Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: UserA789 on March 29, 2012, 08:35:25 PM
-
Imagine my surprise to go to the official FBI webpage and see that it has the worst rating by Avast WebRep :o !!! I was going to a link Iv provided before about DNS malware servers and viola...
This is here seems to be proof of my current stance that much of the Avast community has been hijacked by the illicit element. What other reason could there be for this :-X ?
This is why this tool has become useless and more likely a danger than anything :'( . If an official government page is listed as "BAD" with one of the worst ratings, then what sites are TRULY being given good recommendations? Time to re-install WITHOUT the webrep tool!!!
Im already wondering how many sites Iv been to that were nothing but harm but rated as GOOD or GREAT by the WebRep tool... thanks for listening guys.
-
No one trusts the Fed's ;D if you dont want webrep installed there is no need to reinstall avast without it, just uninstall webrep itself - click avast as to uninstall then click on change and untick browser protection.
-
No one trusts the Fed's ;D if you dont want webrep installed there is no need to reinstall avast without it, just uninstall webrep itself - click avast as to uninstall then click on change and untick browser protection.
Wether they are trusted or not, there site should not be rated as unsafe or bad. I currently am in a battle with my local senator but still value some of the information on the FBI site concerning web related matters, they advice and things they have uncovered are proof as to why they ARE a great site for this type of information.
Also, this tool is not about personal paranoias or feelings about a governemnt, or at least should not be. It is a tool meant to direct people to safe browsing... and while the FBI has been hacked before; there site is much safer to browse than say... facebook, and its got one of the highest marks.
Again, this goes to show that this tool (and most liekly this site) have been overtaken by those that mean us no good.
-
Also, this tool is not about personal paranoias or feelings about a governemnt, or at least should not be.
i do not care about FBI (yet) but anyways, the webrep is pretty accurate for the websites i visit (or i believe) ;D
edit: nope, its not a tool for safe browsing (apart from phishing protection, which is new in Avast v7). it is mostly just to inform u what other Avast users think of a particular website as in Avast v6 (i.e. is it trust worthy in the eyes of other Avast users?, or simply do they like it?) webrep is by no means to tell if a website is safe at any particular instance in time or malicious. that is solely the job of web shield and network shield in Avast. ;)
an example would be facebook: to Avast users, is it trustworthy? yes! as evident in Avast webrep. is it always safe? no! some hackers might hack into facebook anytime and plant something malicious into it. u can conclude that no reputation services can tell if a website is safe at any point in time. (be it Web Of Trust (WOT) or Avast! Webrep)
read this: https://blog.avast.com/2011/02/09/webrep-and-long-hot-legs/
-
Wether they are trusted or not, there site should not be rated as unsafe or bad. I currently am in a battle with my local senator but still value some of the information on the FBI site concerning web related matters, they advice and things they have uncovered are proof as to why they ARE a great site for this type of information.
Also, this tool is not about personal paranoias or feelings about a governemnt, or at least should not be. It is a tool meant to direct people to safe browsing... and while the FBI has been hacked before; there site is much safer to browse than say... facebook, and its got one of the highest marks.
Again, this goes to show that this tool (and most liekly this site) have been overtaken by those that mean us no good.
Another person with mistaken impressions about WebRep. It is about personal feelings. In fact, that is what it asks you. "Do you Like this site? If so, how much, based on this colored slider?" While it has a certain security value now that it checks for certificates/has Phishing protection, I have always treated it as a Toy (no offense intended, Avast!), something for people to make their voices heard, a barometer of opinion of the Avast! community.
But yeah, I will agree it is odd the FBI would draw such prevalent dislike...despite the fact I also trust them not a bit (and Fed authority in general). It could just be a "hiccup", WebRep has generated bad ratings from nowhere in the past, it was shortly fixed. Could also be part of the whole SOPA/PIPA issue.....a legion of children mobilized against it, and began using any outlet possible to protest it (despite the fact that most of them don't really care or understand the true issue, they just don't want their free stuff taken away).
-
But yeah, I will agree it is odd the FBI would draw such prevalent dislike...despite the fact I also trust them not a bit (and Fed authority in general). It could just be a "hiccup", WebRep has generated bad ratings from nowhere in the past, it was shortly fixed. -this was not rated this way until I posted by link concerning DNS malware changing(not claiming they have anything to do with one another just for timeframe)... long after the SOPA fight.
So then, we should allow the obvious facts showing who Avast is relying upon for the information and proabable choices for program updates and feature fixes to a group that is apparently swaying what sites one would choose to visit because the Avast WebRep tool says its cool?
That what you guys just stated. From this rating alone, Im now going to be busy writing letters of re-consideration to the state and local governemnt offices that chose Avast partially on my input. The lead sheriff for the county I am from takes my recommendations serioulsy when it comes to compurting as he is aware the things I did while serving in the United States Armed Forces. So while many of you feel the WebRep tool should be something TOTALLy controlled by user input, thats just not so.
Should we then let the phishing filter be as such; if its not already? Or maybe how about the Web Shield since they can all be 'influenced' by partipiaction within the Avst Community and this forum?
Thats just silly and if you cant see why, I feel sorry for you over the next few years as the illicit element (which I used to be a part of and am honestly trying to make up for some of the bad I did by helping things like this). While Avast own article shows that consumers will stay loyal to a body thats been corrupted/breached; government offices to not carry the same luxury. They have to look at the basis of fact beyond personal 'trusts'. While its true that most governments are somewhat influenced by corruption and should not just be blindly trusted... they ALL take their security seriously (for the most part). And when something like this comes up, which my own mother who works for the local government has been told that Avast WebRep will let her know of a sites 'worthiness', you can bet information like this changes that ball game all together.
If the WebRep tool is solely controlled by user input, I pity Avast for making this decision. Here is the first of many to come of facts that show who's really running this ship.
...and the absolute thought of kids being the main influence to the Avast community really brings no thoughts of safety at all.
Avast Matey... time for a few to start walk'n the plank before the whole shibang has been mutininized and we are forced to abandon ship!
By order of thee 33rd :-X
-
Honestly, WTF is wrong with you? :o
Don't miss-quote me, for starters.
Secondly, your conspiracy FUD does not float here. You seem to know a lot of "stuff"....but when it comes to facts to back up your words, there is nothing there.
Go hunt a Yeti, it would be more constructive.
-
WebRep is "not" security related. It is based solely on popularity. IOW, if I don't "like" a site I can always give it a bad rating, even though another user may disagree. If you rely on WebRep for safety you are very disillusioned. The true safety for avast is based in the resident shields. :)
-
Go hunt a Yeti, it would be more constructive.
No need to hunt, the Fed's know where they are! right next to the alien's ;D ;D ;D
I might go to there page and put in a bad vote for them myself, they've covered up some major conspiracy's in the past and are probably the least likely people to be trusted when it comes to phone tapping and breaking personal privacy laws with internet tracing. MIB 8)
-
Go hunt a Yeti, it would be more constructive.
No need to hunt, the Fed's know where they are! right next to the alien's ;D ;D ;D
I might go to there page and put in a bad vote for them myself, they've covered up some major conspiracy's in the past and are probably the least likely people to be trusted when it comes to phone tapping and breaking personal privacy laws with internet tracing. MIB 8)
+1
-
Hmm ... that site just got the rating it deserves - or not? :P
-
Say what you want about the FBI, but something is wrong when WebRep equates the official FBI website with the same riffraff websites that actually really do bad things to you including trying to distribute malware or defraud you. There are perfectly legitimate and potentially important reasons for someone would visit the official FBI website. It would helpful if Webrep ratings reflected the legitimacy of the official FBI site, instead of equating in the same category as FBI.comm or FBI.com.. or FBI.me...you know sites that are actually harmful.
-
@Alievitan: the legitimacy of FBI site is reflected by Avast in that in will not be blocked by Avast web shield unless there is actual malicious stuff on it (web shield is totally NOT based on webrep)
also please note that NO shields are based on webrep ratings!!
webrep is to ALLOW user based opinion to exist to compliment the existence of protection by Avast shields to make an OVERALL user evaluation of a particular site IF i would want to visit the site EVEN if it is scanned safe by signatures/heuristics due to what fellow Avast users feel about their experiences after they visited the site. (this is something that no malware scanner can do).
whether it is perfect or not is another thing, but DO NOT expect webrep to do what it is not capable of doing!
-
WebRep is simply Avast"s version of WOT, I rely as much on one as I do the other.
Sorry Avast but personal opinion based ratings really don't mean anything to me
and therefore these type of apps really have nothing to do with security. IMHO
-
In my opinion , addons like weprep , WOT , etc are just confusing , it is all about user opinions , and people can get confused by it , if you have to implement a security add-on , base it on real facts , if it is a safe site or not , with a blacklist of known sites , not user opinions , imo thats not what a security program is about , its about '' is it malicious or not '' , not what users think about the site , some people find a site good and some not.
-
The antivirus can decide whether the site is safe from the low-level point of view (checking the html code for exploits etc. - i.e. the real malware).
The reputation stuff is indeed about user opinions - and can help you e.g. to distinguish between decent e-shops and pages where you can buy something, but don't really receive what you paid for. That's where you need users' opinions (in our example, preferably from those that really purchased something from that shop) - the antivirus can't tell by looking at the page's code.
-
Say what you want about the FBI, but something is wrong when WebRep equates the official FBI website with the same riffraff websites that actually really do bad things to you including trying to distribute malware or defraud you. There are perfectly legitimate and potentially important reasons for someone would visit the official FBI website. It would helpful if Webrep ratings reflected the legitimacy of the official FBI site, instead of equating in the same category as FBI.comm or FBI.com.. or FBI.me...you know sites that are actually harmful.
Thank you for understanding qwhy this was something of great importance!!! We need to understand that even though we all now know that this tool IS NOT to be trusted as there are plenty of sites that commit fraud to a machine that have been rated as good, simply due to "user input"; Avast should understand that companies are instructing people to rely on it for just such purpose. To help them not end up at sites that have crap on them.
The antivirus can decide whether the site is safe from the low-level point of view (checking the html code for exploits etc. - i.e. the real malware).
The reputation stuff is indeed about user opinions - and can help you e.g. to distinguish between decent e-shops and pages where you can buy something, but don't really receive what you paid for. That's where you need users' opinions (in our example, preferably from those that really purchased something from that shop) - the antivirus can't tell by looking at the page's code.
Yea, like when the resident scanner let me navigate without warning to a completly hacked,malware boasting stargateworlds a couple of weeks ago, right? I know the webrep tool wouldnt have helped here either, but the point is MANY users dont get that tool is being manipulated (as proof from this topic alone) by users who dont care if they end up at a site that discrelty initiates bad code that goes right past Avast.
Maybe the solution should be for two ratings available. One from the users, or Avast Community, and the other from Avast themselves. After all, shouldnt a company stand behind evry portion of their product. As it stands right now, Iv encountered enough problems, not just with this, to compose a letter to be posted in the GENERAL area of this forum. It will not be sent if the logiacally correct things start occuring, but if they are not, I cant let my local county/state ooffices continue to rely on something that is obviously being heavily directed by poor decisions and/or honest 'country of orgin' bias.
I only want the best antivirus/internet security solution to get better.
OFF TOPIC - There has already been one user, we still PM thru this board, who was simply trying to get an answer only to recieve adivce that led him to sites that were of no good and then be told very disrepectfully by some of these 'Ubervangelists' things that had nothing to do with the issue; choose a different solution all together. While some of you will say 'whats one user'; you dont understand some of us and our ability to 'spread the word'. Im honestly not trying to cause any problems for them, but things are beyond a joke... at least when some of us have brought real security concerns to this forum and the technical support staff as well. I, myself, have already encountered a 'UberVanglesist' in this thread alone who has nothing but insulting coment to make... yet, Im sure he/she will go unpunished/unwarned/unmonirtored simply over the amount of posts he's contributed to date. Thats not right.
-
OFF TOPIC - There has already been one user, we still PM thru this board, who was simply trying to get an answer only to recieve adivce that led him to sites that were of no good and then be told very disrepectfully by some of these 'Ubervangelists' things that had nothing to do with the issue; choose a different solution all together. While some of you will say 'whats one user'; you dont understand some of us and our ability to 'spread the word'. Im honestly not trying to cause any problems for them, but things are beyond a joke... at least when some of us have brought real security concerns to this forum and the technical support staff as well. I, myself, have already encountered a 'UberVanglesist' in this thread alone who has nothing but insulting coment to make... yet, Im sure he/she will go unpunished/unwarned/unmonirtored simply over the amount of posts he's contributed to date. Thats not right.
If you have specifics, then please post them. Innuendos and accusations without actual specifics aren't something any one is interested in and only start flaming wars.
Something not appreciated by any one and certainly not needed on this or any other forum.
-
As it stands right now, Iv encountered enough problems, not just with this, to compose a letter to be posted in the GENERAL area of this forum. It will not be sent if the logiacally correct things start occuring,
Care to extrapolate on what you mean by "logically correct"?
I mean, if you expect them to abandon WebRep development, or add unneeded redundancy by including input from the virus labs (the Web or Network Shields already do that, and if they do not catch it, it naturally would not reflect in the WebRep ratings anyway, hence the "unneeded")....doubt that will happen....I mean, you would not know, but almost every active Evangelist was not exactly Pro-WebRep, from its inception, many still are not. We mentioned the perils of user-based rating many times. I'm pretty sure Avast! is staying with it at this point, whatever letter you intend to write.
I, myself, have already encountered a 'UberVanglesist' in this thread alone who has nothing but insulting coment to make... yet, Im sure he/she will go unpunished/unwarned/unmonirtored simply over the amount of posts he's contributed to date. Thats not right.
One again, if you have a complaint about someone (if you mean me, I am just ordinary Evan., not Uber), report them to Mod, that is what the function is for.
-
Webrep is really simple compared to programs such as My Wot or even Mcafee Site advisor. The more mature program like My Wot have algorithms that look at several redundant by design third party professional resources to rate websites, with user opinion being only one factor. For example according to My Wot, the official FBI site has has a high "green" rating, even though the My Wot users almost unanimously slammed the site in the comments and ratings.
http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/fbi.gov
-
@UserA789: do u try to understand what igor is trying to say? like when he said: The antivirus can decide whether the site is safe from the low-level point of view (checking the html code for exploits etc. - i.e. the real malware).
let me quote from u: Yea, like when the resident scanner let me navigate without warning to a completly hacked,malware boasting stargateworlds a couple of weeks ago, right?
This shows ur lack of understanding that no antivirus can protect from every single threat on the web...anyways, who are u to verify that the website is hacked?
theres NO antivirus that will provide complete protection
-
Webrep is really simple compared to programs such as My Wot or even Mcafee Site advisor. The more mature program like My Wot have algorithms that look at several redundant by design third party professional resources to rate websites, with user opinion being only one factor. For example according to My Wot, the official FBI site has has a high "green" rating, even though the My Wot users almost unanimously slammed the site in the comments and ratings.
quote from WOT website: While our primary source of knowledge is ratings from our users, we also take advantage of hundreds of carefully chosen trusted sources, such as listings of phishing sites from PhishTank . This provides WOT with a fast, automated, and reliable means of protecting our users from new, rapidly spreading online threats.
my say: trusted sources like PhishTank are just sites containing blacklists of bad sites at the POINT IN TIME of being checked by them. (it is not even real time) as such, PhishTank is likely to miss many zero min/hour threats. thus the fact that WOT allows results from 'trusted sources' like PhishTank to weight in on results of reputation on websites is flawed to me.
also, webrep is simpler compared to WOT as webrep is meant to be a component to be used WITH web/network shield of Avast, while WOT tries to combine both functions into one. (which it is poorer as web/network shield provides much more protection compared to relying on 'trusted sources' like PhishTank. eg, download, exploits...etc all which WOT cannot provide)
Mcafee Site advisor relies largely on blacklist (at least for the free version), and consumes a lot of computer resources...not worth comparison ::)
-
@UserA789: do u try to understand what igor is trying to say? like when he said: The antivirus can decide whether the site is safe from the low-level point of view (checking the html code for exploits etc. - i.e. the real malware).
let me quote from u: Yea, like when the resident scanner let me navigate without warning to a completly hacked,malware boasting stargateworlds a couple of weeks ago, right?
This shows ur lack of understanding that no antivirus can protect from every single threat on the web...anyways, who are u to verify that the website is hacked?
theres NO antivirus that will provide complete protection
If your going to quote me, please inlcude the entirity of the quote, not a peice that can be used to make the same point the quote ends up making to begin with please 8).
Yea, like when the resident scanner let me navigate without warning to a completly hacked,malware boasting stargateworlds a couple of weeks ago, right? I know the webrep tool wouldnt have helped here either
Not long ago, my mom was almost robbed of everything she had in her HSA. She was sent a link via email whos header was faked to look as though it was from her brother. When she went to the site, and also when I went there, the webrep tool had been manipunlated to identify it with a "GREAT" rating. Being one who does understand that no antivirus solution is perfect... dont get me wrong in this next statement... it was already coded to walk past anything Avast (and most other solutions) use to detect its malicous malware spreading purpose. Its a very clever scam, one of the best Iv found. However, WOT would have reported it as "BAD" just from the simple check it does over 'blacklists' and she would not have ordered from them.
Do I blame Avast?? Not at all. Does she, to a degree as she relies on being able to trust ALL portions of Avast... and why shouldnt she be able to ???
Yes, one should have known better but her age makes her a little more trusting when it comes to PC's and the internet than she should be. It also made her so the fact Avast WebRep rated it so high; why wouldnt she trust it 8). If I had not been keeping 'silent' tabs on her email every now and again, she would have lost the money she ended up needing for knee replacement surgery. Iv never had to file a police report until that day, but as this was my mother you can bet I went to every length convievable to achieve her safety again.
Here is some information of the organization that almost robbed her, its a good read and also shows how easily (without showing how to do it) they make secure systems their toys:
http://spamtrackers.eu/wiki/index.php/My_Canadian_Pharmacy
Iv been on the internet for longer than most. My ISP was the first ISP in my astate and the 3rd in the nation to ever exist. I know more than most about what type of code is out there and that some of it will most liekly always walk past security software. However, a tool that is flawed in design and able to easily be manipulated by those with 'less than honorable' intention should never... I repeat NEVER... be part of any security solution. If it is then one must question the true intent of the vendor.
-
I'm not clear what "tool that is flawed" you're referring to -- WebRep? You'll find probably a couple of hundred posts here, in a great many topics, explicitly explaining that it is NOT a security feature, but rather a measure of a site's popularity (as has also been pointed out in this topic several times). When it was first introduced, the plans were to add security to it at some point in the future, via definitions or some equivalent periodically updated ... I don't know if that's still in the works or has been abandoned as a goal, but certainly no one is claiming that in its present form it's a security tool.
And if you've been active on the internet that long, you know there's no software that will protect anyone from social engineering scams. You mentioned My_Canadian_Pharmacy ... both Yahoo and my ISP's filters automatically bounce all email from them, they're that notorious.
-
I think WebRep has the FBI sight nailed. "Not to be trusted"
-
And if you've been active on the internet that long, you know there's no software that will protect anyone from social engineering scams. You mentioned My_Canadian_Pharmacy ... both Yahoo and my ISP's filters automatically bounce all email from them, they're that notorious.
Ummm, I never said anything to that effect, however, WOT did rated the site as 'BAD'. One of the reasons my mother decided it was an okay site to order from was... I love it when you guys mis-construe to try and invoke anger though.
@Bob3160; I did not intent to 'sapm' your other thread with this. But maybe you need to ask some of these elderly what they take this tool to mean before telling them anything about it. Im goona bet a kick to the giblets they will say something to the effect of how trustable a website is and nothing to the effect of how popular a website is.
-
@MikeBCda: yupps, they added security features to webrep in v7. they are, phishing filter and some certificate checks ;)