I'm only using it since WOT is having some issues at the moment.
right... I'm curious how will avast's Web Reputation compete WOT.
But do not use avg linkscanner anyway... It doesn't work. Infected sites are reported as clean by AVG linkscanner, and when you will enter them, AVG will block that "clean" website.
In other ways it slowdowns your browser and annoys you.
Doing some tests...
youareanidiot - Clean by AVG linkscanner
guggle - Clean by AVG linkscanner
watch out this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv_TXsaKfDk
Do you actually know, or who ever did that review (that character Kazutadashi), how LinkScanner works? I'll explain you in a very short way.
AVG LinkScanner has two components: Search-Shield and Surf-Shield.
Search-Shield works with IE and Firefox (Now I believe Google Chrome as well), and reports whether a given domain is KNOWN as being malicious. Meaning, this feature checks given domains against a database of KNOWN malicious websites.
Surf-Shield is the real-time protection component, the one that actually protects against URLs hosting ACTIVE malicious content, such as exploits (its main task, I'd say). So, even if Search-Shield reports GREEN, that only means the domain is not KNOWN to host malicious content/being a phishing domain, etc. That is, it reports it green because according to Search-Shield database, that domain is not there.
Surf-Shield will scan ACTIVE malicious content, and if it's there, it will be stopped. That's why sometimes when Search-Shield rates something green, Surf-Shield may block access if it finds ACTIVE malicious content.
To test an application, one needs to know how it exactly works, otherwise we just make ourselves complete fools.
I would have to agree, the avg link scanner is pointless, regardless of how effective or ineffective it is. You have the avast Network Shield (with its own list of known malicious sites, not exhaustive) and the Web Shield providing active real time scans and it is without doubt one of the most effective web scanners.
Actually, we have to define something as either pointless or of use, considering its effectiveness or lack of it. If one wants to use it, that's a different matter. But, if something is effective, it isn't pointless.
Also, LinkScanner doesn't only verify known malicious websites. It actually verifies them for active malicious content (not viruses, etc., rather exploits, javascript obfuscation).
avast! team clearly believes this type of protection is useful, and that a webscanner isn't enough, as they are introducing something similar in version 6? I haven't read its details with much attention, but I believe it's something within that line?
I'm glad avast! team is cooking something similar. It gives avast! users one more security layer, which IMO makes difference. (So that others don't come saying I'm an AVG fan, because I just like to clarify facts when they're wrong.
)