, or maybe a 30 year old still living at home. How else are they gonna support themselves? Unless my crazy conspiracy theories are right, which are only a series of very odd, very unlikely coincidences.

Capitalism wins in all cases, in the end. Also, there is the law. The FBI does have a cybercrime unit, for whatever it is worth. Then there is the FTC. When companies get so large, like SiteAdvisor, with 350+ million installs, they must adhere to certain ethical guidelines, as they have the power to nearly instantly kill any business they want.

Of course, the internet is global, so throw in 100 more organizations. The end output is chaos.

Thanks if you do check my domains, though they are surely ok, unless this 'good citizen' is having some more teenage fun. You know, once people do 'grow up', it is a hard reality -- having to make X each month, else you're outta there. You know, no safety net, no Mommy and Daddy.

[Bambo]

From a Google search where Avast attach icons showing reputation.
prolasso.com - OK
processlasso.com - OK
bitsum.net - OK
bitsum.com - Almost!

Why almost you see in attached pics. Feature is new and many sites will have a note saying "based on small number of votes" = why you you only have 1 bar green I assume, don't pay too much attention to that. But why on earth is that support login red? This is not Avasts doing if I understand their setup correctly. Users decide. If someone or some voted a little login page red would whole site, like main page not be red as well. Or quite a few have actually given you thumbs up but a few vote everything red and get away with it on this particular page? Those who click the most wins? Don't know but as said I am highly skeptical towards these icons when reasons for them are unknown/user based.

When you enter a page an icon placed in browser toolbar have same 3 bars and show same result as in Google/Search engines. Clicking on it give pic no. 2 I can select category and "vote" on my idea of "how do I like this site" or is it only a local vote on how loveable it is and they are only interested in how I feel about category? - weird? Yes it is ;)

[Bambo]

Now you can get Wilders to play WOT forum members and we can make sure that page becomes green. Beat the network of security tossers if they are active via Avast as well. All are happy but not really a solution to the problems is it? You need to check this nonsense like every day to be sure you and your products are in sync with "public opinion". There is something wrong about this.

[jcollake]

[deleted] see below

[jcollake]

And, yes, it is quite strange. The login page I use is shared SSL certificate, common for micro ISVs who can't afford their own SSL cert. So, I dunno... And technically this one is one MERCHANTSECURE.COM. So, they'll need notified I guess. Another rating service just means more potential false positives, and little good for the end user (to be honest). Half the time people are victimized while looking at porn anyway, probably clicking by those warnings, lol

Hey, thanks for posting that, that is interesting new Avast service. I expect it won't be the last new rating service.

[Bambo]

I thought about https as well but not really important since weprep is based on users input from what I can tell. Avast is just watching stats. From 100+ million users http://www.avast.com/en-se/pr-avast-software-will-add-reputation-analysis-to-the-upcoming-6-0 should be fun ;) Is included in the extremely popular free version.

Must soon be time to talk about the positive sides of blocking. Like unaware and clueless site admins being told their site is heavily infected because last time they updated scripts was 2 years ago! Or just the daily massive dosis of malware domains not even mothers of site admins will approve of. That type of stories you can also find. Blocking/warning ideas are great, especially on dns level, but also comes with quite a bit of responsibility.

[jcollake]

Yes, but along with BLACK lists I think WHITE lists are an obvious and necessary thing. I mean, after a decade, I think I can safely be put on a WHITE list at any company. *IF* ever there is then a question, it can be INVESTIGATED before I am taken off that list. Does this not make sense? Surely this will be the future.

[jcollake]

Doubly strange when you consider ALL those domains have the link to my Support area, using that shared SSL certificate.. meaning the 'Almost!' contradicts all those other ratings. Oh well, who the heck knows.

The one thing I do know is that by doing good and ethical business all these years I have a large and loyal user base that 'know me'. That helps a lot in situations like these. While explaining yourself to someone who doesn't know you in a Forum is sometimes tedious, I've done it repeatedly now. The problem I'm getting now is that since false REDs occurred at SA, now I have to explain ALL past problems too ;o.

Ugh. Well, hey, got an even more serious issue coming up -- taxes ;). I think I've paid in enough, I am scared to do the math, lol. They tax us self-employed quite high, just FYI. That one software engineer in Texas flew his plane into a building last year, if you remember that. Sadly, he killed innocent people, something they didn't initially know. Of course, I don't endorse that action, I'm just saying -- it is HARD out here as a Micro ISV ;). Of course, I am here by choice I suppose.

[jcollake]

They made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that they could find excuses to 'take me down' if they wanted, so I will no longer be commenting here, or anywhere. After all, they can, and will.. and I have no defense. My only hope is silence.

[m00nbl00d]

WTH? So, McAfee is going the scareware way? (Rhetorical question.)

[Bambo]

I put money on the network of security tossers playing anonymous wars - and having trouble getting over them self. They found out they did not run SiteAdvisor after all! They have virtual names to look after you know ;) Mcafee will not sink so low as to make direct threats. Complicating things so they cant even fix recognized problems is their game, for the most part - they are also responsible for idiotic sales persons of course. Must be pain in the butt to check and complain over all this so I understand if he won't create further noise. He might have been detected as being active here and got notified. Internet is useful for speaking up but you also make your self visible. Why most of us have silly user names I guess.

If it really is an unofficial, but clearly coming from Mcafee threat, I do hope he will speak up again. Internet tossers are best left alone, they can keep going long after any sane person has had enough.

[jcollake]

No, not SiteAdvisor. The volunteer do-gooders, of all people. They are 'coming after' one of the most ethical operations on the net, my user approval rate is the highest in the industry, I guarantee you. I accept my fate. They can take me down. All because McAfee changed their policies and banned that guy. I don't have control of McAfee, so nothing I can do but accept my fate. I never requested that guy be removed, nor did I mention him in complaints. Dunno what the deal is.

[jcollake]

Since you guys asked, and I'll probably PAY for ANY answer, as they indicated they have total control... What was done is info LONG AGO dismissed and clarified was brought up at MyWOT, complicating the obvious correction, making it instead look like it was my own users who suddenly started rating me last night badly. My own users are fighting back, here at

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/processlasso.com

Unlike my persecutors, I have refused to violate ethical code of conduct and create multiple accounts or fake IPs. That way, if law enforcement ever investigates, they can trace it back to these people. The fact that these are our guardians scares me more than the fraudsters.

Like I said. Power corrupts. They have let it be known they will now crush me for daring to disagree. The ONLY thing I've done is AGREE with McAfee and DEFEND MY REPUTATION when it was ATTACKED. Even if the cause was a false positive, it was still ATTACKED without reason.

So, they've let me know they have control everywhere, and will do anything. Meanwhile, I'm looking for work.... I was profitable, but now... I can't deal with this every week. They win for sure. Fun stuff. Haha

UPDATE: Well, I guess they did lose a lot of control at SiteAdvisor, maybe that is why they are taking it out on me.. dunno. This shows how things really are though. I have background material for all that want to see it.

[Tarnak]

Safe as houses...;)

[Bambo]

Don't know if it has been mentioned but to speed up checking of pages you could try LinkExtend https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/linkextend-safety-kidsafe-site/ You can remove/disable everything and only have 1 button next to address bar. Will show you if one of the supported services pick something up. Does not slow down browsing that much, I never noticed when I used it.

Can see you are tasting a bit of the bad side effects of WOT. They are no better than Mcafee but might appear better - when votes are not being tinkered with that is. WOT almost begs to be exploited and all are part of beloved community, any click from anyone is appreciated ;) Kick butt plugin though but still hidden problems if you think about their setup. I am convinced problems will grow proportional with their market share. If there is a chance to screw up results some people will do it. May be even companies hired for that task, blackhat SEO might be interested already. Remember when gaming Digg was hot? People cheat in games, try to increase viewer count, try to cheat Google rankings etc. People can't be trusted without reason, also not online. If these guys are convinced they are necessary for world security, and you just blew that up!, then they are probably pretty annoying.

I read your WOT thread, wish I had not, heh. Oh those guys with their clicks. I remember some of those names, total amateurs and close to it-illiterate. xxxxxx clicks later not much have changed. I wonder if that guy with 3 letter username is not the one I told to get a grip when he suggested a total scam program was ok because it was advertised via TV in US. Think so. I was out of there shortly after. Well notice one of them say "we" are members of many sites, not just WOT - and here comes the lists. He meant "proud members" believe me and he certainly did mean "WE". Try not do debate with them, they are busy fighting malware and serving communities ;) I can't deal with these judges in a "complete democracy" as WOT. Which one of them have not received a WOT reward yet? They might influence people there, request more clicks etc. but dont overrate them. Just people obsessed with a hobby that is all. Very annoying when they tell war stories though, they have no clue but go wow and really?

I much prefer my little hacker forum when I feel like educating myself, way more useful security knowledge there. In a strange way perhaps but at least more attached to outside world.

[jcollake]

The person said they were monitoring here, and may have posted here. Since Bitsum will come to an end, after a decade, and I will be unemployeed, I will at least expose this fraud if it comes to that. That is what I will now plan on though. Law enforcement should step in at that time. Even if they are the 'good guys', sometimes they have personal issues with a site owner. Just like a judge that can't decide a case for conflict of interest. Oh, and if using that analogy, let us not forget 'dirty cops' ... Sadly, it happens. I think the BROADER community would be happy if I expose this person.

[jcollake]

And thanks for the support, recommendation, and general and help guys ;).

[Bambo]

And now you can have more suspicion because who on Mcafee forums are also at WOTs? or here? (I must have missed it too, not that it matters) Waste of your time and possibly can keep problems going on for longer. I would not trust them to format a floppy but click they can. They probably have dual mouse setup to increase productivity and credibility in the community. What it takes to be a malware hunter. Anyway, they are of no importance or that much to blame - those in charge setting up conditions for these systems are.

[jcollake]

And they are hitting the other domain too .. It just has a lot more reputation built up, but they are lowering it (just did). They are making sure I am shut down because I dare criticized them. Power corrupts, can't say it enough. That's why someone has to watch the watchmen. I plan to be out of business VERY shortly, as these people are obviously powerful and ready to use multiple fake zombie machines. Nothing I can do but go out of business. Afterwards, I'll let the FBI CyberCrime unit handle it.

[jcollake]

It AMAZES me these people are under the delusion that they are acting ethically. They examine everyone's rectum so hard, then go pull this kind of stuff. Duck 'em is what I say. Go ahead, you ~ Snipped as per TOS (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/faq.php?faq=wilders_tos#faq_wilders_tos_1) ~. I will be homeless. I was there before. I will rise again, and my STORY will bring YOU down.

[Bambo]

Out of the corner of my left eye I read something about privileged users, as in super users, of WOT or was it only Siteadvisor? With certain features available to them so they can do mass voting? I know WOT at least claims to give chosen/worthy users more weight than others already but this was a bit more than that. I think I ignored it on purpose and don't even want to find out, as if it was even possible, but you see it is tough to gain much from such people when they essentially are protecting their own system/them self. Security that can be questioned? Unheard of. If you get in to a fight with one of the regulars a whole bunch might turn up. They get called in if necessary if I know forum games correctly. So don't debate for days with them. Nothing in it for you.

Wait a week or so, then make a new thread asking for help to go green - if your stuff at that time has changed color. I don't see a reason to be in bed with those people just because WOT is installed and many do like it. You might get angry etc. or even think you are targeted because you speak up but seems to me someone will kick their own butt if votes change dramatically. But yes if they begged for red clicks you would go red, no doubt about that. Or from red to green, that is the idea with the forum. There are enough sheep to make it happen but I doubt much will change. Don't see how they can get away with that, not in their interest regardless of how much they think you are annoying. Major case of miscommunication more than anything else I think. Sneaky stuff with same people taking part of debate on all forums though. One big proud family. Ignore as much as possible. Either that or suck up to them and don't try to come off as critical towards these blockers, I think ignore is best for you ;)

[CloneRanger]

@ jcollake

Hi, first off i will say that, having used Process Lasso previously on another comp, i can state what a very unique App i thought it is :thumb:

Regarding your issues, until today i had overlooked this thread, thinking it was about something else. I'm very sorry to hear about this, if it were me i would write directly to the CEO of those companies, getting straight to the point, without blinding them with too many words. I hope you do ASAP so you can get your life and business back on track

Regarding bots etc, i was staggered to see the amount of posts being made by more than one poster :o http://siteadvisorclassaction.com

225531

Impossible i would say for a human to do, or if Any were, which i doubt, it's obvious to me they are out to cause trouble, and should be deleted and banned, as should Every other high single posters that come along, bots or otherwise. Quite why they are not ?

I wish you all the best, and hope it all gets sorted out in your favour Very quickly :thumb:

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "@ jcollake

Hi, first off i will say that, having used Process Lasso previously on another comp, i can state what a very unique App i thought it is :thumb:

Regarding your issues, until today i had overlooked this thread, thinking it was about something else. I'm very sorry to hear about this, if it were me i would write directly to the CEO of those companies, getting straight to the point, without blinding them with too many words. I hope you do ASAP so you can get your life and business back on track

Regarding bots etc, i was staggered to see the amount of posts being made by more than one poster :o http://siteadvisorclassaction.com

225531

Impossible i would say for a human to do, or if Any were, which i doubt, it's obvious to me they are out to cause trouble, and should be deleted and banned, as should Every other high single posters that come along, bots or otherwise. Quite why they are not ?

I wish you all the best, and hope it all gets sorted out in your favour Very quickly :thumb:" }-

This is why such "reputation services" are useless and shouldn't be trusted. It's way too easy to game them. In regards to the original topic, I can't believe this has gone on this long and gotten so out of hand.

[Bambo]

About Avast and their 100+ million vs. WebRep one of their employees statement give some hope. From their forum:

-{ Quote: "Actually, WebRep is a combination of community voting and malware-related data feed from our virus lab. Of course, we don't quite consider the community ratings as a "security" feature in the sense that not very many community members can actually tell whether a given site is infected; but that's what's the virus lab data is for... On the onther hand, the community can usually very well tell whether a given e-shop is a good one or a poor one -- something our virus lab will hardly be able to do...

So, in a way, it's a great synergy between objective (viruslab) data and subjective (community) ratings.

Of course, we're now on the very start -- and only time will tell whether this concept works or not.


Thanks
Vlk" }-

Using all those users to test if it works or not is pretty stupid though. It does not and what they do think users can help with is not represented correctly by using red and green bars - that spells SECURITY to most people. Credit to them saying community skills are limited and I guess also because they are not sure WebRep is such a cool feature ;) Pumping up efforts in blocking malicious urls via Network Shield would be much more comforting. I am not sure Avast even use the well known sources for this, could start with that. WOT does. Effective, proven to work - much opposite community stuff.

I must get used to the new experimental Avast :)