WOT works or not works

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Sampei Nihira, Sep 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sampei Nihira

    Sampei Nihira Registered Member

    An example of action and inaction of WOT:

    Chromex.JPG

    FF1x.JPG

    WOT works in different ways inside browsers.
    An example Pale Moon (Firefox) and Comodo Dragon (Chrome).
    Sorry my bad English !!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2013
  2. guest

    guest Guest

    You gotta be surprised when you see WOT gives a green rating for a warez website while that dang site gave you a malware infection in the past. Hmm, WOT... one of the worst failure in the history. :rolleyes:
     
  3. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    I don't understand. The images above show both giving warnings to the same site, right?
     
  4. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Your point of view on WOT is incorrect.
     
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    It doesn't show popup in Dragon. Possibly due to the engine.

    Or it might be yours... ;)
     
  6. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    I did a search today for a medicare advantage company, search results on one company had a WOT yellow circle, didn't think that was too big a deal so I clicked it - Opera cut the connection straight away and Avast popped up a Trojan Horse has been blocked. This should have been a WOT red circle instead of a yellow one. This was on Google search, bty.
     
  7. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    No, that site just monitors other sites that hosts anything until they're reported.

    WOT isn't supposed to block sites, but warns instead. It works fine with the usual phishing and downloads you have to execute. Drive-by exploits never last and are rarer to encounter than lottery winners in my opinion.

    WOT has its uses, but you really have to watch out for false positives, because it's very public opinion based (with lots of bots).
     
  8. guest

    guest Guest

    What about malicious scripts? Now I know it might be a false positive. But still, warez sites shouldn't get "green" for reliability or trustworthy for example, regardless if the site contains malicious scripts/downloads/ads or not. The only most accurate category WOT could give is child safety (adult contents is the most effective) which I mostly ignore.
     
  9. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Malicious scripts won't get rated green (unless recently hacked), that's for sure. Maybe if the general consensus of piracy changes, but until then it's going to stay like this unless the site is at least a scam or somehow dissatisfactory.
     
  10. Esse

    Esse Registered Member

  11. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    WOT blocks political parties even if there's no malware. I don't like dictatorship. :gack:
     
  12. vojta

    vojta Registered Member

  13. vojta

    vojta Registered Member

    That's the problem, followers of rival parties spam the rating system to destroy the other party's reputation.

    Or you can always find in the WOT comments religious trolls telling you that a certain adult site is full of malware even if that's not true.
     
  14. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Religious sites actually are actually more likely to be voted red than adult sites, amongst what you guys already mentioned and more.

    Which is why I said WOT is very opinion-based, although they claim otherwise. Never trust it as your only source. I would've dumped it a long time ago if it wasn't effective at detecting malicious sites.
     
  15. 0strodamus

    0strodamus Registered Member

    As they should be! +1 WOT :thumb:
     
  16. JohnBurns

    JohnBurns Registered Member

    :thumb: Right on, Ostrodamus!
     
  17. guest

    guest Guest

    And in what sense flagging religious sites as red has anything to do with protecting your computer security or privacy? o_O
     
  18. Sampei Nihira

    Sampei Nihira Registered Member

    WOT in Chrome has inferior performance compared to Firefox,same Ghostery.
     
  19. guest

    guest Guest

    Adblock Plus also doesn't work very well here.

    I think it's not only Chrome but also other Chromium-based browsers. There was a problem in the past with Chromium-based browsers extensions. I thought it has been solved.
     
  20. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    It's because Google limits the how much of the browser extensions can affect and isolates them in different sandboxes, unlike Mozilla which basically gives free reign. In the early days, extensions had little more power than userscripts, but now more Chrome API's are open allowing powerful extensions like ScriptSafe to exist.

    Performance aside, everything works fine for me even on my slow netbook (haven't compared Firefox post version 17, which was slower).
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2013
  21. ance

    ance formerly: fmon

    That's why I uninstalled WOT years ago. It makes no sense at all. :)
     
  22. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    WOT classifies sites under a mix of criteria, security/privacy is only part of the mix.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Sep 27, 2013
  23. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    continuing
     

    Attached Files:

  24. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    Yes it does, it makes a lot of sense.
    I've been using it for 4 years and can't recomended it highly enough. It's not perfect, of course; it's only a very efficent security tool.
     
  25. cdnsempre

    cdnsempre Registered Member

    Try extension TRAFFIC LIGHT on your browser.
    It´s better than WOT.
    Presents itself as a green traffic light is yellow caution and red safe not click.
    Just add the options of extensions in your browser crhome, Opera or Firefox v.24.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice