Web Of Trust (WOT) reaches 60,000,000 downloads

[mchain]

Web Of Trust passes 60,000,000 downloads:  http://www.mywot.com/en/blog & press release here:  http://www.mywot.com/en/press/web-of-trust-hits-60-million-downloads-milestone

Just pointing out that Avast! WebRep does not pro-actively protect users in the way WOT does.  I have never seen any blocking or warning activity from it as it just appears to be similar to a Facebook like in functionality and performance.

[RejZoR]

For me, WebRep is pointless, compared to superior WOT:

1. info is not stored so when i format the system, all data of already rated pages is gone
2. smaller userbase
3. cannot leave comments which often explain why something is marked red (or green)
4. WOT always works and never causes any troubles to browser

[mchain]

For me, WebRep is pointless, compared to superior WOT:

1. info is not stored so when i format the system, all data of already rated pages is gone  Bolding added:
2. smaller userbase
3. cannot leave comments which often explain why something is marked red (or green)
4. WOT always works and never causes any troubles to browser

Understanding that not all of us speak or write English fluently, as we are users of Avast! from all over the entire world, and speak many different languages, I think you mean a user's rating data is stored on WOT servers and not on one's computer, so formatting a system will not result in loss of user ratings at WOT as it would for WebRep.  Merely re-establishing your WOT account would restore all previous WOT user data. 

Got it.

[Ddm5]

For me, WebRep is pointless, compared to superior WOT:

1. info is not stored so when i format the system, all data of already rated pages is gone  Bolding added:
2. smaller userbase
3. cannot leave comments which often explain why something is marked red (or green)
4. WOT always works and never causes any troubles to browser

Understanding that not all of us speak or write English fluently, as we are users of Avast! from all over the entire world, and speak many different languages, I think you mean a user's rating data is stored on WOT servers and not on one's computer, so formatting a system will not result in loss of user ratings at WOT as it would for WebRep.  Merely re-establishing your WOT account would restore all previous WOT user data. 

Got it.

Then why doesn't Avast! expand outwards and cover this area aswell, as far as I can see, it would help quite alot, with the active users Avast has.

[avastreally?]

its now 70 million +
also i use this extension today, but what i want to know is , WOT will collect browsing information ,but webreps wont, so is webrep a less compromising option?
also cant the WOT rating system be exploited? (meaning if user doesnt like the site the flag it),  that might not work for a well loved site , but what about an upcoming site?

[polonus]

I like to combine WOT with some other web rep resources and then results become more credible, also closes the WOT blind window.
So Bitdefender's TrafficLight, Trustwave (former finjan) and DrWeb's URL checker. Also use Webutation which has the WOT results incorporated.
Results at http://www.brightcloud.com/support/lookup.php for an additional info and Yandex, Google Safebrowsing (Unmasked Parasites).

Always remember those services are guidelines at best.
Always have the avast! shields active and up.

Good idea to always run script blocking like NoScript and RequestPolicy inside the browser to stop unknown threats from infesting.

Whenever one knows the activities of the browser could be risk involved run the browser sandboxed or check with Malzilla.

What I think is good about WOT is the user input, this means a real treasure house of information,

polonus

[RejZoR]

For me, WebRep is pointless, compared to superior WOT:

1. info is not stored so when i format the system, all data of already rated pages is gone  Bolding added:
2. smaller userbase
3. cannot leave comments which often explain why something is marked red (or green)
4. WOT always works and never causes any troubles to browser

Understanding that not all of us speak or write English fluently, as we are users of Avast! from all over the entire world, and speak many different languages, I think you mean a user's rating data is stored on WOT servers and not on one's computer, so formatting a system will not result in loss of user ratings at WOT as it would for WebRep.  Merely re-establishing your WOT account would restore all previous WOT user data. 

Got it.

Then why doesn't Avast! expand outwards and cover this area aswell, as far as I can see, it would help quite alot, with the active users Avast has.

They could link ratings to user avast! account. I used to rate stuff in WebRep but after first format all was gone so i never really bothered with it. WOT on the other side, i can format my system 10 times and i'll keep all the ratings so i'll never rate the same page twice. Plus, with comments i can give much more accurate info about the webpage. avast! just doesn't have any of that in WebRep.

[Dwarden]

yep my.avast.com account could be easily used to save & link with such info ...

I was expecting more from webrep (it might be happening bug not visible for the end user)

[avastreally?]

I like to combine WOT with some other web rep resources and then results become more credible, also closes the WOT blind window.
So Bitdefender's TrafficLight, Trustwave (former finjan) and DrWeb's URL checker. Also use Webutation which has the WOT results incorporated.
Results at http://www.brightcloud.com/support/lookup.php for an additional info and Yandex, Google Safebrowsing (Unmasked Parasites).

Always remember those services are guidelines at best.
Always have the avast! shields active and up.

Good idea to always run script blocking like NoScript and RequestPolicy inside the browser to stop unknown threats from infesting.

Whenever one knows the activities of the browser could be risk involved run the browser sandboxed or check with Malzilla.

What I think is good about WOT is the user input, this means a real treasure house of information,

polonus

thanks for the info
those script blocker are for firefox, i use chrome
ill look into bitdefender traffic light
also i have spywareblaster installed

edit: just added traffic light , it doesnt work when looking for pics in google search images
also wot and bitdefender give conflicting resules on some site example: picstopin, , wot say its malicious bitdefender says its safe lol

[Rompin Raider]

Web Of Trust passes 60,000,000 downloads:  http://www.mywot.com/en/blog & press release here:  http://www.mywot.com/en/press/web-of-trust-hits-60-million-downloads-milestone

Just pointing out that Avast! WebRep does not pro-actively protect users in the way WOT does.  I have never seen any blocking or warning activity from it as it just appears to be similar to a Facebook like in functionality and performance.

We may have to put WOT in the Security Hall of Fame!

[polonus]

Hi Rompin Raider,

Yes I like the way that users have to override an alert screen to go to a suspicious site as with Google Safebrowsing (Unmasked Parasites), DrWeb's URL checker, Yandex, Bitdefender's Traffic Light. In this way the users of Firefox and Google Chrome browsers have an added layer of protection.
avast! decided to have in-browser detection via the avast! Web Shield and avast! Network Shield. So always have these up.
There will always be discrepancies between various tools. DrWeb from old detects a lot of issues that avast! misses. I have seen many examples of this in recent years to know this to be a fact. That is why I am glad we also have DrWeb users on these forums (Dim@rik for instance brought a lot of valuable input). There is also discrepancy in findings with scanners that look into header and request data, and scanners that act on scripts, obfuscation, malicious iframes and redirects. There is a core of untouchable evergreen baddies that should be blocked always and there is the everchanging landscape of websites that have become infected because of vulnerable server and website software through automated malcreation attacks.
A problem here is that scanners can lack behind the actual website security status. The link is there but the source of malcode has been closed or the malware domain has been taken down. These issues could also lead to various scan results. Check for domain and IP with google.
Rule one. If some issues is flagged there must have been a reason for it. Do not go there, and if you have to go there sandboxed or with blockers in the browser. In Google Chrome one could use NotScripts combined with Better Pop up Blocker and some domain blocking list added to ABP.
There is more to it, but this could be a good start for the average user. So be safe and secure and watch your internet clicks,

polonus

[avastreally?]

Hi Rompin Raider,

Yes I like the way that users have to override an alert screen to go to a suspicious site as with Google Safebrowsing (Unmasked Parasites), DrWeb's URL checker, Yandex, Bitdefender's Traffic Light. In this way the users of Firefox and Google Chrome browsers have an added layer of protection.
avast! decided to have in-browser detection via the avast! Web Shield and avast! Network Shield. So always have these up.
There will always be discrepancies between various tools. DrWeb from old detects a lot of issues that avast! misses. I have seen many examples of this in recent years to know this to be a fact. That is why I am glad we also have DrWeb users on these forums (Dim@rik for instance brought a lot of valuable input). There is also discrepancy in findings with scanners that look into header and request data, and scanners that act on scripts, obfuscation, malicious iframes and redirects. There is a core of untouchable evergreen baddies that should be blocked always and there is the everchanging landscape of websites that have become infected because of vulnerable server and website software through automated malcreation attacks.
A problem here is that scanners can lack behind the actual website security status. The link is there but the source of malcode has been closed or the malware domain has been taken down. These issues could also lead to various scan results. Check for domain and IP with google.
Rule one. If some issues is flagged there must have been a reason for it. Do not go there, and if you have to go there sandboxed or with blockers in the browser. In Google Chrome one could use NotScripts combined with Better Pop up Blocker and some domain blocking list added to ABP.
There is more to it, but this could be a good start for the average user. So be safe and secure and watch your internet clicks,

polonus

Great advice sir