SiteAdvisor ratings may be 1 year out-of-date

Mark Joseph Edwards from Winows Secrets

Full Story

 

Not sure what to think here really. It could be a legit article, or it could be one of those "I hate this software, but I like THIS (and only this) software" "diss" blogs. Why didn't he include Browser Defender, LinkScanner, or something besides just WOT? Regardless, it wouldn't shock me in the least if the ratings were that far out of date. Relying on consumer opinions is a poor way to counter security threats (which is a reason I don't like "whitelisting" of files based on consumer feedback either).

I don't trust Google's database either. Some of my favorite forums are still giving warnings they are bad even though the threat was for maybe an hour and was gone and not seen again.

 

If that article should be taken serious, I can't say. Didn't read it, at all.

What I will say, is that, based on search I made sometime ago, ZDNet mentions that there are discrepancies between both free and paid McAfee SiteAdvisor. While the paid version rates something red, the free one rates green, and vice-verse.

If the free and paid databases differ for 1 year, no idea.

MyWOT databases are kept on fast pace, as far as I know.

LinkScanner, does not base on databases, rather on real time checking.

Browser Defender, for what I could check, also works with databases. But, a user, in one other thread, mentioned it checks real-time.

 

I wouldn't take any information you saw about free vs paid Siteadvisor real seriously either. That would be about as unethical as you could get if they truly did that.

 

Linkscanner does do a data base check, along with a realtime check of software exploits, and "Other factors involving the domain name, its registration, IP address and url structure that contribute to identifying fraudulent web sites.".

Re: Browser Defender, their website says it, as well, does both blacklist and realtime checks. Never tried this one though.

 

Yes, you're right. I totally disregarded it. Thanks.

 

link scanners, link checkers, site advisors....they are all snake oil.

There is no way for any link checker to determine what content is displayed to it because this is determined on the server side....and any malicious server could very easily block, reroute or display bengin pages to "link scanners" based on geolocation, ip, browser referrer, browser/linkscanner identifier, os or any number of other indicators, which makes link scanning completely pointless and flawed....the malicious server can display a beingin page for the scanner but when a real user hits the page give them a full load of malware.

 

Not sure i follow you. You're saying malware writers know linkscanners' IP address, and linkscanner has built a new browser? I think they analyze it both on their servers prior to visit, and while you visit with your copy.

I could be wrong though, but you sure dismissed it quickly.

 

What you say is correct. I've seen in some situations, link checkers report something green, for the reasons you mentioned. But, should it target the user with exploits, etc... Then it will be stopped, if the tool stops real time.

I know, for a fact, LinkScanner Pro will.

I do a lot of research, and sometimes, in sites I've never been. It happened one time to access one domain rated green by LinkScanner Pro. As soon as I clicked it, the access was blocked.

I'm not saying it will always block in such situations. I truly can't say. But, such tools are not useless.

 

I meant that if it doesn't scan in "real time" and only provides those green tick thingies above links/search results to show you if what you are clicking on is "safe" then it will not work.

However if the scanning is done in real time.....then it still has some useful purpose (much like av which scan www traffic etc, as they can see the actual content being given to the user as it comes in)

 

Yes, the whole purpose of LS is being a security program, not SiteAdvisor hosts file