WOT and TrafficLight together

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Page42, Sep 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Web of Trust and TrafficLight running together.
    Overkill?
    Good complement for one another?
    Both are add-ons, or extensions.
    I'm interested in what my Wilders brethren have to say.
    :)
     
  2. chinook9

    chinook9 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Posts:
    439
    Its not overkill but you will find that TrafficLight will give a green light to many sites that WOT gives a red light. If you believe in the WOT ratings then TrafficLight doesn't add much, however, I liked having both. I quit using TrafficLight because it won't work with NoScript and I decided to stay with NoScript.
     
  3. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    I have used both together w/o any conflicts. WOT good at site ratings but weak at new malicious sites while TL fills that gap.
     
  4. TigerRaptorFX

    TigerRaptorFX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Posts:
    58
    What you have is far from over kill.
     
  5. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Thanks for the replies.
    These two run nicely together, with no performance hits that I can determine.
    I think, as was pointed out, one might pick up where the other leaves off.
    Pretty cool free tools, the way I see it.
    :thumb:
     
  6. justenough

    justenough Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,509
    Sounds good. I'll add TL now, see if I get any slowdown.

    edit: working fine so far, might be a microsecond difference, going to keep it as a FF add-on
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2011
  7. LODBROK

    LODBROK Guest

    WOT =Web Of idioTs
     
  8. sg09

    sg09 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Posts:
    2,713
    Location:
    Kolkata, India
    :thumbd::thumbd:
     
  9. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Acronymic license? :ouch:
     
  10. ExtremeGamerBR

    ExtremeGamerBR Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Posts:
    1,115
    Do you use Sandboxie that will limit/block anything that exploits the browser. You have Vipre analyzing everything it touches your computer. You have the MBAM Pro which has an excellent web filter. I believe that only the trafficlight or WOT would be enough. :thumb:
     
  11. cheater87

    cheater87 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Posts:
    3,125
    Location:
    Pennsylvania.
    Using both here and no slowdown/problems.
     
  12. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Complements (and different technologies), but watch out for false positives (especially WOT)
     
  13. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    What do you do to determine false positives with WOT, J_L?
     
  14. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    It being the only one rating red. No comments, outdated, or just plain wrong ones. No malicious behaviour detected by any other source or myself. Good reputation outside of WOT spammers.
     
  15. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    +1 :thumb:
    Sandboxie, Vipre & MBAM Pro are already enough...;)
     
  16. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    MBAM web filter is nothing but IP blocking, and judging by what many say and report, it's full of false positives, because MBAM blocks by IP and not domain name.

    Sandboxie will do nothing against phishing and fraudulent websites.

    That said, I prefer TrafficLight. I just wish that PhishTank (the same guys behind OpenDNS) would create browser extensions (I'm thinking about Chromium lol) that would fetch warnings from their database. :D

    I'd rather use such PhishTank extension over WOT.
     
  17. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,829
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    Hi m00nbl00d,

    But WOT does use listings of phishing sites from PhishTank (though their primary source of knowledge is ratings from users).
     
  18. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    I know that. I just meant that I'd rather use a PhishTank extension over WOT.

    I don't care about what WOT other partners say or what their users say. I trust the service PhishTank, the same way I trust Open DNS. I don't personally use Open DNS, because I prefer malicious domain blocking from Norton DNS.

    So, an extension from the PhishTank folks would be welcome, IMHO.
     
  19. justenough

    justenough Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Posts:
    1,509
    I took TrafficLight off. It seemed okay, except for that little tab dealie that they thought should always hang down into the main browser window.
     
  20. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,029
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Regardless of the possible limitations or possible problems with WOT it is still a pretty good extension. It's saved my bacon a few times over the couple of years I have used it. I haven't quite lost faith in it yet.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.