WebRep: Innacurate Ratings?

[Ortiz]

I just installed Avast 6 to test it out a bit against harmful websites.  My first question is regarding WebRep.  In a Google search, it shows a site as having a safe rating, but the site redirects or cross scripts to a malicious page that runs a rogue virus scan.  I was also looking to provide some feedback by rating the site as malicious, but it seems I have to go to the infected site to do so.  Kind of counterproductive.  So, what's the use in using WebRep? It would seem to lead to a false sense of security.  Any info?

[doktornotor]

http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=74261.0

[Ortiz]

That link doesn't tell me anything more than was already in the help file.  It also doesn't seem to provide a way to notify or vote negatively for a malicious website w/o visiting the infected website.

[doktornotor]

Yeah, so lets create 100000000000000 threads about the same topic because it will be obviously fixed faster then. Sigh. 

[Ortiz]

If I found an answer while searching, I wouldn't have posted the question.

[doktornotor]

If I found an answer while searching, I wouldn't have posted the question.

Why don't you just continue in the thread I have pointed you to which discusses the very same issue? Do you really think that it's better and you will get your answer faster when these forums are flooded with zillions threads about the same thing?  

[Gargamel360]

There appears to be a large misunderstanding between Avast! and its users regarding what WebRep is for and what it does.

I saw what this was for right away.  But most users see red/green/yellow and automatically assume it is another WOT or LinkScanner.

As of right now, WebRep is what it says it is.  No more, no less. 

[Ortiz]

Why don't you just continue in the thread I have pointed you to which discusses the very same issue? Do you really think that it's better and you will get your answer faster when these forums are flooded with zillions threads about the same thing?  

Then why didn't you say so... Posting in someone else's thread is usually considered thread hijacking .

[doktornotor]

Then why didn't you say so... Posting in someone else's thread is usually considered thread hijacking .

No, it's not called hijacking when you post in someone else's thread when you have the same problem. It's called common sense. The only place I've seen where people keep starting new and new threads about the exact same issue was the Avira forum, "thanks" to their highly idiotic antispam policy. Needless to say, it rendered the forums absolutely useless when searching answers or providing help.

[DavidR]

You vote for a site and give it a rating according to what you think of it, e.g. click the webrep image on the page. This opens up the WebRep voting window, the slider at the top of the window can be clicked On Red or Green or varying shades in between.

Now you can also select what you think the content of the site is.

Now that is able to reflect a negative opinion of the site, see image example of the avast forum, Good rating based on many votes and a content of IT/Download, the nearest to the Forum being IT related.

[Ortiz]

David, if I put a specific search term into Google, I can get the results to show a link for a site that redirects or is cross scripted with a rogue virus.  That Google link appears with the green Webrep logo right next to it. 
A) While I already know the site is malicious, the only way I can add my vote is to click the link of the infected site.  This is why I installed version 6, to see how it works with known malicious links and to add feedback for this particular web page.
B) IMO, the green webrep logo is going to do nothing more than mislead the average user into a false sense of security -- regardless of the description in the Help file.

[DavidR]

Yes people unfortunately won't read help files, etc., but don't lose sight of the fact that the webrep isn't the last line of defence or even the first, but the network shield and web shields provide real-time checking.

WOT and McAfee and other reputational tools are really much the same but with a more mature database and it will take time for that to happen. As mentioned in other topics it is planned to include data from the avast virus labs based on information from the labs itself and the avast communityIQ function (from actual detections on domains, etc.).

So right now after a whole three weeks it isn't mature by any stretch of the imagination. However avast has a huge community/user base and hopefully it shouldn't take too long for it to be a more valuable tool.

[Ortiz]

Yes people unfortunately won't read help files, etc., but don't lose sight of the fact that the webrep isn't the last line of defence or even the first, but the network shield and web shields provide real-time checking.

My questions stem from clients repeatedly becoming infected with these rogues, even after having them buy the newest version of Avast.  While I understand the variants change so quickly that any AV program will have a hard time keeping up on them, try explaining that to the average person.  If I don't disable the plugin, I'm going to sound foolish telling everyone 'I know there's a green light next to the link and green usually means go, but that doesn't mean the site is safe to visit'.  Whoever came up with that concept should be fired.  IMO, no site should have a green light unless it's had some certain amount of positive feedback. 

This quote is just plain misleading.  “The plug-in interfaces directly with search engine results and includes information on both malware and user-sourced information on trustworthiness so users can avoid potentially risky sites,” explains Mr. Vlcek.

[Gargamel360]

It does have a pre-populated database.  From the day it was first a beta, sites had ratings.  I don't know if it constantly feeds off this or if it was only used to initially populate it.  But in a landscape where every web page is a target, even if malware warnings were included with WebRep, "Green" indicators can still lead to trouble, since any website can be hacked.  That fail potential will always be present in any "site advice" system.

[Ortiz]

But in a landscape where every web page is a target, even if malware warnings were included with WebRep, "Green" indicators can still lead to trouble, since any website can be hacked.  That fail potential will always be present in any "site advice" system.

You're absolutely right, I never thought of that.  I will just disable the add-on on systems and avoid the headache.