Discussion in 'polls' started by carat, Sep 29, 2012.
What is your favourite "Linkscanner" in 2012?
The one that comes with my setup.................BitDefender Traffic Light. WOT is a joke and souly based upon people opinions and not true facts. Most WOT ratings are moron based. Just cause a site asks you for your email doesn't mean its bad.
None... on IE i just use Sandboxie and Fanboy TPL's.
I'd feel naked without WOT.
I use none and have never tried any.
Sorry but i cannot agree with you on your rash judgement of WOT.
The majority of any malicious domains i come across have been effectively blocked by WOT.
Also i notice you use BDTL.which in itself has been proven to be rather unreliable as of late.
Seriously Have you ever read the comments of the WOT ratings? Some of the people are morons. Too me a site advisor should only be flagged as red if there is a high chance of malicious content in that site. Like WOT rates screensaver.com red. There is nothing malicious on that site or there downloads.
Bitdefender and Norton rate it good. I have a lot more faith in a professional companies rating then some joe blow who doesn't even know how to use a pc's opinion.
never tried one
What is and isn't a "LinkScanner"? The term and some of those things mentioned makes me think of something that scans a page and displays "reputation" type information next to anchors so the user can get a feel for the "safety" of what lies behind those links. This could be called a "look ahead checker". That, alone, may be useful but doesn't seem very reliable. Links and destinations can be changed on the fly, people can enter sites via links, menus, etc in other applications, and people can overlook a warning icon in their haste. So in order to have actual protection, you still need a browser request checker of some sort. Something that warns you whether the target (URL) of the request is "safe" enough to allow that request to go through. This could be called an "on demand checker".
If by "LinkScanner" the OP is focused on those solutions that provide "look ahead checking", there would be one set of solutions. If the OP is focused on, or is willing to include, those solutions that provide just "on demand checking", there is a different set of solutions.
None. I usually rely on Chrome (it has stopped several times loading pages warning that the website is suspicious) and Sandboxie which would safely contain malware within its sandbox.
I do not use one. I also have to agree 100% with Aventador regarding WOT.
Its called URL Void.Com actually its a combo platter..
I unchecked the chrome malware filtering and use the M86 and BDTL Chrome Extensions along with the Panda APDA..
Why uncheck Chromes malware filtering? I have found it extremely effective.
Well... both WOT and Avira are wrong.
I didnt know Avira had a link scanner built in. Or a site advisor.
It's the scanner... the file scanner.
Do your home work.
Lol.................My homework has been done for months. This thread is about linkscanners and or site advisors.
FYI...............The file scanner does not block malicious sites. A file scanner blocks malicious files. Hence the name.
Homework is one word Mr.Educated
oops... MBAM doesn't like it as well... maybe WOT has something to say...
Doesn't like what? No one here ever mentioned PUPS. I provided a link to a web site. A PUP is NOT dangerous. What did you download a toobar? Dont make me laugh Mr.Educated. Toolbars are not malicious. Never have been. Got a VT link? Care to share exactly what was so malicious. Adware/toolbars are NOT types of malicious content. Also Avira has been known to have a very high false positive rate. Just cause a piece of software installs a toolbar does not mean its malicious. Toolbars are also installed by click happy morons. Next,next,next!
FYI.................Stick to the topic at hand which is "link scanners". Thanks.
Now that BitDefender solved the issue with TrafficLight, I can say I like it again.
Other than that, I used to like AVG LinkScanner Surf-Shield exploit protection, and still like, but I dislike the current UI... It actually makes my eyes hurt when trying to read info on the dark GUI.
The link that sucks with AVG is that you must use there search engine. Any other link scanner or site advisor I have used incorporates all search engines.
You're right about that. But, what you're referring to, is their Search-Shield component, which ceased to exist, and that AVG users now need to use their own search engine to use that protection. To be honest, Search-Shield search engine ratings were never that great... very poor results. Maybe that's the reason why they dropped it. I actually mentioned it sometime ago in another thread.
I'm talking about the anti-exploits component, which is still available. Their new AVG LinkScanner 2013 user interface is Metro style and way too much dark to be readable by me... I can't even imagine how someone can come up with pretty much a monochromatic GUI.
Another thing I dislike with AVG now, is that, their AVG Do Not Track component is only available if users install the toolbar.
Separate names with a comma.