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

McAfee SiteAdvisor?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 saluqi

saluqi

  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southern San Joaquin Valley, Calfornia
  • Local time:02:10 PM

Posted 06 September 2015 - 08:56 AM

This morning when I opened Google Chrome it offered to install a McAfee extension called SideAdvisor.  A quick look around suggested that this is a somewhat questionable item, i.e. the information may be out of date.  I normally use the Web of Trust for this function (but not yet installed on this computer) and Avast Internet Security also displays site evaluation information on, for example, a Google search results page.  So do I need SiteAdvisor?  My instinct says no.

Edited by Queen-Evie, 06 September 2015 - 09:48 AM.
moved from Windows 7 to General Security


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 JohnC_21

JohnC_21

  • Members
  • 24,448 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:10 PM

Posted 06 September 2015 - 09:01 AM

My answer would be no if you have WOT and avast Internet Security.



#3 saluqi

saluqi
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southern San Joaquin Valley, Calfornia
  • Local time:02:10 PM

Posted 06 September 2015 - 11:39 AM

This machine (brand new Dell XPS 8700, just set up yesterday) doesn't yet have either of  those.  I will install WOT, SpywareBlaster and the MVPS hosts file today.  I don't do random surfing anyway - mostly looking up scientific stuff, computer stuff, literature quotes, that sort of thing.  Only occasionally do I happen upon a site to which WOT and/or Avast objects (in that case I don't go there).  This machine came with a year's subscription to McAfee Live Safe.  I haven't been in a hurry to replace it with Avast Internet Security in view of the latter's known tendency to interfere with Windows upgrades - I plan to move up to Win 10 ASAP, and thought I would wait to install Avast until I'd finished that job.  I don't really know anything about the McAfee product.  Should I beware?



#4 JohnC_21

JohnC_21

  • Members
  • 24,448 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:10 PM

Posted 06 September 2015 - 12:42 PM

Don't bother with it. As I far as I can tell it installs a lot of services and drivers to the computer. If you have avast Internet Security it will be more than enough.



#5 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,769 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:10 PM

Posted 06 September 2015 - 06:53 PM

As I have said many times, I do not put much trust in any of these site rating vendors.

Many site rating vendors (i.e. McAfee SiteAdvisor, WOT, Google's Safe Browsing, Webutation, avast! WebRep, etc) use a system of volunteer testers that continually patrol the Internet to browse sites, download files, and submit information. All the results are documented and supplemented with feedback from users, Web site owners, and analysis from their own employees. The advising site vendor then summarizes the results typically into into a color-coded red, yellow and green ratings scale to help inform Web users as to the safety of each tested site. While these tools are useful, they are not foolproof and sometimes may provide misleading ratings. Just because you visit a risky site, that does not automatically mean the site is bad or that your system has been infected by going there. In contrast, going to a safe site could even prompt a warning. There are legitimate programs which are falsely detected by various anti-virus programs from time to time. This sometimes results in an inaccurate site rating/warning of potentially dangerous software when that is not the case. Thus, the use of such rating sites does not always guarantee an accurate rating of the results they provide.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#6 saluqi

saluqi
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southern San Joaquin Valley, Calfornia
  • Local time:02:10 PM

Posted 07 September 2015 - 01:11 PM

Duly noted.  Actually I have never thought otherwise.  I take the tags as estimates of probability, nothing more.  With my conservative browsing habits, seeing a warning for a site in which I am actually interested is extremely rare (a couple of times a year, maybe).  I take the warning as a cue to look for more information before leaping.  There are almost always alternative ways to get specific information I am looking for.

 

I can't see how you could gather that kind of information except by using volunteer testers.  Paying people for that kind of donkey work would surely be prohibitively expensive?



#7 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,769 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:10 PM

Posted 07 September 2015 - 03:41 PM

Reports by volunteers and actual users covers the widest ground but many of these folks are not experts in dealing with malware.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#8 digmor crusher

digmor crusher

  • Members
  • 85 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:04:10 PM

Posted 07 September 2015 - 04:48 PM

In my opinion programs like WOT are borderline useless and really don't bring much to the table that other better programs do. Basically if someone is having a problem with a program or website they can vote it as being unsafe which skews the ratings of course.



#9 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,769 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:10 PM

Posted 07 September 2015 - 05:02 PM

They also can provide a false sense of security to those who rely on them.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#10 saluqi

saluqi
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southern San Joaquin Valley, Calfornia
  • Local time:02:10 PM

Posted 08 September 2015 - 08:21 PM

In other words, don't take those ratings seriously.  Question arising, are there ANY ratings/warnings programs that are more useful?

 

I've been a scientist all my life and tend to be skeptical of other folks' opinions anyway <G>.  As for "majority opinions" . . . science is not done by majority vote <G>.



#11 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,769 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:10 PM

Posted 09 September 2015 - 06:53 AM

I didn't said not to take them seriously....just be skeptical and cautious knowing the results may or may not be accurate.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#12 saluqi

saluqi
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 643 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southern San Joaquin Valley, Calfornia
  • Local time:02:10 PM

Posted 15 September 2015 - 09:46 PM

My ears are red.  I should learn not to be so flippant.  Of course I do pay attention to those ratings, I just don't treat them as infallible.  But then, I am a scientist and we don't treat ANYTHING as infallible <G>.



#13 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 51,769 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:10 PM

Posted 16 September 2015 - 05:53 AM

:thumbup2:
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users