Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    I am trying to get some idea of how aggressive current malware protection is. Tonight I ran a search that gave me the most useful Word tutorial site I have seen for some time, and after getting solid information from an assortment of pages a ferocious Web of Protection screen flashed on, preventing me from even reading it. Some time ago Kaspersky flagged a small (dozen or so) collection of lullabies because of a database. I don't know whether it meant that they were in a database or they were putting me into a database.

    I don't even recall opting into Web of Protection, which appears to be some sort of online protection, and I think I have Parental Control turned off in Kaspersky but I get it anyway. Are these people using heuristics (Recipester is the name of the site I was getting such great data from, and I was going to link it to a post in the Lounge) or do they have hard data that there is a genuine risk?

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    I have never heard of Web of Protection. I do use, as many others do, Web of Trust (WOT). I would be suspect of Web of Protection. Even WOT allows me to choose to go to a suspect site if I wish. It first informs me of a suspect site. When I try to search for Web Of Protection I get this site.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  3. #3
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Myers View Post
    I have never heard of Web of Protection. I do use, as many others do, Web of Trust (WOT). I would be suspect of Web of Protection. Even WOT allows me to choose to go to a suspect site if I wish. It first informs me of a suspect site. When I try to search for Web Of Protection I get this site.
    Yes, it was WOT; I had the name wrong. (I googled it with correct name after encountering it, but had the name wrong in the post.) I'll putter about to see if I can get a better idea of what the astounding screen was for, but I didn't know whether to start scanning the machine with every malware detector in the book or what to do. I do know that there is a scam people use to intentionally get a legitimate site blacklisted, although in this case the name of the site might be sufficient to trigger a warning. The thing that shocked me was the shock value of the WOT screen, which was enough to blow you off your chair, and I think it excessive in an application that will inevitably give false positives.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator jscher2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, USA
    Posts
    23,112
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 93 Times in 89 Posts
    I would guess that WOT has a list of URLs that it proactively blocks based on reports that the site in the past was an attack site, phishing site, or distributed malware. Unless you passed through the warning screen, you probably did not get to the dangerous goods.

    Please note that malware happens to good sites with weak security. Although we like to base our trust on good brand and past experience, those are exactly the sites that cybercriminals most want to exploit. Accordingly, because you never know when a site has been breached, I take the proactive warnings seriously.

  5. #5
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Marietta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Web of Trust (WOT) is NOT just about malware. WOT often warns me about web sites that send out lots of spam / junk mail. WOT is trying to warn you that the web site will mis-use your email address - maybe sell it to spammers.
    Rick Groszkiewicz
    Life is too short to drink bad wine (or bad coffee!)

  6. #6
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Calif
    Posts
    182
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
    Hi Peter :

    To "confirm" any WOT "Warning", would recommend using the M86
    Security FREE URL Analysis Tool, available at
    http://www.m86security.com/resources/url-analysis.asp and/or
    the FREE Exploit Prevention Labs Online Web Safety Scan at
    http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/default.aspx
    For the BEST in what counts in Life :

    http://www.ctftoronto.com

  7. #7
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,450
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin Taylor View Post
    Hi Peter :

    To "confirm" any WOT "Warning", would recommend using the M86
    Security FREE URL Analysis Tool, available at
    http://www.m86securi...rl-analysis.asp and/or
    the FREE Exploit Prevention Labs Online Web Safety Scan at
    http://linkscanner.e...er/default.aspx
    These are new to me and they both look like dandy links.

    As for spam, both Outlkook and Kasperski seem to do a fine job of filtering it or warning you, at least until it is time to renew your Kasperski subscription, at which point the floodgates open, and I am reminded every time I so much as open an application that my Kasperski subscription is about to expire. They flag all spam but their own, it seems, and this time around one of my two subscriptions will be allowed to expire. They are their own worst enemies in that department.

    As for WOT it is the visual violence of the warning screen that I object to. Surely there is no need to give you such a jolt as to make you think your computer has been hijacked already and is about to go up in a puff of smoke.

  8. #8
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by peterg View Post
    As for WOT it is the visual violence of the warning screen that I object to. Surely there is no need to give you such a jolt as to make you think your computer has been hijacked already and is about to go up in a puff of smoke.
    I believe this warning has evolved over time. The average person tends to ignore warnings until asaulted by the warning. I tend to stay away from sites that pop up the WOT warning, so consequently do not see it a lot, and am very happy when it jolts me into awarness. Sometimes when a person starts a lot of surfing you get into a state (it used to be called velocitized when driving) that you do need to be jolted to come back to total awareness. The links Robin provided seem to be good means to check on sites, but in this case you would already need the site and plug it in to get a warning. This will not work for the surfer who hits upon an untrustworthy site by accident while doing their surfing.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  9. #9
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    WOT (Web of Trust) was very useful when a S_C_A_M email was enticing me to upgrade my Skype program. The address looked legit but WOT saved me!

    The email purported to be from Skype Support and was entitled "Download New Skype VoIP Software 2011 - More Free Talks"
    After a bit of sales talk a link was given:- S-C-A-M Site BEWARE this is a S-C-A-M SITE. DO NOT Download anything from it!

    So, WOT with its Scare Tactics certainly saved me!!!

    BTW, I tried to advise Skype but first it is very hard to find an email address, and even then they showed little interest in the S-C-A-M.

  10. #10
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Posts
    58
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rgrosz View Post
    Web of Trust (WOT) is NOT just about malware. WOT often warns me about web sites that send out lots of spam / junk mail. WOT is trying to warn you that the web site will mis-use your email address - maybe sell it to spammers.
    The point that I miss in this discussion is the way the WOT database is filled and by who.
    Years ago when WOT was launched I enthusiastic subscribed to it. But after a year I have abandoned it.
    WOT works (or worked ?? I don't know) like Wiki, everybody is giving his/her opinion and most votes count. Many users abused WOT to impose their political and moral standards. Like the Chinese government they used WOT to censor all capitalistic, globalist, etc sites. So at a certain point WOT was more like a political parental control than of a warning for malware and privacy-violation. I hope they succeeded to get over this starting problems. But I left.
    Can anybody tell more about this ?
    best
    ferdinand

  11. #11
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Orange City, Florida, USA
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I too subscribed to WOT several years ago and still I use it but I decided to become an active member so I might help the process. Members are asked to rate sites and at least part of the decision to put a site in a specific category is based on these ratings. Most of the time this is no problem but I did find a site that gave a warning which I ignored. Looking through the site I found the only problems were politically motivated negative reviews. After a note to the WOT staff the warning was lifted...

    What I am trying to say is it is a great tool which would be even better if each of us would support it as active securtiy minded members.

  12. #12
    5 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    737
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 64 Times in 52 Posts
    I view WOT the same way I view my GPS. A GPS is a great tool, but no substitute for paper maps and your own common sense. WOT is the same thing. It can help alert you to something potentially bad. But to get the most out of it, you need to have your wits about you and a bit of common sense. I know of several sites that are perfectly fine to visit, but WOT gives a warning or low rating simply because some surfers don't like the site's management or way of doing things.
    Chuck

  13. #13
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    6,121
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 609 Times in 557 Posts
    One reason I hold WOT in disdain.
    Submissions should always be rigorously screened by trained personnel to a very specific set of security concerns and not by the whims of the subjective masses.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Build your own system; get everything you want and nothing you don't.
    Latest Build:
    ASUS X99 Deluxe, Core i7-5960X, Corsair Hydro H100i, Plextor M6e 256GB M.2 SSD, Corsair DOMINATOR Platinum 32GB DDR4@2666, W8.1 64 bit,
    EVGA GTX980, Seasonic PLATINUM-1000W PSU, MountainMods U2-UFO Case, and 7 other internal drives.

  14. #14
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Annandale, Va
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    I pulled out of WOT for the same reason that Clint holds it in disdain. There appears to be no security peer review of website ratings. I know of a website called "The Christian Left" that has been bombarded through WOT with negative ratings by those on the so called Christian Right. This was done not for security purposes, i.e. excessive spam or being infected with a virus, but because these so called Christian Right people did agree with "The Christian Left" website or didn't believe that "The Christian Left" website had a right to exist. Such political censorship does not constitute website security and should be forbidden.

  15. #15
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Clint Rossmere View Post
    Submissions should always be rigorously screened by trained personnel to a very specific set of security concerns and not by the whims of the subjective masses.
    Sounds like we have a volunteer! Way to go Clint. I'm sure everyone will appreciate and completely agree with your rigorous screening.

    WOT may not be perfect, but I have yet to find anything as good at the same price.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •