Red Flagged by MacAfee SiteAdvisor

MG is one of my favorite sites and everything was great until today. Good old
MacAfee SiteAdvisor has "RED FLAGGED" MG as a "Dangerous" site.
:major problem!!!!!

 

MG,
You must work at light speed. I didn't expect anyone to read my post for a week or two.
Did you take a look at the info MacAfee SiteAdvisor had listed in their ballon for MG??

 

MG,
I know, ballon is spelled BALLOON. My BAD!!!

 

McAfee is the one that needs to be "RED FLAGGED" it's crap if you ask me, viruses slip by it, the only reason I have it is because ATT offerers it along with the DSL. Had Norton before, and at least I could configure updates, now I can NOT, seem to run right while I'm in the middle of something.
I have always had good results downloading from here.

 

McAfee Site Advisor red-flagged the PM Abby sent me that caused us to meet. Shows you their system is flawed

 

The free version of SiteAdvisor may be out of date by up to 6 months = not worth using.

Use Firefox and the LinkExtend toolbar with WOT, it also uses SA and a lot more besides.

 

:banghead


[RANT]

Although I sent a strongly worded email to SA a few days ago, to which I received a non standard reply, I had intended to stay out of this discussion in the lounge. My resolve to do so, by SA's own inconsistencies and false reports, has changed.

I find myself more and more outraged, disappointed and appalled at not only their lack of consistency, but the ineptitude of those responsible for accurately maintaining a program that should in theory, be of great help to those who use it.

This application does not accurately rate websites and in many cases, the user comments (ratings) are laughable. While such comments have little to no effect for someone who is computer savvy, the majority of computer users are in fact casual users therefore they interpret these comments as factual. This in turn is not only damaging to the software developer, but results in many casual users not using a program that would be truly beneficial to them.

Many users rate websites in the red not because there is an actual issue, but because they think a free program that does exactly what it is supposed to do isn't enough for them along with other ratings that really make no sense.

For example: JavaCool's Spyware Blaster;

Prevent the installation of ActiveX-based spyware, adware, browser hijackers, dialers, and other potentially unwanted software.
- Block spyware/tracking cookies in Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox.
- Restrict the actions of potentially unwanted sites in Internet Explorer.

A few McAfee SiteAdvisor user ratings:

Major Attitude's review.

The above example is just a very small sampling of what I found in reviewing many sites. This is a prime example of why user based comments can be a bad thing. And while I quoted negative comments, the same can be said for positive comments simply because users don't look at programs from the right point of view. When trying out a new application it should be viewed from a factual perspective. To simplify further; Does the program perform as stated in the description and NOT install malicious code?

BTW, as of this posting JavaCool's website is rated red as follows:

MG's rating is green as McAfee SA corrected their error, finally.rolleyes

A rather pathetic side effect for JC's site (and others) due to a program (SA) that is NOT performing as stated.

Some other examples of the inadequacies of this program were easily found when looking at other well known websites that I know have issues. I will not name them because they have a great deal of malicious software, however I bet most of you could easily figure it out.

Site 1: Has a green rating but in SA's testing they found: 13 individual RED programs categorized under WARNING: Serious risk issues. (trojans, viruses, etc.) 37 individual YELLOW programs categorized under CAUTION: Minor risk issues. (installs toolbars, browser redirects, changes home page etc.)

Site 2: Has a green rating but in SA's testing they found: 14 individual RED programs categorized under WARNING: Serious risk issues. (trojans, viruses, etc.) 34 individual YELLOW programs categorized under CAUTION: Minor risk issues. (installs toolbars, browser redirects, changes home page etc.)

Are you seeing a pattern here? How can SA rate these sites as safe when in fact they clearly have malicious software for download? Granted, false positives are a possibility in some cases like what MG's has been dealing with, but in taking the time to actually test downloads, that is clearly not the case with the examples I listed.

I could go on and on siting all the discrepancies I found but I won't. Instead I encourage you to take matters into your own hands and actually utilize the search feature on the website if you choose to use SA to see for yourself by looking at detailed download analysis. If you do download something, be sure to scan it thoroughly. Other than utilizing SpyBot, your own AV app., etc. another option is to utilize a free web based multi-scanning website such as Virus Total, Jotti, or VirusScan.org.

I for one do not, and will not use McAfee SA as I am confident in my abilities and preventative measures I have taken (installed software) to stay safe online even when checking links posted by members here at MG's, many of which (from spammers) are malicious in nature. To rely on a program like SA for online safety would be negligent on my part and would clearly set me up for all manner of malicious software/websites.

IMO While the concept of SA seems like a good thing, it is obviously a program that is seriously lacking in accurately performing as stated. Rather than basing their overall site ratings on what appears to be a percentage of total downloads, it should be based on the facts. Malicious downloads = bad site.

Additionally, they should be utilizing a multi-scan engine to prevent false positives which may result in giving good, reputable websites a bad name. If a download is red flagged, it needs to be checked and double checked by people who actually know and understand the various forms of malware BEFORE an erroneous bad rating is made public. And for Pete's sake, moderate user comments for accuracy before allowing them to be made public. Factual comments are beneficial while comments from those that really don't have an understanding of what a program is supposed to do vs what they think it should do are damaging to say the least.

Finally, they need to get off their butts and address issues more efficiently. Taking several days, a week, or more to address their mistakes (ie: good or bad ratings that should be the opposite of what they are) is nothing less than inefficient, incompetent and down right negligent IMO. If they are to busy to deal with issues such as this quickly & efficiently then they need to reevaluate how they are doing things and make some changes.

[/RANT]


MG's website was (is) the pioneering site to offer thousands of downloads that have in fact been tested...Applications that were installed and evaluated not only to see that they perform as described, but to be sure they were not malicious in nature.:major

Many websites now claim to test the software they offer for download, any maybe they do when they add new downloads but the malicious software is STILL there. How is it (one site that shall remain nameless) started claiming 4 years ago (give or take) that they test everything but all the crap is still available for download infecting computers? :mad

Fortunately many of these poor souls find their way here to MG's and get their systems fixed by our excellent Malware Team before further damage is done. The sad thing is, they were literally tricked into thinking they were safe on the above unnamed website(s) and many, by relying on SA for accuracy, which is clearly not the case. Something is seriously wrong here.

 

Well evidently something worked, I'm here and I'm GREEN, yea




PS went to download section still green

 

Thank you David. Although my post was rather lengthy, there are additional points of concern that I left out focusing instead on the ones that I felt most critical/deceiving. And to think when this program initially came out in beta, I used it and thought it to be reliable,:-o which at the time 'seemed' to be. I had uninstalled it eons ago and quite frankly, I am disgusted by what this program has evolved into...a not funny joke!

As for the email, they stated the reply to me (like yours) that they would update me ASAP as to the status of this issue. Of course, they have not.

 

I've disabled my SiteAdvisor, I don't trust it at all now :major

 

Thanks for the great work!! It seems that a change is in order maybe to "WOT". I've tried just about all of McAfee's programs (paid and free) and all of them have major problems and have not worked as advertised. Mostly they have bogged down my CPU and as stated, it is better to install a free version of another program.
Thanks again!!!!
Faulty16

 

Now I got rid of the whole thing, it drove me crazy (yeah yeah, short trip) it was updating like every hour.
Can anyone suggest a good FREE anti virus?

 

Try Spyware Doctor anti virus at "pctools.com". I also use their free firewall and
upgraded to the paid version of their spyware/anti virus program. I haven't had
any problems with their products.
faulty16

 

Thank you very much, I'm downloading it now :wave