Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Avastfan1 on January 03, 2011, 12:33:11 AM
-
Is this website safe for reading about viruses?
vx.netlux.org (http://vx.netlux.org)
-
Is this website safe for reading about viruses?
vx.netlux.org (http://hxxp://vx.netlux.org)
URL Analysis results from VirusTotal
Firefox - Clean site
G-Data - Clean site
Google Safebrowsing - Clean site
ParetoLogic - Malware site
Phishtank - Clean site
URL info:
Normalized URL: http://vx.netlux.org/
URL MD5: 0e12e1b23793cb9067944bb11764fbce
-
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/vx.netlux.org#page-3
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/vx.netlux.org#page-4
Report 2010-12-27 07:42:27 (GMT 1)
Website vx.netlux.org
Domain Hash 0984993f3c3fb731bad5279fa7b2ec8b
IP Address 194.44.18.83 [SCAN]
IP Hostname labman.vxheavens.com
IP Country UA (Ukraine)
AS Number 5598
AS Name NETLUX-AS OOO TRK Nadezhda
Detections 2 / 17 (12 %)
Status SUSPICIOUS
Oh my god
http://www.browserdefender.com/site/vx.netlux.org/
Viruses: 101
-
Bob says it's clean, but Left123 found 101 viruses?????!?!?!??!?!?!
Now I am really confused!
-
Urlvoid is better than virus total.Also WOT.
-
Urlvoid is better than virus total.Also WOT.
Hate to disagree with you regarding WOT
WOT isn't reliable at all :(
-
Urlvoid is better than virus total.Also WOT.
Hate to disagree with you regarding WOT
WOT isn't reliable at all :(
Is virustotal?Even if you click at a malware site that is detected by google you will see the error.Virustotal just tell you if it is detected by the browsers.Wot is based on users commens,2 full pages of bad comments about malicious activity on page are enough for me.Also did you check the link browserdefender?101 viruses ;D
Also to prove you that i am right.I just caught a simple example.
URL VOID results for xxx.0002.in.2/18--> Google Diagnostic DETECTED>http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=0002.in
Virustotal-->0 /6>Google Safebrowsing Clean site
As you can see i scanned the same site with 2 diffenent online scanners,the first detected it and i posted the warning message from google.Virustotal says 0/6=not detected by google.
-
Wot is based on users commens,2 full pages of bad comments about malicious activity on page are enough for me
Precisely why I made the comment. Users who aren't experts.
My post simply reflected the result given by Virus Total's scanner.
They aren't my opinions.
-
What would you do when some1 is asking your opinion?Maybe you think that the site is clean when the scanner prove something else.When you say "it's not my comment",what do you exactly mean?they lie?Why would they,at least at the 4th page i posted there is mcafee comment.I've seen comments from different av's on WOT including mcafee and panda.
-
Dr.Web online check says that though the link is clean, the site itself is in Dr.Web's malware sites database. I would strongly recommend NOT to visit this site.
-
WOT isn't reliable at all :(
YOU aren't reliable at all :(
-
WOT isn't reliable at all :(
YOU aren't reliable at all :(
Personal attacks aren't something I or any one else on this forum enjoy.
They also have no business on this forum. >:(
-
nah, I was just making as silly post as yours was.
Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?
If WOT is unreliable "because it's user-based", then why this forum, for instance, is more reliable than WOT? Most of people here are usual users, too.
I guess forums and other things which are user-based aren't to be trusted, huh? But then, what can be trusted?
-
But then, what can be trusted?
1. Virus analysts and technical info of trustable sources.
2. Personal experiences of a bunch of users with good intentions.
3. God :)
-
But then, what can be trusted?
1. Virus analysts and technical info of trustable sources.
2. Personal experiences of a bunch of users with good intentions.
3. God :)
2. Is user-based and according to bob that can't be trusted.
3. No fanboyism!
-
Fanboys do not have good intentions and fail the definition of trustable source :)
-
@ Altarir
Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/)
Perfectly clean but still tagged by WOT
-
@ Altarir
Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/)
Perfectly clean but still tagged by WOT
We are talking about malicious sites.This site is not marked as RED.
If you see Shazza's comment at last page it says : http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=68.35.72.131&x=9&y=8
Also it WAS BLACKlisted by http://www.malwareurl.com. It's not now,that's why it's "orange"=be cautious
That means that site HAD a trojan.
-
@ Altarir
Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/)
Perfectly clean but still tagged by WOT
1) Altarir is not an array, but a scalar. He's one person, not many, jeebus.
2) That it's clean now doesn't necessarily mean it always was - and the opposite is valid, too.
3) Anythin' else?
-
@ Altarir
Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/)
Perfectly clean but still tagged by WOT
We are talking about malicious sites.This site is not marked as RED.
If you see Shazza's comment at last page it says : http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=68.35.72.131&x=9&y=8
Also it WAS BLACKlisted by http://www.malwareurl.com. It's not now,that's why it's "orange"=be cautious
That means that site HAD a trojan.
The fact is that it had a false positive - it never had a trojan. The explanation was posted on the WOT forum.
-
WOT is full of false positives and false negatives.
The correction is slow and could let to tragic consequences (if the user let only in WOT judgments).
WOT is not security but false sensation of security.
Security is for experts and not for polling.
My personal opinion as usual.
-
@ Altarir
Your statement about WOT being unreliable is totally unconstructive. PROVE that it is unreliable! With some better arguments than "it's user based" nonsense. Can you?
http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/ (http://mysharedfiles.no-ip.org/)
Perfectly clean but still tagged by WOT
We are talking about malicious sites.This site is not marked as RED.
If you see Shazza's comment at last page it says : http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=68.35.72.131&x=9&y=8
Also it WAS BLACKlisted by http://www.malwareurl.com. It's not now,that's why it's "orange"=be cautious
That means that site HAD a trojan.
The fact is that it had a false positive - it never had a trojan. The explanation was posted on the WOT forum.
There are always false positives,on avast also ;).
@Tech I din't say that wot is perfect but you can't say that is useless.I never had a problem with wot.At least there are always php[host] comments so i can trust wot.
-
WOT is full of false positives and false negatives.
"Full"? False. It has a couple of them occasionally, but what doesn't have any?
The correction is slow and could let to tragic consequences (if the user let only in WOT judgments).
Time needed to correct rating depends on amount of wrong ratings. Often it goes pretty fast.
WOT is not security but false sensation of security.
False.
Security is for experts
Yeah, usual users can't even hope to be secure ::)
To be serious, though, WOT has not much more fps than, say, hpHosts
-
Okay, guys, let's NOT turn another thread into a WOT flamewar, shall we? (http://kolobok.us/smiles/standart/offtopic.gif)
-
The correction is slow and could let to tragic consequences (if the user let only in WOT judgments).
Time needed to correct rating depends on amount of wrong ratings. Often it goes pretty fast.
I've been trying to get my site corrected for way over a year. Don't consider that fast or do you ???
Time for WOT to rely on actual scanning of sites and not the advice of would be experts.
WOT however doesn't scan sites at all.
-
I've been trying to get my site corrected for way over a year. Don't consider that fast or do you ???
Maybe asking on their forum again would help, no? I see you did this a long while ago, but why you're giving up so easily?
Time for WOT to rely on actual scanning of sites and not the advice of would be experts.
Advice? Wrong word. Opinion, rather.
And what makes you think those users who rate sites don't check them?
-
Please continue arguing with yourself.
I've stated the facts which you aren't interested in.
-
"Full"? False. It has a couple of them occasionally, but what doesn't have any?
My personal experience. And they take molasses to correct their own (their users) mistakes.
Time needed to correct rating depends on amount of wrong ratings. Often it goes pretty fast.
My personal experience with FUD. Full of bad ratings and slow corrections.
WOT is not security but false sensation of security.
False.
If you say so :)
To be serious, though, WOT has not much more fps than, say, hpHosts
YoKenny will blame you if you say this about hpHosts ;D
I've used it in the past and it was not that bad on infected sites (false negatives) but, really, there are false positives also.
-
@Tech I din't say that wot is perfect but you can't say that is useless.I never had a problem with wot.At least there are always php[host] comments so i can trust wot.
Did I said it is useless? ;D
Well, sorry, then. I just said I personally do not trust it.