superantispyware red flaged

[darth]

i was surprised today opening up forum web page to see mcafee site advisor has red flaged our web site. site advisor say this site is linked to programshome.com. reported to be risky site. this dont look too good. i am a suporter of suporter of superantispyware.

[Lasse88]

try and ask mcafee about it, mcafee site advisor have maked mistakes lots of times before.. (both ways)

[SUPERAntiSpy]

We are in the process of dealing with it - they have no easy way to dispute a listing, so we are working on it.

[darth]

well its not going to stop me from visiting here or using the program. but commercial wise for the company, its sure not helpful. maybe i and the rest here should think about going to thier site report page and leave some commets. they have yellow flaged such sites as pcmag.co and snapfiles.com. i agree they do make mistakes in both directions sometimes.

[Saxel]

McAfee's action is an absolute disgrace, if only their products were as reliable as Superantispyware.

On the other hand have you seen the number of very positive reviews of the product left on the site advisor site as a result of this action!

[darth]

yes i did. i suspect you will see some negative comments from other makers of antispyware programs, using a aka. using ie7, in addition to the normal site icon/plugin a much larger popup i would call it popups and pretty shows thier reasons for being red sited. it does not do this with firefox just shows red/green/yellow. strange. must related to ie7.

[jadda]

I really hope they will fix this soon. Keep us updated Nick?

[sunniebear]

I use LinkScanner Pro, which can be a bit over paranoid even with its lowest level 'Yellow' warnings sometimes. I just tested with a google search and I get 'Green' , (my last definition update was yesterday). Even If I got here without going through a search I would have had a pop-up from LinkScanner if there was any warning to give, as I use the paid for pro version which monitors and reacts as necessary to any link I click on. (If any thing changes with this I'll let you know).

I guess the definitions or databases with these programs can be a bit subjective sometimes, just like what is classed as a tracking cookie can be very different between various anti-spyware vendors. Sometimes your on common sense has to prevail!

@Darth. McAffee Site Advisor does work differently in IE and Firefox, (I used to use it with both browsers when I had XP installed), you only get that additional 'ballon' pop-up with IE and not in Firefox.

[gerardwil]

I use LinkScanner Pro, which can be a bit over paranoid even with its lowest level 'Yellow' warnings sometimes.

You can uncheck that "Yellow" option.

Gerard

[sunniebear]

I use LinkScanner Pro, which can be a bit over paranoid even with its lowest level 'Yellow' warnings sometimes.

You can uncheck that "Yellow" option.

Gerard

Ye, discovered that one, but I don't actually mind them really. I like paranoid security software, goes with my paranoid mind

[roddy32]

I was just coming to report this but I see it has already been reported. Good luck Nick, I went through this with another site that I am admin at and McAfee fixed the problem but it was NOT quick.

[Alan D]

I wonder if someone could clarify the nature of this MacAfee problem, because I can't actually FIND any links from this website to other websites, bad ones or not!

Has MacAfee actually made a mistake? Or are the links actually here, somewhere, but I just haven't found them?

[Guest]

I wonder if someone could clarify the nature of this MacAfee problem, because I can't actually FIND any links from this website to other websites, bad ones or not!

Has MacAfee actually made a mistake? Or are the links actually here, somewhere, but I just haven't found them?

HAHAHHAHA!!!

Very great~!

Keep up the great work~!

[Alan D]

Well, that's a less than helpful reply.

My question was a serious one: I can't find links to ANY other websites here, let alone bad ones. Yet the MacAfee report shows a whole bunch of scary-looking links. Can someone explain?

[Nightcap]

Well, that's a less than helpful reply.

So far all three of solo's posts seem to serve only one purpose Alan and that is to foul things up.

[darth]

i dont really how this linking really works. could it be that the reportly risky sites are showing links to this web site. but if thats the case whats to stop a risky web site from showing a link to say microsoft.com or any other site for that matter.

[sunniebear]

Well, that's a less than helpful reply.

My question was a serious one: I can't find links to ANY other websites here, let alone bad ones. Yet the MacAfee report shows a whole bunch of scary-looking links. Can someone explain?

Hi Alan D,

I have read many of your posts and like that you come to the forum for clarity and understanding of an issue. That's exactly what a forum is for; learning and sharing experiences and knowledge

I don't use McAffee site advisor so I can't actually see what associated links it is showing as red or otherwise.

I have had an afterthought on this. Is there any possibility that these links that McAffee is referring to have been posted within the 'Spyware, Adware and Malware Diagnosis' section of the forum during research . (Of course this section of the forum requires special access so that the general user or visitor doesn't accidently infect themselves!)

Just a thought, because I can't find any other doddgy links either, (or has McAffee simply made a mistake).

[Alan D]

I don't use McAffee site advisor so I can't actually see what associated links it is showing as red or otherwise.

Here's the link to the MacaFee report on Superantispyware.com:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/supera ... e=IEPlugin

It's not just the forum - it's the whole site.

This is what they say about their 'affiliations' warning:

"Online Affiliations examines how aggressively the site tries to get you to go to other sites that we've flagged with red verdicts. It is a very common practice on the Internet for suspicious sites to have many close associates with other suspicious sites. The primary purpose of these "feeder" sites is to get you to visit the suspicious site. A site can receive a red warning if, for example, it links too aggressively to other red sites. In effect, a site can become "red by association" due to the nature of its relationship to red flagged domains."

That's enough to put anyone off visiting this site! And yet, as I said, and as you confirm - we can't actually find any links at all!

Is there any possibility that these links that McAffee is referring to have been posted within the 'Spyware, Adware and Malware Diagnosis' section of the forum during research .

I hadn't thought of that! On the other hand, if that were the case, then I imagine that almost every forum would contain a few dodgy links - so you'd expect all forums to get MacAfee's red flag. But they don't.

[sunniebear]

I don't use McAffee site advisor so I can't actually see what associated links it is showing as red or otherwise.

Here's the link to the MacaFee report on Superantispyware.com:

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/supera ... e=IEPlugin

It's not just the forum - it's the whole site.

This is what they say about their 'affiliations' warning:

"Online Affiliations examines how aggressively the site tries to get you to go to other sites that we've flagged with red verdicts. It is a very common practice on the Internet for suspicious sites to have many close associates with other suspicious sites. The primary purpose of these "feeder" sites is to get you to visit the suspicious site. A site can receive a red warning if, for example, it links too aggressively to other red sites. In effect, a site can become "red by association" due to the nature of its relationship to red flagged domains."

That's enough to put anyone off visiting this site! And yet, as I said, and as you confirm - we can't actually find any links at all!

Is there any possibility that these links that McAffee is referring to have been posted within the 'Spyware, Adware and Malware Diagnosis' section of the forum during research .

I hadn't thought of that! On the other hand, if that were the case, then I imagine that almost every forum would contain a few dodgy links - so you'd expect all forums to get MacAfee's red flag. But they don't.

Thanks for the link. I can now see properly what people are taking about in the thread.

[Seth]

I just left a thorough comment at Site Advisor.

[infosponge]

No doubt you will all find this interesting:

This appers in the McAfeehelp forums under "VirusScan 12 2008.

"First download install, update and then run some antispyware tools to ensure that it isn't your second choice"

(Moderator is first trying to elimiinate possible spyware that could be causing the problem)

Two links are listed:

AVG Antispyware, SAS

Here's the kicker:

"If you run McAfee Site Advisor, It will issue a warning In that second site."

"Ignore it"

The way I use to access the forums is to Google "mcafeehelp"

Take a look, it is in a post under today's date.

It looks like they have acknowledged that SAS is legit!

I wonder when McAfee will be notifying Nick officially regarding this matter.

[infosponge]

I forgot to mention the specific post is:

"Computer Hibernating"

Again it appears under "VirusScan 12 - 2008"

[JerryM]

McAfee SA is still flagging SAS.com as red.

I just ignore it. I suppose SA has some use, and I continue to use it, but obviously it leaves a lot to be desired.

Regards,

Jerry

[infosponge]

Yes, that unfortunatly remains true.

The McAfee volunteer site contributor "Ex Brit" feels differently and recommends SAS where applicable and even goes as far as to leave his opinion in the SA report.

As to why this can't somehow be cleared up is probably due to the corporate muddle of a large international entity.

Even there I'm only guessing.

Maybe Nick could post in the McAfee forums where it is entirely possible that a development engineer would answer.

They are working with people right now.

Maybe it's worth a shot.

Who knows...

[infosponge]

For the the sake of correctness,

Ex Brit's status is Volunteer Moderator (not volunteer site contributor)

It's too bad he can't pass the SAS situation upstairs...