GiveAwayOfTheDay at it again

[acr1965]

Giveawayoftheday.com has today's offer as Tipard DVD Creator from Tipard.com. The program's site is listed by hpHosts as a malware distribution site and has a Red WOT rating (mainly as spammers). GAOTD, for whatever reason, has apparently decided to censor posts pointing out the hpHosts or WOT rating both on the giveaway page comment section and in the GAOTD user forum.

http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/tipard-dvd-creator/

Here's the WOT and hpHosts pages for tipard.com
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/tipard.com

http://hosts-file.net/default.asp?s=tipard.com

hpHosts has tipard.com classified as "EMD" which stands for:

-{ Quote: "EMD - sites engaged in malware distribution
This classification is assigned to website's engaged in the distribution of malware (e.g. adware, spyware, trojans and viruses etc).

Sites with this classification typically either contain files (e.g. cracks, keygens, adware, spyware, trojans, viruses et al) or lead to such via (for example) "fake scanners" or other social engineering and misleading tactics. This includes the activities of rogue Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that host other sites to which the EMD classification applies." }-

[guest]

hpHosts is too sensitive, even KC SUMo website and servers are blocked by them (not a "false positive" - I contacted hpHosts devs).

And WOT isn't meant to be 100% reliable.

[PJC]

-{ Quote: "And WOT isn't meant to be 100% reliable." }-
WOT isn't 100% reliable, but others aren't, too.

[guest]

-{ Quote: "WOT isn't 100% reliable, but others aren't, too." }-
Yeah, and I prefer WOT over the alternatives, I got a good WOT activity score. ;D

[ViVek]

WOT=Waste of time

[axial]

I stopped going to GAOTD because I kept getting NOD32 alerts about the favicons, e.g:

[J_L]

Test the program yourself before spreading anything. Check with VirusTotal, Anubis, Comodo Valkyrie, heck, even send to AV laboratories and see for yourself.

GAOTD has the right (and probably a good reason) to manage their website like that.

[Hungry Man]

I like the concept of WOT, it's an interesting reputation based "web of trust" and the idea behind it is, imo, really cool.

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "Test the program yourself before spreading anything. Check with VirusTotal, Anubis, Comodo Valkyrie, heck, even send to AV laboratories and see for yourself.

GAOTD has the right (and probably a good reason) to manage their website like that." }-
GAOTD can (and do) manage their site however they choose. I never said it's not their right to do so. Nothing I have stated is untrue and I have the right to speak the truth. If GAOTD censors relevant posts, especially regarding giveaway programs from sites with serious accusations of malware distribution and phishing and even less serious, but still relevant, accusations of forum spamming then GAOTD opens the door for criricism. They don't get a free pass and I don't have to look the other way. Of course, you can do as you choose as well.

[PJC]

-{ Quote: "WOT=Waste of time" }-
What do you use instead of WOT?
TrafficLight (http://trafficlight.bitdefender.com/)?

[travelerRoute80]

-{ Quote: "What do you use instead of WOT?
TrafficLight (http://trafficlight.bitdefender.com/)?" }-

How good is the Traffic Light?

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "I like the concept of WOT, it's an interesting reputation based "web of trust" and the idea behind it is, imo, really cool." }-

That's really shocking coming from you. ;D You think that users shouldn't have to deal with security, yet you like a service that gives lots of credit to user ratings. :o

Even, at least, one of the WOT's trusted sources seems to be too sensitive. That trusted source was already mentioned in this thread.

If you open this link (http://hosts-file.net/default.asp?s=tipard.com), you'll see it was last verified/updated in 23-04-2010. Way more than a year ago.

That data was added to WOT in 10/01/2011, according to this link (https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/tipard.com)

I mean, don't these folks verify the validity of a clean/dirty website more often? If they can't, perhaps they should reconsider about having that many partners. Sometimes more doesn't equal better.

And, hpHosts, don't they verify them more often either? If they can't, maybe they shouldn't have that many entries in their services. Again, more isn't always better, and you prejudice small websites, that at some point could have been hacked. If these services don't come to realize it, they won't complain to services like WOT, etc.

I used to like WOT's concept, but the more I came to know, the more I started to dislike this kind of service.

[dw426]

I agree that it's weird to see Hungry complimenting such a flawed service, lol. Users as a whole are stupid and biased, and WOT gives them a lot of power.

[guest]

Lol, WOT is all about reputation (not to be confused with definitive classifications). There is no better way to measure reputation than the one applied by WOT.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Lol, WOT is all about reputation (not to be confused with definitive classifications). There is no better way to measure reputation than the one applied by WOT." }-

Disagree. WOT can be gamed quite easily. We're not talking about the kind of reputation system IE Smartscreen employs.

[guest]

-{ Quote: "Disagree. WOT can be gamed quite easily. We're not talking about the kind of reputation system IE Smartscreen employs." }-
The concepts are different and what they measure are also very different things.

Worth reading - WOT developers answering common criticisms: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/reviews/

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "That's really shocking coming from you. You think that users shouldn't have to deal with security, yet you like a service that gives lots of credit to user ratings. " }-
I like the concept, not the implementation. If I were handling a reputation based system I would not give so much power to the user in that a user can write a comment and have it posted immediately or a user can have so much influence on a sites rating.

-{ Quote: "
Even, at least, one of the WOT's trusted sources seems to be too sensitive. That trusted source was already mentioned in this thread." }-
This is essentially the main issue I see as well.

-{ Quote: "
I used to like WOT's concept, but the more I came to know, the more I started to dislike this kind of service." }-
Conceptually the idea of trust is really interesting and I would love to play with a system based on user trust similar to how WOT implements it. I think we pretty much agree that the implementation of WOT is flawed.

With all systems based on trust there are "authorities" who decide what is to be trusted or distrusted. WOT makes the users the authorities, with the motivation for their participation being somewhat unclear though ideally altruistic - with Digital Certifications Systems PKI we have Certificate Authorities acting as the authorities, with their motivation being ideally altruistic but practically monetary.

WOT has users audit themselves, CA's are usually audited by some other group. Both systems are flawed, as we've seen time and time again. But conceptually they're both really great ideas.

If I were to implement a trust system I wouldn't use either system but it would be much closer to WOT than the CA.

[guest]

I think some of you may not fully understand WOT's implementation. Read this entirely: http://www.mywot.com/wiki/FAQ#Common_misconceptions

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "We designed the reputation system to be as fair as possible and very resistant to manipulation." }-
I wish they'd go into more detail.

[guest]

-{ Quote: "I wish they'd go into more detail." }-
Did you read this link (http://www.mywot.com/wiki/FAQ#Common_misconceptions) entirely? There are many details there.

Or, as usual, did you read one paragraph and traced a conclusion? lol

[Hungry Man]

I'm reading about Bayesian inference right now.

-{ Quote: "Usually in reputation systems each rating is weighted equally and reputations are computed as the average of all ratings, which makes them extremely vulnerable to automated attacks. Therefore, we decided early on to value ratings by their merit and use some of the principles of Bayesian inference for combining the ratings into reputations. Without going into details, the system analyzes each user's rating behavior from several aspects in order to determine their reliability. When you start using WOT, your ratings have little weight, but if you keep rating sites consistently, your ratings will be considered more reliable over time. The meritocratic nature of the system makes it far more difficult for spammers to abuse, because bots will have a hard time simulating human behavior over a long period of time.
Note: User reliability is determined using statistical modeling and doesn't depend on the number of ratings or whether you agree with other users. Specifically, it's not related to your activity score or user level, which simply tell you how active you've been." }-
This is very interesting.

Do you happen to know how MS handles reputation to stop malicious spamming of files across VMs or a botnet in order to boost reputation?

[guest]

-{ Quote: "Do you happen to know how MS handles reputation to stop malicious spamming of files across VMs or a botnet in order to boost reputation?" }-
I don't. All I know is that, apart from their own mechanisms to gather the relevant data, they have agreements with these specialized data providers: http://www.microsoft.com/security/resources/providers.aspx

[Hungry Man]

Thanks for the link.

-{ Quote: "s. Without going into details, the system analyzes each user's rating behavior from several aspects in order to determine their reliability" }-
From WOT.

They give some information at least.

[guest]

Well those details would be pretty much incomprehensible for the average user (mathematical formulas, sophisticated algorithms and the like). You can always contact the developers directly for more information at http://www.mywot.com/en/forum

[Hungry Man]

Thanks.

[m00nbl00d]

I specially like... but really like ::)... the following...

-{ Quote: "
But I don't agree with a reputation!

The site's reputation tells you how much other users trust the website. If you disagree with a reputation, it's most likely not because the reputation is being manipulated or there's a conspiracy against the site, but because other people simply don't agree with you. Their experiences may be different from yours, it happens sometimes. You may want to start a new topic on the forum to discuss the site's reputation or if you suspect unusual activity, report it.
" }-

And... what I really... really like... but really like ::)... is the following...

-{ Quote: "
If you disagree with a reputation, it's most likely not because the reputation is being manipulated or there's a conspiracy against the site, but because other people simply don't agree with you. Their experiences may be different from yours, it happens sometimes.
" }-

Yes, people giving a low rating to a website/forum/service just because it's related to religion, sexuality, etc... it's a matter it happens sometimes. It isn't discrimination... Just people that simply don't agree with you.

Maybe I'll start rating websites with blond women with a low rating... I prefer brunettes. :D :thumb:

We need more services like this one. We also need more service like this, not providing an up-to-date domain rating. ::)

Anyway, to each his/her own, right? ;)

[m00nbl00d]

-edit-

But, yes... nothing is perfect. I agree on that. :)

[Hungry Man]

Like I said the implementation and execution of WOT is not ideal, but the concept of a trust based peer-review interests me in the context of heuristics.

[m00nbl00d]

-{ Quote: "Like I said the implementation and execution of WOT is not ideal, but the concept of a trust based peer-review interests me in the context of heuristics." }-

Yes, the concept is good. I'm not arguing against that. But, if there's something that WOT cannot control is discrimination - unless they take away the power from their user base to rate.

They also lack a better system to keep ratings the most up-to-date as possible. As you could see from the example I gave. A rating hasn't been updated for way more than a year. This is simply unbelievable. If they can't keep up, start discarding a few sources again.

They've discarded a trusted source in the past. Do it again... hpHosts out of the equation... if they don't make a compromise of working differently.

-{ Quote: "
malwareurl.com has been eliminated from WOT's Trusted Sources for failure to respond to emails requesting domain removal. This action was performed by WOT Staff: Sami Revision as of 05:07, 30 September 2010
" }-

Source: https://www.mywot.com/wiki/Trusted_Sources

[Hungry Man]

-{ Quote: "Yes, the concept is good. I'm not arguing against that. But, if there's something that WOT cannot control is discrimination - unless they take away the power from their user base to rate." }-
Yeah, I agree. I think the issue with WOT is that some people to say " Idon't like this site, they're dumb" instead of "This site is malicious." It's an issue that I think could very well be inherent to any peer review system of websites but perhaps in a different context wouldn't be there.

-{ Quote: "
They also lack a better system to keep ratings the most up-to-date as possible. As you could see from the example I gave. A rating hasn't been updated for way more than a year. This is simply unbelievable. If they can't keep up, start discarding a few sources again.

They've discarded a trusted source in the past. Do it again... hpHosts out of the equation... if they don't make a compromise of working differently." }-
Yeah, maintenance is difficult. I'd rather have the system not need it but I think that WOT has such grey areas that it's necessary.

[acr1965]

Well FWIW, 1107 positive votes and 94 comments will convince a lot of people that Tipard.com is a spammer. And it's pretty obvious that GAOTD censors such information on its site.

[roger_m]

-{ Quote: "GAOTD, for whatever reason, has apparently decided to censor posts pointing out the hpHosts or WOT rating both on the giveaway page comment section and in the GAOTD user forum." }-

This is hardly surprising given that they are a somewhat "shady" website. As an example go to Google and search for: "site:giveawayoftheday.com" and follow it with some adult phrase and you will see a number of results come up - they using the adult words on their site to increase their ranking in search engines it would seem.


As for WOT, while I don't like it much, at least the website ratings are much more up to date and less biased than at Site Advisor. Personally I have no time or use for their toolbars as I am much more capable of deciding weather or not a site is safe than many of the people who post on both WOT and particularly Site Advisor. Unfortunately there are too many uniformed posters on sites like these who make false claims about websites and software on those websites without providing any proof to back their claims.

[PJC]

-{ Quote: "As for WOT, while I don't like it much, at least the website ratings are
much more up to date and less biased than at Site Advisor." }-
Correct! :thumb:
I really would like to know where Traffic Light (http://trafficlight.bitdefender.com/) stands...
It is more reliable than WOT?

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "This is hardly surprising given that they are a somewhat "shady" website. As an example go to Google and search for: "site:giveawayoftheday.com" and follow it with some adult phrase and you will see a number of results come up - they using the adult words on their site to increase their ranking in search engines it would seem." }-
Looks like they don't hold much back either: rape, incest or both.

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "This is hardly surprising given that they are a somewhat "shady" website. As an example go to Google and search for: "site:giveawayoftheday.com" and follow it with some adult phrase and you will see a number of results come up - they using the adult words on their site to increase their ranking in search engines it would seem.
" }-
Alexa seems to confirm your info as well.

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "Looks like they don't hold much back either: rape, incest or both." }-

Are you seeing this "on the site" or in comments left by visitors or spamming robots? I've noticed they don't appear to police the comments and allow course language to stay up, but I don't know that that means they're intentionally trying to push the site ranking by associating it with p*rn".

[Dark Shadow]

I only use Djohn of trust.If I get hammered with malware then there is no one or nothiong to blame then my dumb ***;D I got a lot of descent free software from GOTD but stiil need to tread carefully.Some things are questionable and sometime just garbage.

[roger_m]

-{ Quote: "Are you seeing this "on the site" or in comments left by visitors or spamming robots? I've noticed they don't appear to police the comments and allow course language to stay up, but I don't know that that means they're intentionally trying to push the site ranking by associating it with p*rn"." }-

It's on actual pages on the site rather than just comments: e.g. ~ Removed URL as per TOS (https://www.wilderssecurity.com/tos.php) ~

[acr1965]

Here's another screenshot. You can check Alexa too. Also, as roger_m suggested earlier you can do a google site search of giveawayoftheday.com by using the search terms site:giveawayoftheday.com then put a space and add key words to see what comes up. You will see a string in the search results. Pretty much pick whatever search terms. It does not appear gaotd holds anything back- father/daughter strings, whatever. Then you can try this on another site url (one you are confident does not use such key words) and try the same type search and nothing will pop up. I think sometimes there are certain programs that are meant to block pron and those programs appear on gaotd in the results. You have to look beyond those.

[MysteryFCM]

Just an FYI, tipard.com was supposed to have had its classification downgraded to the MMT classification, this has now been corrected. The cause of this is;

hxxp://www.tipard.com/download/registry-cleaner.exe

[m00nbl00d]

Another GiveAwayOfTheDay trick to get more people to visit them? It seems so.

Open this link (it's safe): -https://ixquick.com/do/metasearch.pl?q=AVG+Quick+ThreatScan

You'll see the first hit is for GiveAwayOfTheDay.

AVG Quick ThreatScan has never seen the light of the day ever since it was announced by AVG at their forums. -http://forums.avg.com/us-en/avg-forums?sec=thread&act=show&id=173583

How could GAOTD have a version 3, if there never was a version 1, at all? ;D

And, notice what GAOTD says:

-{ Quote: "
AVG Quick ThreatScan 3.0
The requested application is no longer listed in our database. We have generated a list of related applications that you may be able to use for the same intended purpose. You can see the said list below.
" }-

Really? No longer? Has it ever been? :thumbd: