Do you use search results security tool?

Discussion in 'polls' started by acr1965, Jul 15, 2007.

?

Which free search engine results rating tool(s) do you use?

  1. SiteAdvisor

    13 vote(s)
    24.1%
  2. TrendProtect

    1 vote(s)
    1.9%
  3. Trustwatch

    1 vote(s)
    1.9%
  4. LinkScanner Lite

    3 vote(s)
    5.6%
  5. Scandoo

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Finjan

    3 vote(s)
    5.6%
  7. Two or more (vote for each above and please post which)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Other (please post which)

    1 vote(s)
    1.9%
  9. None

    36 vote(s)
    66.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    There seem to be a limited number of free tools to display ratings for links in search engine results. Some of these scan the prospective sites in real time monitoring for possible malicious content. While others seem to run results through a ratings system composed of user and/or company statistics and feedback. I have also noticed that some internet users combine these tools to get both a realtime and historic reading.

    There are paid counterparts to many of these free programs (Link Scanner Pro, SiteAdvisor Plus, etc). If you use one of the paid programs please make a post about it. But the poll is just for the free programs. Also, if there is a free program you use which is not listed please make a post about it.

    Thanks
     
  2. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    I don't use anything like that anymore. I used to but usually they just ended up pissing me off too much with false alerts and other problems. These days i just rely on myself to browse safely, after surfing for many years i'm confident enough in my own abilities.
     
  3. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    In the past I used SiteAdvisor for a lil while, but I didnt like its ratings and it conflicted with Organize Status Bar (extension) as well.

    I really like LinkScanner Pro but I dont feel liking buying it. I would consider LinkScanner Lite but I like the realtime protection of the Pro version.

    Thus I use none.
     
  4. Riverrun

    Riverrun Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Posts:
    376
    Location:
    ~
    Linkscanner has saved my bacon on more than one occasion. I don't have it loaded on my PC because it doesn't support K-Melon and Opera, but i've bookmarked the site and use their online facilities to check things out.
     
  5. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,

    Absolutely useless. With 10 billion sites out there, there's no way to possibly filter even 1% properly. What more, I don't need anyone telling me what sites to go, where to go, or let them decide how good or bad they are for me.

    Answer: none.

    Mrk
     
  6. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    I disagree. Running LinkScanner Pro and very happy with it. LS has saved my butt more them once. Started when it was SocketShield went to LS Beta,now with pro.
     
  7. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,
    I believe we are stating personal opinions here...
    As to the usefulness of a program, how exactly did it save your butt?
    Mrk
     
  8. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408

    I would call stoping an exploit tring to drop a trojan on my pc saving my butt.
    one example.
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=179003
     
  9. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,

    How do you know it's a trojan? Did you download the file and examine it? Did you upload it to Jotti or VT to check it's not a FP?

    Second, an exploit dropping a trojan is something that only happens in IE. So it has nothing to do with sites. If you visited the same site without any link scanning software, you'd never even know a potential exploit / malware is there.

    So, how exactly did the link scanning software stop an exploit? Did it inform you there's something bad on the site - and you chose not to go there? Or did you go to a site and it stopped an exploit - unlikely, link scanners are neither HIPS nor AVs. Or did it use a database, in which this site might have been included?

    Either way, did you hack the file to see if it's really malware? Did you send it to an security lab for testing?

    Mrk
     
  10. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    Did you read the entire thread?
    Apprently not,sence I was not the only one to have come it contact with this.
    I'm not going to sit here and and debate this.
    It works.
    I use it,you don't.
    End of story.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2007
  11. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,

    I did read the whole thread. And was not impressed with:
    "Shoot a bullet into your head then see what helmet can scoop your brains best."

    By the way, it's not the end of story. You claim something that you cannot support with evidence or a valid strategy - spreading fear never does good.

    To convince me that link scanners work, you need to show me how a user can get infected across a broad range of browsers by visiting a broad range of supposedly innocent sites - and that they would be actively saved by a link scanning software.

    For this, you would also have to show me that the scanned "dangerous" links indeed carry the required payload and that this payload can be remotely triggered and executed on one's pc, without user interaction. And again, we're talking about normal browsers.

    Mrk
     
  12. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    I'm sorry,i thought a screen shot of the blocked exploit would help you understand that it helped me. From your posts nothing will change your mind and i'm not tring to do that. I made my first post on this thread because the OP asked a questian and I answered it. I'm sorry it's not good enough for you.
    So Mrkvonic have a nice day and safe surfing to you. But then again you use firefox so as you have stated in another posting nothing can infect you. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=180096
    Again have a nice day.
     
  13. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    I haven't used them.
    Probably won't either.
     
  14. Meriadoc

    Meriadoc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Posts:
    2,642
    Location:
    Cymru
    I see the point in rating but does it work?

    Its futile to try and rate the whole WWW. Apart from the amount of sites, ones set up to attack you usually disappear after a short while or an 'ok' site may have changed after the rating. A behavior-based not installed would be desirable in my opinion.
     
  15. herbalist

    herbalist Guest

    I was considering using one like Site Advisor but decided it wouldn't be worthwhile. When you get down to it, such apps are just another type of definition based security-ware, with all the same problems plus a few more. If a link scanner recognizes a specific exploit or malware, your AV probably does too. As Mrkvonic noted, it's impossible to check even a small percentage of the existing sites. Even if it were possible to check them all, a database with that info would be incredibly huge and slow working. As for someone else "rating" sites, adware or malware, I had more than enough of that back when I used anti-spyware software. I'll decide for myself what is and isn't acceptable.

    Much of the malicious code in circulation has no effect on my old system. Even browser exploits will often fail to succeed when the underlying operating system isn't the expected target. It doesn't matter how big of a hole a malware writer finds in an app if the wrong payload is used. It's almost comical to watch a drive-by site try to rootkit my 98 box. The error messages can get pretty strange.

    For me, this type of security tool would be a steady diet of false alarms for code I don't have to worry about. As for the remaining malicious code that will attack a 98 box, I'll trust my regular defenses to handle it.
    Rick
     
  16. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,633
    Location:
    UK
    I've never used any of these services, but suspect the accuracy of each is down to what they already know or have in their database.

    Looking at some of the domains mentioned over at Hosts News, I did a quick test with mediaprovider.info as mentioned in this article.

    SiteAdvisor flags this as containing downloads some consider harmful. (Result)

    Scandoo recommends to use caution. (Result)

    Finjan reports "requested URL was analyzed and found legitimate". (Can't retrieve results URL for this one, sorry.)

    TrustWatch gives a different URL in its results, but marks it as verified safe. (Result)

    LinkScanner Online didn't find any exploits at that URL. (Result)

    I didn't test TrendProtect as there doesn't seem to be an online check as they only offer a browser plug-in.

    I don't know if the program versions of those online scanners that returned safe results yield better returns. Maybe those that use them can verify this?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2007
  17. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I sometimes use Site Advisor's site to sometimes check unknown for me sites but I don't like their ratings , too .
     
  18. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    As far as SiteAdvisor, I used to run it but didn't really like it running all the time. The info about a site if helpful and interesting, especially if I am considering whether to download something from that site. I do not use the SA toolbar but instead use a plug-in button for IE7 which works real well. I just click it if I want to check the SA ratings of any page I am currently viewing. That way SA is not running all the time in the background or slowing down my internet browsing. For checking out search engine results, Finjan has been working very well.

    http://www.iecustomizer.com/
     
  19. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    I read the thread. You basically have to go to the site, then decide to download it for no reason. then you have to run it right?

    I didn't try it, so I might be missing something.
     
  20. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,010
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Nope, they are not my cup of tea, don´t like them at all, most of them are slow and can´t even label a site, and I don´t need no baby sitter. Also, these services might check all the sites you visit, not a very big deal, but still I don´t like it. :rolleyes:
     
  21. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    Linkscanner pro is the only one worth it. IMHO.
     
  22. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    I only went to the infected site. Did not click on anything to download.LSP stoped an exploit tring to drop a trojan on my pc. It is LinkScanner Pro i'm referring to,not the free version. These two links from their website can explain how LSP protects better then I can. I did find it can conflict with NOD32.

    I'm not saying its perfect,not by a long shot.Nothing is.A layered defense,IMO is the best way to go and LSP is just part of of mine.

    How LinkScanner Works
    Pro Vs Lite

    I agree. The free ones offered just don't offer that much.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2007
  23. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    Actually lonewolf the way i understand it, even if you were patched and the exploit wouldn't work (most likely in this case) , linkscanner pro would report it as being blocked.
     
  24. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,633
    Location:
    UK
    What about my example in post #16? In that particular case, LinkScanner Online did not classify the site I tested as dangerous, but neither did Finjan and TrustWatch.

    Do users of LinkScanner Pro see different results?

    If not, can such URLs be submitted for inclusion?
     
  25. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    Here's why i stress the need to understand what each tool does instead of assuming they are all the same.

    LinkScanner does exploits, the site you checks hosts a dodgy program true. But the user has to download it himself and choose to run it.... no exploit in use there, so LinkScanner is off the hook.

    Tools like siteadvisor are actually doing a antivirus scan of the programs offered downloaded (but not dynamically unfortunately) so it is within their province to alarm.

    But honestly, if you are worried about dodgy programs hosted on sites, you could simply download the program then check it with virustotal or your own scanner before running.. does the same thing really. Or even use the handly drweb link scanner.....

    LinkScanner goes more for exploit mechanisms that force unwanted downloads but does not care if a site hosts spyware but relies on you to download and run it yourself. Also Linkscanner free actually does a realtime scan! when you submit the url it's actually checks it now. Compare to siteadvisor whose report might be months old.

    But honestly I don't really recommend LinkScanner free or pro either.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.