Avast WebRep Tallied By Criminals - Check FBI.GOV

[igor]

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.

[UserA789]

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.

[bob3160]

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.

[Gargamel360]

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. 

[Alievitan]

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

[AntiVirusASeT]

@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

[AntiVirusASeT]

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]

@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 .

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 .  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.

[MikeBCda]

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.

[Nesivos]

I think WebRep has the FBI sight nailed.  "Not to be trusted"

[UserA789]

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.

[AntiVirusASeT]

@MikeBCda: yupps, they added security features to webrep in v7. they are, phishing filter and some certificate checks