Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Are Site Advisors Necessary ?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 USN Vet

USN Vet

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 04:42 AM

My System's protection consists of:

Avast 6.0 Free
Zone Alarm Firewall + Useless Windows FW.
Secunia PSI 2.0 (Personal Software Inspector)
Malwarebytes Pro
Hostsman
WEBREP browser addon (Avast 6.0)
Mcafee Site Advisor browser addon

1) - Are the browser addons really necessary ?

2) - If really needed, Should I disable both addons and use WOT

Edited by USN Vet, 13 July 2011 - 04:43 AM.

Feel free to ignore my comment, just another user !

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 buddy215

buddy215

  • Moderator
  • 13,323 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Tennessee
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 07:01 AM

Site advisors are good to some degree. Not much. My opinion.

Firefox has its own site advisor. Combine that with the addon NoScript and you will be
protected from getting infected by just visiting a site and in other ways.

Options window - Security panel | How to | Firefox Help

NoScript :: Add-ons for Firefox
“Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded and the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics...you are all stardust.”Lawrence M. Krauss
A 1792 U.S. penny, designed in part by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, reads “Liberty Parent of Science & Industry.”

#3 frankp316

frankp316

  • Members
  • 2,677 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 11:11 AM

I dunno. Some guys swear by these site advisors. Tried a couple of them. Don't like them. They tend to slow down my system and block sites they're not supposed to block. When you look at those things, remember nothing is foolproof.

#4 USN Vet

USN Vet
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 11:35 AM

Never had a site advisor block a site, just give warning by hilighting the url before clicking on it, or showing an ok green check mark next to it. Avast 6.0 auto puts one in the browser, and there is also mcafee site advisor. Just wondering, with all the realtime protection I have, are they really necessary.
Feel free to ignore my comment, just another user !

#5 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,295 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 03:44 PM

I've always thought that site advisors...were a reference...I never knew that such were now available as browser add-ons.

I fail to see the point of installing one as a browser add-on...I find it more important to use the head...as my "site advisor" and supplement that with all the basic protection that I can properly implement within my system and my browsing habits.

When I saw this topic...I was quite mystified :).

Louis

#6 The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight

    The Magician


  • Security Colleague
  • 661 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Krypton
  • Local time:08:00 PM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 07:24 PM

I find them useful to avoid going to suspicious or malicious websites. I use WOT in all my browsers and haven't noticed any slowness or blocking. With the extent of malware present on websites these days, you can never be too careful. :)

If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal...you become something else entirely. A legend, Mr. Wayne, a legend!


If I have helped you please consider donating to the Neuroscience Research Institute.


Posted Image
Posted Image


#7 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,775 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:02:00 AM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 07:33 PM

Site advisors are only as good as the information supplied. They don't 'think'. Ever since Bleeping Computer was erroneously listed as a bad site at one of the more well known ones I've lost all faith in them. I wouldn't trust them if you gave them away with a set of car keys included.

Personal decision, though.

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#8 tos226

tos226

    BleepIN--BleepOUT


  • Members
  • 1,577 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:LocalHost
  • Local time:05:00 AM

Posted 13 July 2011 - 07:39 PM

USN Vet,
You should not run two firewalls. Please turn off Windows FW if using ZA. Didn't the installation of ZA shut off Win firewall? It always did for me when I used it.

Windows firewall is not useless.
On XP it blocks unsolicited incoming connections, which is 90% of your needs. So you need something like ZA to watch outgoing in case you accidentally download a money stealing trojan by visiting a mismanaged website. Or if you want to prevent various Windows and other software from calling out. ZA can help you do all of that, even the free version.

On Windows7, the built in firewall is both directions. I gather that the setup is difficult, but the firewall is fine once configured properly.

Avast has webwatch. You can even watch everything the browser connects to.
No point using other things such as SiteAdvisor, IMO.
Try to get rid of that browser addon. Their lists are often obsolete anyway. It was good before McAfee got'm. Some poeple even consider those spyware, though that's probably too paranoid.
Decent browsers such as Opera have bad links watch built in. I think Firefox does too. Together with Hosts file from MVPS you're covered.

#9 USN Vet

USN Vet
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 14 July 2011 - 04:47 AM

I've always thought that site advisors...were a reference...I never knew that such were now available as browser add-ons.

I fail to see the point of installing one as a browser add-on...I find it more important to use the head...as my "site advisor" and supplement that with all the basic protection that I can properly implement within my system and my browsing habits.

When I saw this topic...I was quite mystified :).

Louis

Two reasons: 1) When searching for a particular well known & trusted product to download, for example, and you are presented with the list of URLS, there could very well be a malicious site listed, and if you configured the highlighting option, it would appear in RED, to give you advanced warning not to click on it, whereas other sites would appear in green.
2) Clicking on and advertisement (not from search results) that piques your interest, sending you to a suspect website, shows a message warning that the site has malicious content.

I use my head also, but would not have known not to click on the suspicious site. Of course, as someone posted, if the advisor's information is outdated, it is not 100 percent perfect. Personally, I find it very useful.
Feel free to ignore my comment, just another user !

#10 USN Vet

USN Vet
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 14 July 2011 - 04:53 AM

Site advisors are only as good as the information supplied. They don't 'think'. Ever since Bleeping Computer was erroneously listed as a bad site at one of the more well known ones I've lost all faith in them. I wouldn't trust them if you gave them away with a set of car keys included.

Personal decision, though.

I agree with your 1st point. But I did not lose faith in Hostsman, or MBAM for that matter when I had to remove a valid site name from a block list.
Feel free to ignore my comment, just another user !

#11 USN Vet

USN Vet
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 190 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:00 AM

Posted 14 July 2011 - 05:03 AM

USN Vet,
You should not run two firewalls. Please turn off Windows FW if using ZA. Didn't the installation of ZA shut off Win firewall? It always did for me when I used it.

Windows firewall is not useless.
On XP it blocks unsolicited incoming connections, which is 90% of your needs. So you need something like ZA to watch outgoing in case you accidentally download a money stealing trojan by visiting a mismanaged website. Or if you want to prevent various Windows and other software from calling out. ZA can help you do all of that, even the free version.

On Windows7, the built in firewall is both directions. I gather that the setup is difficult, but the firewall is fine once configured properly.

Avast has webwatch. You can even watch everything the browser connects to.
No point using other things such as SiteAdvisor, IMO.
Try to get rid of that browser addon. Their lists are often obsolete anyway. It was good before McAfee got'm. Some poeple even consider those spyware, though that's probably too paranoid.
Decent browsers such as Opera have bad links watch built in. I think Firefox does too. Together with Hosts file from MVPS you're covered.

Correction; yes, ZA turned off Windows FW. Now, Re: two firewalls.I installed ZA after MBAM, and MBAM's IP blocking is essentially a firewall function. Have no problem with these two working together. ZA apparently gets to block before MBAM, as the protection log for MBAM shows no blocks anymore, and they are all in the ZA log.
Feel free to ignore my comment, just another user !

#12 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,775 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:02:00 AM

Posted 14 July 2011 - 09:58 PM


Site advisors are only as good as the information supplied. They don't 'think'. Ever since Bleeping Computer was erroneously listed as a bad site at one of the more well known ones I've lost all faith in them. I wouldn't trust them if you gave them away with a set of car keys included.

Personal decision, though.

I agree with your 1st point. But I did not lose faith in Hostsman, or MBAM for that matter when I had to remove a valid site name from a block list.

The question was about site advisors. It was not about Hosts files or MBAM. Those are two security tools I do employ. I don't trust WOT, Site Advisor and Safe Web or their like. Please don't lump them all into the same category and attribute them as something I might have stated or inferred.

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#13 chromebuster

chromebuster

  • Members
  • 899 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:the crazy city of Boston, In the North East reaches of New England
  • Local time:05:00 AM

Posted 14 July 2011 - 10:06 PM

Um? Who on this planet would have the nerve to flag this site as a bad one? Well, considering you're an LLC, I'd recommend you sue them. LOL just kidding.

The AccessCop Network is just me and my crew. 

Some call me The Queen of Cambridge





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users