Anyone using Facebook or thinking about using it might be interested in reading and/or participating in the Social Media Security discussion forum here:

http://spywarehammer.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?board=97.0

When BitDefender's application launched in October, I did not participate because it wanted access to too much information.

Yes, most Facebook apps ask for (a lot of) information.

In the case of Bitdefender's Safego:

they REQUIRE e-mail address to send you e-mail alerts of any (potential) problems ["risks"] it finds on your page.

they also suggest [but do not require] posting warnings [and weekly summaries] to one's "Wall" [one's "main" facebook page].

These two (e-mail warnings , wall warnings) are indeed duplicative... but provides the user with redundant protection so that they are notified as quickly/efficiently as possible [unless he/she opts out of the wall warnings].

accessing messages in one's inbox, and posts on one's news feed [both optional] is what allows Safego to be able to monitor content (including links)  for you.  Without allowing these, this application would almost be pointless!

access my data at all times [even when user is not logged on] (also optional)... can help alert my friends to any potential risks/pitfalls passing through their "feeds" as well, even though I'm not around to personally warn them.

It would seem to me that the above, even the optional ones, are "reasonable" for a security scanner.   Other's may offer a different opinion.

As for Accessing one's "Basic Information" [which they REQUIRE] --- some items, like one's picture and gender, serve no security purpose that I can see.   In contrast, my "list of friends" are typically those people who can post to my news feed... to which I'm giving them access... so I don't see a real issue there.

The problem is with OTHER (mostly "game" applications) that ask for [and sometimes require] comparable information before they allow me to play the game... why should a GAME need access to my news feed?  or to my e-mail??

I strive to keep minimal information on my facebook page... perhaps that's the reason for my opinion here.

While I used to use some other FB applications in the past, I now keep only the 4 security ones.

RD,

there is indeed great potential for overlap between the 4 FB security apps I mentioned above, as all claim to monitor one's "WALL" and/or "news feed" for "problems".  

[For those not familiar with these terms, one's WALL is their "personal home page" --- it displays whatever information about yourself that you've made "public", and maintains a list of all the posts you've made on FaceBook, as well as a list of posts your "friends" have made that were specifically addressed toward your Wall.  If one wishes, the accessability to view WALL information can be customized:   for example, I have a "basic"/limited wall presentation that is accessible (only) to my FB "friends", while "slightly more" information is available only to my immediate family members.

In contrast, the "news feed" is a continually-flowing presentation of all posts made by all your "friends" to others... they need not be specifically addressed to you or to your page (but it does include those items posted directly to your Wall).]

Defensio is highly customizable, and can [optionally] monitor one's WALL (only?? i.e., not the news feed) for spam, malicious content [offering several subcategories from which to opt in/out], and/or profanity.     http://defensio.com/what-is-it    I can't recall the last time I actually received a message/notification from Defensio.

In contrast, the other 3 apps monitor both one's WALL and one's NEWS FEED.

Norton Safe Web http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=310877173418&v=info

Bitdefender Safego http://www.facebook.com/bitdefender.safego?v=info

SafeToBe.me http://apps.facebook.com/safetobeme/fanpage/?ref=ts  [then click on "how it works"]

As I understand things, they all run "in the cloud", and so there's no noticeable impact/slowdown (nor conflict) between running all of these simultaneously.

In terms of "results", Norton Safe Web has generated a few false positives, based on "guilt-by-association":   if it knows of some "bad" links that are sublisted under "siteA dot com", it apparently questions ALL sublinks there (even safe ones, like a simple picture of a dog). 

So far, the only results from BitDefender Safego are (weekly?) reports testifying that nothing bad has been found.

SafeToBe.Me has been the most "talkative" of the bunch.   Initially, its profanity filter was alerting me any time a "bad" word was passing through my "news feed".   While I do want to monitory profanity directed/posted on my WALL, I have no compulsion to monitor all profanity that's posted (generically) on FB (even) by my "friends" --- I am not out to "censor the world".   I sent SafeToBe.Me an e-mail, suggesting they offer separation of WALL profanity vs. FEED profanity, and they quickly responded that they would see if/how they could implement this.   Until then, I have turned-off its profanity filter.

SafeToBe.Me has also been alerting me to numerous "potential" problems and/or alleged "adult content" in my news feed... many (most??) of which were FPs.   Again, I was able to contact them, and they were happy to check things out, and try to improve their filters.

--------------

I'll say this:   FPs in FB-monitoring are "a different creature" from FPs in virus/malware scanning.   It's not like they're gonna remove any files from my computer and trash my operating system.   By alerting me to "potential" problems --- even if they turn out to be FP's --- it simply alerts me to "proceed with caution"... to "think twice" before I decide to click on that potentially-bad link.   Since I believe many were FPs... and since I had no interest in pursuing those links... I have simply been ignoring most of these warnings.

But a lot can depend on just HOW you use your FB page, and WHO you accept as "friends".

Almost by "definition", a "social network" is meant to share information, be it with family, real-life friends/acquaintances, or yes, "cyber"-friends you encounter only online.   Let's face it:  is there really a point to joining FB, if you won't allow any friends?   [Keep in mind you can be totally selective about WHO you accept as a "friend", restricting them to a minimum if you wish.]   Shortly thereafter, you realize that just about everyone plays "games" (game apps) on FB.    Out of curiosity --- and for the sake of some immediate family members --- I tried some for a while; but I have recently removed all game access from my profile.

I figure it this way:   IF I'm gonna maintain a FB account --- which I *do* want, because sometimes, it's the only way I can find out what my [out-of-town] step-children are doing --- then I might as well opt-in to various "security" apps, which allege to offer me [some degree of] protection.

Norton and BitDefender are certainly two well-known, reputable security companies.   Defensio is "backed by the power of Websense"  http://www.websense.com/content/home.aspx  .   Admittedly, I don't believe I know who's behind SafeToBe.Me

I don't use any of the so-called "security apps", but I do use Fluff Busting Purity (a Grease Monkey script) to eliminate ads and notifications.

As ky331 mentioned, I think this is the key: "But a lot can depend on just HOW you use your FB page, and WHO you accept as 'friends'."

RD,

Always glad to be of help :-)