Video interview with Ondrej Vlcek (Vlk)

[Rednose]

I have emailed Ondrej if he can shine a light on this

Greetz, Red.

[Zyndstoff (aka Steven Gail)]

plus information that comes from virus lab

That is the point...

But the webrep addon itself (on the client side, transmitting) only uses user votes.

Why? If you have the virus lab information... Why isn't it took into account in the search webpages?

I was refering only to the transmitting function of the webrep addon client - if there are infection infos for a certain web site, I am sure that these will override all reputational votings and you will probably receive a red webrep symbol.
Besides that, I think the development of the webrep is still on it's way, so we're not seeing all of it's functionality ATM, and I think I can recall Vlk writing here somewhere that the virus lab input is planned - not yet done.

[Asyn]

...and I think I can recall Vlk writing here somewhere that the virus lab input is planned - not yet done.

True, but maybe it is already done, we're just guessing here...
Let's just wait for his reply.

[sded]

How about a guess on how to make WebRep useful?  The WebRep results can be used to trigger an investigation by the Avast! Virus Lab people.  If the site is found malicious, Avast! can add it to the Network Shield blocked sites list.  All this without the masses having to decide legality, degree of malice, etc. but leaving it up to the Avast! expertise?  If the site is malicious, the Network shield blocks you from getting to it to see what WebRep thinks anyway. 

[Lisandro]

If WebRep does not indicate "red" when a site is malicious or infected, it worths nothing.
This is a job for technical people.
If not, it's another WOT of nothing...

[DavidR]

Well I would say the it actually need another icon in the left hand section of the WebRep display to indicate malicious/infected and that should be highlighted if the site is malicious/infected. Other wise how would anyone differentiate between a site that is simply considered bad to one that is malicious/infected.

[Jack 1000]

If WebRep does not indicate "red" when a site is malicious or infected, it worths nothing.
This is a job for technical people.
If not, it's another WOT of nothing...

I have always found WOT to do a very good job in conjunction with Avast and certainly would not call it nothing.  It has helped my family and I working in conjunction with Avast to keep us safe on-line.  In fact, for five years ago or more, I was hoping for some kind of early warning detection system for on-line sites to help protect users from malicious content before they interact with the site.

The potentials of both Avast's Web Rep and WOT are strong.  I agree with Tech, Web Rep should have some sort of blocking system for Red sites as WOT currently offers.  However, Web Rep will have an advantage that WOT does not have, which is the direct imput from Virus Lab data, which will aid in rating reliability.

The problem with both is that people may downgrade sites, not so much because of a bad experience with a site, but because of a problem with a site owner or administrator, where appraisals might be based more on emotion than factual data.  As a WOT user, based on what I have seen in using the software, I find their ratings to be about 75%-80% accurate.  But if any users are not happy with a rating, they can over-ride it and comment.

I think both WOT and Web Rep are better than McAfee Site Adviser, which forces you to install Yahoo's tool-bar, who's ratings are rarely updated, and who's information does not give specifics as to why a site may be bad.

The interview with Vlk was great! And it will be most interesting to see how both WOT and Web Rep will work to define and re-define user protection standards, working alongside their virus protection and any other security software.

I enjoyed the presentation very much!  Thank you!

Jack

[Lisandro]

based more on emotion than factual data

This is WOT for me... This is WebRep in actual conditions for me.

I find their ratings to be about 75%-80% accurate

Sorry WOT, not enough for me. There are also too much "false positives".

[Zyndstoff (aka Steven Gail)]

If WebRep does not indicate "red" when a site is malicious or infected, it worths nothing.
This is a job for technical people.
If not, it's another WOT of nothing...

It is supposed to do so, Tech. At least that's my understanding, when Vlk talks about the linking of WebRep to the virus labs.

[YoKenny]

based more on emotion than factual data

This is WOT for me... This is WebRep in actual conditions for me.

WOT is run by emotional people that do not have an understanding of system security.

I find their ratings to be about 75%-80% accurate

Sorry WOT, not enough for me. There are also too much "false positives".

+1