What do u think of AVG LinkScanner

[js9600]

Well test away yourself Tech. I can give you some links to sources should you think hpHosts is not enough. Im merely stating facts and not bashing Avast, not more than the others. As said I do have Avira running as well so... You can easily prove the usefullness of WOT - why is that trolling?

I did not code Webshield but I guarantee you are making a mistake thinking you can freely click around on those sites WOT blocks. Very naive.

If you go to any malware removal forum you will see people mostly do have AV installed and yet still get in trouble. Think you should focus on the concept of layered defense rather than praising/prodecting one or the other product - let advertising do that.

[Lisandro]

If you go to any malware removal forum you will see people mostly do have AV installed and yet still get in trouble. Think you should focus on the concept of layered defense rather than praising/prodecting one or the other product - let advertising do that.

No doubt. This is the reason - layered defense - that I won't trust on WOT as a panaceia

[DavidR]

Many is more than a few, which I count as three, so more than three (I haven't been keeping count) have been red flagged when there is nothing at the site. So these are false positives.

As for false negatives, many, many of those, e.g. no alert at all by WOT, when the site is a known malware distribution site, or flagged by Firefox, or google safe browsing and or blocked by the network shield or alerts by the web shield. Normally when the network shield blocks a site I do some investigation to try to find out why and that usually starts with a google search and in most cases there is no WOT flagging.

There have been very few of these network shield blocks that have turned out to be false positives, and often it has been sites that have previously been hacked and serving up malware and after a clean-up are still on the network shield malicious site list.

It is the false negative that is potentially more dangerous as you go there with a false (excuse the pun) sense of security, so WOT is far from 100%. So it is a guide only and you should maintain a level of proactive defence.

[Lisandro]

Well test away yourself Tech. I can give you some links to sources should you think hpHosts is not enough.

Quoting Kubecj from another part of the forum.

Usually the lists are full of sites I consider harmless or I can't spot anything bad on them. Were they hacked and cleaned? Am I blind? Are the people making the list oversensitive bunch of paranoids? I don't know.
I sometimes cross verify our findings with MalwareDomains, they're quite good.

[js9600]

I can only refer to hpHosts once again. Those sites you see listed 24/7 are not false positives at all. Some of them will have executables not detected by AVs. You see the idea? These sites are being flagged as RED in WOT. You must understand how WOT works - Im not praising social chitchat which becomes spamming/arguing in 10 seconds. Im not sure you understand the value Im happy with - and if you do it is flawed because 1. WOT dont work as system and 2. Avast is enough? Test, test...

Try orbasoft.com also a harmless site, clean according to Mcafee/Norton, with a harmless download no AV detects if you ask Virustotal. Oh yeah. This is actually harmless to install and is part of the gray area where Malwarebytes and others kick - also due to limitations of the old AV companies. But I dont mind giving that link. 2 weeks or so ago they had a registry checker thingy, now security. Same scam and there are tons of them - why WOT has a purpose.

Also you must understand that people posting on forums like this probably dont even need WOT at all. This is a little helper for less tech knowledgeable people. If set up right it does not require user action but you are correct in that false positives/gaming their system will render it useless. Ive been worried about that since I learned about WOT but it does seem to do the job when it comes to the not up for debate sites. I could not care less of a green lamp but bordering on yellow if child is 11.5 years old and live in Hungary - lets discuss...

If tiny malwaredomains is "quite good" how can hpHosts be questionable? I know those sources, they are also talked about on WOT forums - they ask for new ones even. Their strength is other companies are lazy. This is a 24/7 business, not weekly updates of half-dead links - throw hpHosts in your Google Reader and see for yourself. Use a linkify add-on in Firefox and do 10 fast ones, then 10 more. Cant spot anyting? I dont understand. Ive yet to see any healthy sites at hpHosts. Vast majority is so very obviously not for public consumption, just domain name give them away but you can land on sites in more than one way. Tinyurl type of linking is common. Phishing is also not always easy to "spot" but still not recommended. I really doubt you have visited many of these RED sites and wondered why the fuss?

So I simply dont believe you can test over a period of time or just randomly with many AV products and then declare WOT not to be trusted or not needed since X is already installed. Avast is good but certainly not 100% good. And neither is Avira with heuristics racing at full speed I should add... We are back to old hosts-blocking and Avast name is not to be found - but it still work! Actually I believe hpHosts is available as a hosts-file, also useful - paranoid but depends on definitions and also tools to fix that paranoia, hosts manager for example. If you believe WOT is wrong with RED flagging then plugin makes it easy to manage. I might not agree myspace.com is to be blacklisted, just one example there are more. Complicated since many users now dont mind added toolbars/extras and such with long EULA. hpHost is old school and does. WOT does not use anything from hpHosts btw. They have a black or white approach to sites, WOT grade sites not just blocking based on false info.

If you want to see half-baked blocking try OpenDNS. Check for forum for the many requests for malware-blocking. See how far they have come. Is not easy to make universal domain-blocking.

[js9600]

If you check orbasoft at Mcafee you see difference to WOT http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/orbasoft.com Mcafee give thumbs up, users do not.

There are still many domains which will fire off a fake av-scanning and encourage a download if you need more up in face action. Some do follow along and some AVs do look the other way. Instead of saying WOT is not 100% then may be tell me which other tool helps? You can be pretty screwed if you want to - all depending on which OS, UAC and so on. But still. We assume worst scenario.

http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/5919d3e331200383842c3e81c623a724836f0dc0e40292286c0d6b95125e699e-1248986508 done 1 minute ago from a domain listed at hpHosts and WOT. You can repeat that over and over. Today, next week... This is random and perhaps massive testing will show X is better than Y but no way you can conclude if only I use this then I am secure and can trust incomings. Hence why I like WOT - Im not aware of any other tool with same efficiency. This http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/c0abd133ee3f0de3179b5e83363afe92da9ab136c9a301363f08da20220b7c48-1248985892 is ok though! yeah, yeah. Very boring to test but sometimes fun to see for yourself - and AV in action. Best to use separate computer, virtualbox type of setup. Virustotal is not proof crap wont be detected, there are limitations, but often that is the case, a hint to wonder about at least.

[Lisandro]

I use hpHosts and also Finjan.

[js9600]

Ok glad we do not have to debate hpHosts at least. Actually we could since Im testing their hosts-file right now. In router which makes whitelistning a pain. I understand where they are coming from though but internet is just not black and white. Like some programs i use, they block but if you untick crap programs are clean. Dont know, guess they are correct and Im becoming careless. Ethical blocking will start and stop where? Check google ads for registry boosters, as one example. Hopeless.

Ive also testing av2009 scanners which only Defender blocked btw  Some guy claimed Defender NEVER worked so had to prove him wrong. Was not easy but succeeded in the end. I think MS have improved a lot lately but not the place to debate build-in protection...

[Lisandro]

http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/5919d3e331200383842c3e81c623a724836f0dc0e40292286c0d6b95125e699e-1248986508 done 1 minute ago from a domain listed at hpHosts and WOT.
This http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/c0abd133ee3f0de3179b5e83363afe92da9ab136c9a301363f08da20220b7c48-1248985892 is ok though! yeah, yeah.

Please, links to the files themselves... so we can test.

[js9600]

No Im not linking directly to malware sites - probably not allowed here anyway. You can pick them up at WOT or hpHosts. The most convenient way is to subscribe to rss-feed in Google reader. Then just scroll down and down, go for those with "scanner" in domain name but fairly obvious which has executables. But this one was from trojaner-doktor I believe, you figure out how to get that in browser. Try .com at the end. There are 1000s to check out so not really much purpose in focusing on one or two - or even a big handful. They keep coming - tons more than is listed at malwaredomains but also a source to test with of course.

Then the game starts, some submit file to AV-company - then they change exe a bit and back to zero. Have seen that happen many times. Sometimes black and white approach is better.

I think hpHosts is overdoing their warning a bit, "WILL infect" - but still take it easy if you get clickhappy with testing. And definitely take it extremely easy if you believe Avast or whatever will protect you.

Last week i submitted a false Adobe flash player site to Avira. They have it now as does Avast but at the time only WOT, or rather hpHosts, worked. adobe.com-newversion. (put info at the end) Very good. Many would fall for that, looks just like Adobe. If you are into social networking where you could stumble upon such a link, perhaps hidden in tinyurl, you will also appreciate WOTs fast blocking. Last night they blocked a fake Twitter service - I can find the info if you want. Should be easy to find, I got twittered about it more than once. How they try to promote themself. I think pros outweighs the cons and also that the cons is a matter of using WOT correctly - for me that is making it transparent unless it has something important to say. Dont really use it much and only in IE8. I know many who should use WOT. Panda deal makes me worry for future though. We will see.

[kubecj]

I don't understand what is this all about?

I'd say there are three groups of web 'checking' apps:
a) Norton Safeweb / McAfee SiteAdvisor and alikes
b) WOT and alikes
c) LinkScanner / Network+WebShield

I consider
a) most useless, because they're totally slow.
b) almost useless because it relies on many votes, so quick changes in status (legit site goes infected) can't get to the users fast. Also because the system is as weak as its weakest link - it's problematic because the people are the weakest link. Do they have the knowledge? Are their decisions independent or are they looking on previous status so they actually emphasize it? Do they understand all those categories? etc. Also when evaluating this - what is worse - false positive or false negative?
c) This is the way to go. Yep, there are also false alarms but much rarer in both url blocking or actual malware detections.

Comparing WOT to WebShield does not make any sense. Their purpose is completely different. WebShield is for malware and infected sites. Can't say I completely understand what is WOT good for (I have it installed for few months now), but I'm really not the typical websurfer  

[Lisandro]

No Im not linking directly to malware sites - probably not allowed here anyway.

Use hxxp instead of http and it's ok...

And definitely take it extremely easy if you believe Avast or whatever will protect you.

It's not a matter of protection feeling or sensation... it's effectiveness. I can sleep very very deeply relying on avast protection... But, of course, not a software is perfect. And for searches, I use Finjan.

[js9600]

Well test away - now I say it again. You dont have to wonder for long. WOT have the same concerns as you - which is why it work. Their voting system is not 1+1=2 Some have more to say than others, thank god! I also focus completely on valid sources, not the social user helping user aspect - which will become user tricking user in seconds. Value will be zero and so you can say WOT is useless. All you need is an army of helpers and you can make THISISVIRUS.COM become green. Not how WOT works. Im dont even think highly of user contributions even if ok - im probably thinking hosts-file really - where there are no doubt or debate.

Situation can change - may be someone find a way to mess with WOT big time. So much as everyone will notice. Avast is also not perfect or why update it? I see no reason to avoid WOT for now. Compared to similar service I will claim it is way better and testing can prove that easily. Thought that was common knowledge actually. Money can do much to people so who knows what will happen later on. Could be WOT blows in few months.

Avast is good so sleep tight but Im still saying you can quite easily find downloads Avast will not detect. Ive done this with Avira at full speed many times. Once you see that you understand the value. Pretend worst scenario. You can say the same for Nod32, kaspersky etc. - matter of time and testing. WOT is dumb as a door but works! Luckily users do not surf bad domain sites.

Btw, if you test with hphosts hosts-file including the partial one activated you might run into problems. May be disable for "ease of infection"  Firefox and IE8 smartscreen can also take the fun out of clicking but they dont catch all.

[kubecj]

But this is not definitely true. Been to many malware distro sites with full green to believe this is true. Today morning. Lemme see... Yep, still green, despite the fact they contain only malware.  

[js9600]

There is no definitive about WOT but if you know a source with bad domains suggest they contact them and include in database. I personally like to know it but hphosts is overkill as testing source already. Blacklisting is always behind per definition so that alone makes it not definitive. You can say the same for every thing regarding security. If you compare to similar tools I dont see the competion at all. When I last tested with link extend it got really tiresome. I know hphosts is connected to WOT so unfair or is it? Where are mcafee etc. sources listing sites not in WOT? I think ranking is pretty obvious - today at least. Long time ago I think I read something about Avast wanting to make more use of blocking since requested a lot? People want ad-blocking I bet. But a thinner WOT without all the fluff, only focused on 100% bad sites, might come along then? who knows. Matter of sources I think - technology is already build into Avast right? There are advantages to scanners but also disadvantages, like when they dont work