why opera blacklisted?

What is this?

Why I do not see an option to ignore it? What SO dangerous is on this server, linked from Opera auto update?

 

Please PM me the official Opera website that points to that link.

 

It was automatic update that linked to that page.

Then, I have tried going to http://www.opera.com/ and clicking the green "Free Download button" and after about 10 retries, got directed to that link again.

Hope this helps. Sorry but I don't know any website that would always point to that link.

P.S. Why there is no obvious way to get around that "Access denied" message? I have not elected NOD to deny me anything. More, if it is "potentially" dangerous, so why I cannot download file and then check if it contains viruses or not??
Again the same story as with "potentially" viruses?

If there is any doubt, it is not an attempt to be offensive, but to point to potentially wrong action, if potential threat is found.

P.P.S. If downloading file, is there any other potential threat than to download a virus?

Thanks.

 

Please try to use a different mirror from the list. We will look into the issue.

 

That address may be dodgy
I do not get directed there.

edit: .bs = Bahamas - Opera?

edit(2): something's wrong with Opera's website, scripts not running right etc.

 

Host file infection?

 

For additional info, I have since downloaded file from that page after disabling NOD, and also from different mirror. MD5 for both files are the same. Scanning with NOD32 also does not reveal anything.

Please note that message is not 'threat found' but 'page is on the list'. If there is a list, must be also some reason for such blacklisting already.
What list? Where is a description of it, and how does it work, is it built-in or somewhere else? How often is it updated, and where I can see the update status?

Thanks.

 

opera.internet.bs resolves to 58.65.236.82, which is part of HostFresh, a well-known source of malware.

 

Proactive Services
Yup, thats what I was getting at.

Opera have just posted the fact that they have been hit by a spamming attack (massive) +, I guess, whatever else the automated bot/swarm delivered

Good Eset, nice Eset, I do pay for your services.

David

 

May I ask, you pay for what exactly - for Internet censorship?

I believe that parents have rights to deny their under-aged children access to specific sites.
If Eset has such rights too, I would like to be informed, what exactly are those rights and how Eset obtained them.

 

Oh give me a break

With that logic and\or mind set every Host file maker, IE Restricted Site entry, Cookie URL....etc would fall into that category. Those that use those type protections, similar to this Eset protection being discussed, make their personal choice either to use the protection or decline the detection.

 

You are abusing the word "censor". None of these definitions relate to a process's desired behaviour stopping you from putting yourself in harm.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor

1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3. an adverse critic;
4. (in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5. (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.
–verb (used with object)
6. to examine and act upon as a censor.
7. to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor.

 

Nice, again one great "linguist". But - I did not use word "censor" .

On the other hand - censorship - a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring; censoring - : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable (Merriam Webster).

That would be - warning about "potentially dangerous content", NOT "Denying access" (censorship).
Note that in specific case there was no real threat, only imaginary, unnamed "potentially dangerous content".

Please also note that attempt to ignore that "desired behaviour" of stopping me from putting myself in non-existent (in that specific case) harm, would put myself under real risk, because it would require to disable protection (if I didn't go to advanced settings, something normal user cannot be expected to do).

Finally, I repeat my question again. I cannot find any "list of websites with potentially dangerous content", or even a note that such "list" would be used during scanning. There is "blocked addresses" list, which is empty. So, where is this "list"?

I have no objection to detection which I can decline, if necessary. Sorry if I missed something, but I did not notice how to decline this one. This is what I am asking - knowing that there is potentially dangerous content on that site, I DO NOT WANT TO DISABLE ANYTHING, just download that file with all protections on! How can I do that?

Thanks.

 

I'd rather have a black list and be protected than rely purely on http detection.