Website security/safety markers

Can I ask everybody for their opinions on website security/safety markers.

Such markers can be installed free from several sources and attempt to protect the user from entering dangerous or doubtful websites by displaying a marker against all search output and rating them "the Good, the Bad and the Ugly".

I use AVG free and THEY include a website marker system. It seems to work OK and as AVG also include Anti-virus, Anti-spyware, a Link Scanner and a Resident Shield, it is an extra safe convenience to see those markers as a guide when surfing. For if they let you down, then the AVG security steps in and blocks or quarantines the offender.

I also use WOT - Web of Trust, which I find most useful. You can even put your own rating against any website if you wish. Mind you, user ratings like this can be less than useless considering the vast field of social interpretations the brain is capable of.

All in all, if these marker systems help the ordinary user, then no harm done.
I always consider the Gaussian curve when dealing with statistical matters and if these markers help all users between a standard deviation of -3 to +1 accounting for 82% of users, then OK it is worth having them.

Your opinions please - thank you
John Bull

 

Hi!
I think a user based service where you get suggestions on which sites are malicious and which aren't is a good thing. Just don't take anything for granted. It's there to give you a good idea (based on other members decisions) about the status of the sites rated, but just like you say - it can never be a guarantee. I am quite new to using WOT myself, and I think it's a really good concept.

Besides I would rather have a service where several ppls opinion leads to a rating than just having one company choose what sites are good. And it only guides you. You make the final decision.

regards
T

 

I have recently dumped WOT - just as a mini test to see how helpful to me it really is. I have to say ... I am kinda lost without it. I do a lot of purchasing online, so it really does feel like I'm surfing blind at the moment.

I really think the community rating of sites works. I always sift through the user reviews at places like Amazon before I buy, and that is what I miss as a consumer online. I am missing that "Forewarned is forearmed" feeling.

 

I have used such stuffs for like one hour and then dumped! Yes these are indeed quite effective against a malicious/spam/fraud host known for some days but against 0-day exploits, they are not so good in my opinion. MBAM's IP Protection and firefox with checking google is far more preffered to me.

 

Those who have replied, my sincere thanks for your views.

The trouble with website safety icons is that they appear to be more concerned with content than malware, viral, privacy and intrusive threats.

This is their downfall. How on earth can markers be fixed against global websites by individuals on the grounds of personal ethics ? The world is full of Saints and Sinners, it is impossible. The righteous Saints always win with concepts like these and thus freedom of choice and expression for the rest of humanity is damned by the Saintly and Godly.

If markers ARE to be used, then site content should be disregarded and only the privacy/ intrusive risk or factual threat considered in the marking.

Otherwise we merely have a Sunday School sticker which protects the feeble-minded and children against the big-bad world of Satan and Evil, leaving the rest of us in limboland.

So long as the site poses NO contamination threats, it does not matter what the content is - from pipe bombs and racial hatred etc. to hard porn - the Internet is an entire Universe of human freedom - you either like it, leave it alone or you lump it. BUT DON`T TRY TO CONTROL IT !
John Bull