Do you use search results security tool?

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Hello,
I believe we are stating personal opinions here...
As to the usefulness of a program, how exactly did it save your butt?
Mrk

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

I haven't used them.
Probably won't either.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

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/

 

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.

 

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.

 

Linkscanner pro is the only one worth it. IMHO.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.