I have been using WOT for more than one year now. I used to have McAfee SiteAdvisor before. I have found out that when doing a search you can not completely thrust the "Green Ring" in front of the URL that I want to open. Many times, sorry I do not have an example at hand, when clicking to know more about the site (URL), there are instances where user complains about phishing, adwares, pop ups and such. So I have rejected the idea to open that page. I have even warned WOT of a really bad site that I opened and Avast stopped the connection in one opportunity. What I do not understand is why that site shows a Green Ring.
"So I have rejected the idea to open that [WoT green-rated] page".
It's another reason why I strongly believe in having layered protection... in addition to using a degree of common sense.
As Joe mentioned above, I have a HOSTS file... which can completely block access to a (static) collection of sites known to be bad.
I use OpenDNS, which dynamically blocks access to its collection of purported malware/phishing sites.
And I use both SpyBot's Immunization as well as SpywareBlaster's to set up a (static) collection of restricted sites... sites which, should my browser(s) be able to access them, will limit what functions can be performed at these sites (e.g., restricting activeX downloads/installs/executions).
I have WOT, which dynamically blocks access to purported bad sites (in IE and FF).
I have IE8's SmartScreen filter, which dynamically blocks access to purported malware/phishing sites.
Amazingly, I don't believe i notice any slowdown in using all of these combined security features.
so i don't get through to any website, unless it passes muster with ALL of the above.
And even then, yes, I do use my own judgment, should i have any doubts/suspicions about a particular site. as you noted, you can go to WOT's ratings area, to read complete comments submitted by users, to help make your decision.
I completely agree with you about blocking a red or yellow site avoiding accidentally entering a bad site. However, that would be in the case an unknown URL is written in the search bar because otherwise doing just a search for a site in Google or Bing or whatever your search engine is, and having WOT in Optimized "Searching", a distinctive green, yellow, or red ring is shown in front of the links and it would be a suicide, not to mention other words that could be taken as an insult to some people, to click a site with a red ring just for the heck of it.
what i really like about WOT is how it WARNS (and/or BLOCKS) the user from accidentally entering what it purports to be a bad website... if you get the warning, you have to explicitly click to get through it.
SiteAdvisor, SideHound, and TrendProctect don't do this... at least the last I checked them. Yes, they may all RED-FLAG a site, asserting it's bad... but they still entered that bad site, potentially allowing an infection.
As for WOT --- or any of the above "raters" --- yes, there can be false positives (good sites, that are inadvertently RED-FLAGGED), and false negatives (bad sites, that are inadvertently GREEN-FLAGGED). in part, this is due to the fact that the ratings can be the result of public input. I don't know how many people it takes for WOT to declare a site SAFE or BAD: It's my understanding that WOT considers each user's experience... once it learns that a person/source is "trustworthy", they may tend to act quicker... and give more serious consideration... to that trusty person (as opposed to first-time reporters, about which they know nothing in terms of their credibility).
you're doing the right thing, if you report what you believe to be improperly-rated sites to WOT... hopefully, they'll get things fixed.
for what it's worth, I am running WOT in FF; and both WOT and TrendProtect in IE. I tend not to notice TrendProtect that much... but will take note when it offers me a RED flag. (Neither run directly in Opera.)
I concur with all ky said about false positives and false negatives relating to WOT. I personally haven't experienced a false negative (FN) with WOT as you did, but have had the rare FP. (I recall WOT flagging OpenDNS as adware; I had to whitelist OpenDNS in WOT).
Of course, FPs and FNs apply equally to AVs and just about every other scanner and defensive program, static or dynamic, although some programs seem to have more than others.
Which is why I also use almost as many programs as ky does, and don't trust any to be 100% accurate.
I can think of at least 2 possibilities why your avast! blocked a website that was green-rated by WOT: - It was a FP detection by avast! - The website had been clean previously (and thus was rated green), but was recently hacked/compromised.
One always hopes that one's defenses "fail safe" and err on the side of caution. I guess this isn't always possible in practice.
As always your advices and tips are very helpful and well founded. Thank you. I used to run Spybot S&D and Spywareblaster, as a matter of fact my niece´s CP is running Spywareblaster right now, however, since I installed SpySweeper (I got a good deal for 5 years, 3 PCs) and D+ from Comodo, it seems like an overkill since SS is doing a better job than Spybot and Comodo´s HIPS is very strong. I have not tried Host or DNS yet. This PC is also used by my 80 year old father, so I do not want to complicate things for him with more alerts or updates and such. Every time he begins to get comfortable with the PC, and I add something new it is a challenge for him to understand.
My point for WOT green ring in front the link in one search for a site is just to stress the need to click first on the green ring and read what WOT members have to say about the site before going to the web page thinking that if it got a green ring, the site must be safe and its files safe to be downloaded.
"I do not want to complicate things for him with more alerts or updates and such".
Hernan,
If you haven't tried OpenDNS, there's nothing simpler around to use. All you have to do is change the IP-Address (numbers) of your "default" DNS Server... and that's it. You're done. There are no alerts to alarm you, and no further updates to install. They update everything at their end, so it's completely transparent to the user.
In short: It's the ultimate in "set it and forget it". Once done, no one will even realize that it's there.
The only problem I've ever encountered with it is at my step-daughter's college where, for whatever reason, they refused to allow choice of DNS Server --- they required use of the one supplied by the school. Perhaps that was done to limit (dare I say "censor") the websites to which their students were allowed access.
I don't believe it is that simple. There are two cases, in the first the user is connected directly to a DSL or Cable modem, the second configuration is where the user has several PCs and uses a router. In the first cast the user will have to set a static DNS server address, while making sure DHCP remains active. In the second case I believe that the DNS addresses are the ones in the router not in the PC, and again DHCP must remain active. Changing the DNS values is not that simple, and possibly different on each router. As I said on another thread, the simplest is to do nothing, which I am an expert at.
If you tried and it didn't work... and gave you trouble... then certainly I'm not out to exacerbate matters. For most people, the switch to (or back from) either OpenDNS or Comodo's Secure DNS is simply a matter of entering (or disabling) two proprietary IP numbers. Comodo's directions for an XP PC are given here:
It seems to me that if things didn't work as they suggest, as in my step-daughter's case, all one has to do is get back to step 5, and click on Obtain DNS Server Address Automatically... that should fully UN-do everything. I'm surprised to hear that your ISP made things more complicated/difficult for you.
Thank you for your advice but I am afraid, I am in the same situation as your step-daughter´s. Once I tried using Comodo´s openDNS and I got limited connection on my Internet. As I understand, I know little about Internet and networks, it seems that my ISP limits its users to its DNS, DHCP, and IP. Eventhoug I do not use a router, just a modem > Network-switch > 4PCs by CAT 5e, the modem is provided by my ISP and if I want a router, I have to make sure is approved by my ISP. They even assign their own user and password to the modems and keep them to themselves. It is a common thread in its forum to see users looking for a way to log in their modems. Some with success others failing. The last time I tried, I was 10 days without Internet until some one from the company fixed something in the central grid or what ever. So I am not taking any chances, unfortunately service is slow and single minded to control users, on the other hand It could be just plain incompetence.
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
April 7th, 2010 15:00
Nice find, ky. Always good to see one's biases reinforced by a test.
I'd be more interested if they had included some of the passive protections (SpywareBlaster, or IP Blocklist, or Host File) in those tests.
If I were a brave soul, I'd download that list of bad urls, and do some surfing with Sandboxie to investigate this.
I'm not that brave ... (or foolish).
iroc9555
2 Intern
•
1K Posts
0
April 7th, 2010 17:00
Hi Ky.
I have been using WOT for more than one year now. I used to have McAfee SiteAdvisor before. I have found out that when doing a search you can not completely thrust the "Green Ring" in front of the URL that I want to open. Many times, sorry I do not have an example at hand, when clicking to know more about the site (URL), there are instances where user complains about phishing, adwares, pop ups and such. So I have rejected the idea to open that page. I have even warned WOT of a really bad site that I opened and Avast stopped the connection in one opportunity. What I do not understand is why that site shows a Green Ring.
Regards.
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
April 7th, 2010 18:00
"So I have rejected the idea to open that [WoT green-rated] page".
It's another reason why I strongly believe in having layered protection... in addition to using a degree of common sense.
As Joe mentioned above, I have a HOSTS file... which can completely block access to a (static) collection of sites known to be bad.
I use OpenDNS, which dynamically blocks access to its collection of purported malware/phishing sites.
And I use both SpyBot's Immunization as well as SpywareBlaster's to set up a (static) collection of restricted sites... sites which, should my browser(s) be able to access them, will limit what functions can be performed at these sites (e.g., restricting activeX downloads/installs/executions).
I have WOT, which dynamically blocks access to purported bad sites (in IE and FF).
I have IE8's SmartScreen filter, which dynamically blocks access to purported malware/phishing sites.
Amazingly, I don't believe i notice any slowdown in using all of these combined security features.
so i don't get through to any website, unless it passes muster with ALL of the above.
And even then, yes, I do use my own judgment, should i have any doubts/suspicions about a particular site. as you noted, you can go to WOT's ratings area, to read complete comments submitted by users, to help make your decision.
iroc9555
2 Intern
•
1K Posts
0
April 7th, 2010 18:00
Ky.
I completely agree with you about blocking a red or yellow site avoiding accidentally entering a bad site. However, that would be in the case an unknown URL is written in the search bar because otherwise doing just a search for a site in Google or Bing or whatever your search engine is, and having WOT in Optimized "Searching", a distinctive green, yellow, or red ring is shown in front of the links and it would be a suicide, not to mention other words that could be taken as an insult to some people, to click a site with a red ring just for the heck of it.
Regards.
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
April 7th, 2010 18:00
Hernan,
what i really like about WOT is how it WARNS (and/or BLOCKS) the user from accidentally entering what it purports to be a bad website... if you get the warning, you have to explicitly click to get through it.
SiteAdvisor, SideHound, and TrendProctect don't do this... at least the last I checked them. Yes, they may all RED-FLAG a site, asserting it's bad... but they still entered that bad site, potentially allowing an infection.
As for WOT --- or any of the above "raters" --- yes, there can be false positives (good sites, that are inadvertently RED-FLAGGED), and false negatives (bad sites, that are inadvertently GREEN-FLAGGED). in part, this is due to the fact that the ratings can be the result of public input. I don't know how many people it takes for WOT to declare a site SAFE or BAD: It's my understanding that WOT considers each user's experience... once it learns that a person/source is "trustworthy", they may tend to act quicker... and give more serious consideration... to that trusty person (as opposed to first-time reporters, about which they know nothing in terms of their credibility).
you're doing the right thing, if you report what you believe to be improperly-rated sites to WOT... hopefully, they'll get things fixed.
for what it's worth, I am running WOT in FF; and both WOT and TrendProtect in IE. I tend not to notice TrendProtect that much... but will take note when it offers me a RED flag. (Neither run directly in Opera.)
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
April 8th, 2010 20:00
Hi Hernan:
I concur with all ky said about false positives and false negatives relating to WOT. I personally haven't experienced a false negative (FN) with WOT as you did, but have had the rare FP. (I recall WOT flagging OpenDNS as adware; I had to whitelist OpenDNS in WOT).
Of course, FPs and FNs apply equally to AVs and just about every other scanner and defensive program, static or dynamic, although some programs seem to have more than others.
Which is why I also use almost as many programs as ky does, and don't trust any to be 100% accurate.
I can think of at least 2 possibilities why your avast! blocked a website that was green-rated by WOT:
- It was a FP detection by avast!
- The website had been clean previously (and thus was rated green), but was recently hacked/compromised.
One always hopes that one's defenses "fail safe" and err on the side of caution. I guess this isn't always possible in practice.
iroc9555
2 Intern
•
1K Posts
0
April 9th, 2010 14:00
Ky and Joe.
As always your advices and tips are very helpful and well founded. Thank you. I used to run Spybot S&D and Spywareblaster, as a matter of fact my niece´s CP is running Spywareblaster right now, however, since I installed SpySweeper (I got a good deal for 5 years, 3 PCs) and D+ from Comodo, it seems like an overkill since SS is doing a better job than Spybot and Comodo´s HIPS is very strong. I have not tried Host or DNS yet. This PC is also used by my 80 year old father, so I do not want to complicate things for him with more alerts or updates and such. Every time he begins to get comfortable with the PC, and I add something new it is a challenge for him to understand.
My point for WOT green ring in front the link in one search for a site is just to stress the need to click first on the green ring and read what WOT members have to say about the site before going to the web page thinking that if it got a green ring, the site must be safe and its files safe to be downloaded.
Thank you again for your knowledge in the matter.
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
April 9th, 2010 17:00
"I do not want to complicate things for him with more alerts or updates and such".
Hernan,
If you haven't tried OpenDNS, there's nothing simpler around to use. All you have to do is change the IP-Address (numbers) of your "default" DNS Server... and that's it. You're done. There are no alerts to alarm you, and no further updates to install. They update everything at their end, so it's completely transparent to the user.
In short: It's the ultimate in "set it and forget it". Once done, no one will even realize that it's there.
The only problem I've ever encountered with it is at my step-daughter's college where, for whatever reason, they refused to allow choice of DNS Server --- they required use of the one supplied by the school. Perhaps that was done to limit (dare I say "censor") the websites to which their students were allowed access.
for more on OpenDNS, see my second post in http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/virus-spyware/f/3522/t/19328758.aspx
msgale
2 Intern
•
2.5K Posts
0
April 9th, 2010 21:00
I don't believe it is that simple. There are two cases, in the first the user is connected directly to a DSL or Cable modem, the second configuration is where the user has several PCs and uses a router. In the first cast the user will have to set a static DNS server address, while making sure DHCP remains active. In the second case I believe that the DNS addresses are the ones in the router not in the PC, and again DHCP must remain active. Changing the DNS values is not that simple, and possibly different on each router. As I said on another thread, the simplest is to do nothing, which I am an expert at.
joe53
2 Intern
•
5.8K Posts
0
April 10th, 2010 22:00
Actually, it is that simple, Michael.
I use a router, and OpenDNS with no problem.
https://www.opendns.com/start
msgale
2 Intern
•
2.5K Posts
0
April 11th, 2010 08:00
If you read the thread http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/software-os/f/3524/p/19320611/19690090.aspx#19690090 starting the post by mrwhisker you might understand why I say things are not that simple, they should be, but they are not. Many users have not a clue that you can login to a router, or that a router is a small limited computer.
ky331
3 Apprentice
•
15.6K Posts
0
April 11th, 2010 10:00
Just a technical distinction (lest others become confused):
Comodo [which was initially "famous" for its comprehensive firewalls] indeed offers a DNS service; however, it's name is Comodo Secure DNS:
http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/
The name OpenDNS belongs to a completely separate organization: http://www.opendns.com/
----------------------------
Hernan,
If you tried and it didn't work... and gave you trouble... then certainly I'm not out to exacerbate matters. For most people, the switch to (or back from) either OpenDNS or Comodo's Secure DNS is simply a matter of entering (or disabling) two proprietary IP numbers. Comodo's directions for an XP PC are given here:
http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/switch/windows_xp.html
It seems to me that if things didn't work as they suggest, as in my step-daughter's case, all one has to do is get back to step 5, and click on Obtain DNS Server Address Automatically... that should fully UN-do everything. I'm surprised to hear that your ISP made things more complicated/difficult for you.
iroc9555
2 Intern
•
1K Posts
0
April 11th, 2010 10:00
Ky.
Thank you for your advice but I am afraid, I am in the same situation as your step-daughter´s. Once I tried using Comodo´s openDNS and I got limited connection on my Internet. As I understand, I know little about Internet and networks, it seems that my ISP limits its users to its DNS, DHCP, and IP. Eventhoug I do not use a router, just a modem > Network-switch > 4PCs by CAT 5e, the modem is provided by my ISP and if I want a router, I have to make sure is approved by my ISP. They even assign their own user and password to the modems and keep them to themselves. It is a common thread in its forum to see users looking for a way to log in their modems. Some with success others failing. The last time I tried, I was 10 days without Internet until some one from the company fixed something in the central grid or what ever. So I am not taking any chances, unfortunately service is slow and single minded to control users, on the other hand It could be just plain incompetence.
Thank you again.