Forum
Comments:
-
- on Thu 09 Apr 2009
- 12:41:14 PM UTC
Red and yellow indirectly
I checked Siteadvisor, and SA rates this site yellow. Not because of its own downloads, but for links to giveawayoftheday.com that has two dubious downloads:
RED: Rummy Royal 12.8 (RummyLuxSetup.exe) W32/Pate.b virus
YELLOW: ruby_bingo.zip Generic PUP.x -
- on Thu 09 Apr 2009
- 03:16:58 PM UTC
links
funny about links isn't it?
a smaller or less-know site that indirectly links to malware gets a poor reputation, whereas larger more popular sites can directly link to malware and be praised a highly reputable; Google for example.IMHO, people should not be judged by others living in the neighborhood, and neither should websites.
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M}
http://g7w.net/ -
- on Fri 10 Apr 2009
- 01:40:31 PM UTC
links 2
g7w: "IMHO, people should not be judged by others living in the neighborhood, and neither should websites."
I'm not sure of this being completely right: If a site is hosting a lot of subsites or subpages, like geocities and MySpace, one shouldn't be judged if other participiants are breaking the rules. Then again, there are quite a lot of hosts, some better some worse, and it would look suspicious if you selected the worst of them.
Imo, links can be compared to friends - unlike family or neighbors it's your own choise.
-
- on Fri 10 Apr 2009
- 08:13:02 PM UTC
links 3
Imo, links can be compared to friends - unlike family or neighbors it's your own choise.
OK
You have Google Ads that displays links...
Tell me how you choose which links are served?
Not categorically - Google does fine with that, but straining out the "good" from "bad"
-------
Against Intuition - gives us safety through Web of Trust.
WOT Community - gives us security through unity.
Thank you all
G7W {G.O.M}
http://g7w.net/ -
- on Thu 09 Apr 2009
- 04:57:42 PM UTC
Links
It is possible for a site to keep a check on its links.I have visited cotojo's site many times and used a lot of his links without landing in the s--t.I think good sites should make sure that links are good.I would not say a site is bad because of bad links but I would leave a comment saying good site with bad links to warn others of lesser experience.(G.O.M.with Honours).
-
- on Thu 09 Apr 2009
- 05:42:13 PM UTC
On to something
I think cod head is on to something here. Comparing a large search engine to a smaller web site is like comparing . . . apples to oranges.
I mean, I would hold Colin's web site to a higher standard than I would Google. It's like comparing a large slum neighborhood to a smaller "clean" neighborhood. You would expect your risk of being mugged would be greater in the slum neighborhood, wouldn't you?
Yes, the tendency is to say that the larger slum neighborhood should be held to the same standard, but the reality is that mugging is more likely there.
Colin can scrutinize his links, whereas a large search engine, just by definition, indexes meta tags and that's it. If Google wanted to become a boutique search engine and only list safe links, it would no longer be Google ("Boogle"?).
Not defending Google . . . I do indeed wish they would spend more time, effort, and money scrutinizing their links. But the reality is that they don't, and you're more likely to get "mugged" there than on Colin's site.
To paraphrase cod head, Google is generally a good site, but it DOES have some bad links. Colin's is a good site and DOESN'T have any bad links.
A good neighborhood with some muggers in certain areas, and a good neighborhood with absolutely NO muggers. A global search engine and a boutique site dedicated to security issues . . . two different animals.
There are more differences than commonalities.
-
- on Thu 09 Apr 2009
- 06:02:37 PM UTC
Links
Thank you Cod head and BobJam for your kind comments.
I treat my visitors in the way that I expect to be treated, not bombarded with popups, ads, flashy banners etc, and ALL links have to be safe and secure.
I was n00b once too, and over the years have learnt a lot and through my site pass this on with the knowledge that many users are relying upon trust and honesty so links are checked, double checked and then checked again.
It would be easy to link to some dubious sites but reputations take time to build and can be destroyed in seconds so one has to care with responsibility to where users are sent.
For the likes of Google and other search engines it's all about the color of money which is why malware links turn up in sponsored listings and elsewhere. Many users trust Google etc, but also can be easily misled :-)
-
- on Fri 10 Apr 2009
- 04:41:08 AM UTC
well at least you tipped the scales .. perchance .. today
Hi Folks,
So we try to explain red-lining an excellent site because McAfee says they link to GiveawayoftheDay ! This is the theatre of the absurd. (not meant to be harsh, I know the info was given to be helpful, just registering humourous surprise and astonishment !)
Please note that Giveawayoftheday , which McAfee tries to paint yellow (big deal on a link from elsewhere) is also an excellent site and has no problems from WOT. They have a bunch of techies with all sorts of test puters and diagnostics dissecting and reviewing every offering so nobody gets deceived or confused if they simply read the threads of the day. Some of the giveaways are excellent, some are mediocre, but malware getting by those techies is close to impossible. Even a relatively benign secret adware would cause a firestorm.
So the question stands : why in the world does http://for-free-on-internet.com/
get a red mark from WOT, when it is clearly a very responsible site, and even the comments in WOT are almost all favorable.As a newbie to WOT, stuff like this would make me a goodbye-ie quickly. Fortunately, I think a few of the readers today have tipped the site to just barely green.
Oh, GAOTD has had hundreds of downloads (I don't follow the games or screensavers) and somehow McAfee strangely calls them the "download publisher" of Royal Rummy because it is one of a hundred programs in their freeware section ? And probably hundreds of sites have this program ? I can't even find the Rum thing on their site.
The only freeware sites with tons of freeware I know offhand that are close to 100% safe are Snapfiles, FileForum, Major Geeks, NoNags for-free-on-internet (this thread) and FreewareGenius. Even they can have something slip by, so you read carefully. CNet and Softpedia and others - super-caveat-emptor.
Spyware of a sort was recently discovered by the Wilders and Major Geeks techies (apparently after some months!) bundled with a couple of formerly respected programs, SuMo and KCleaner. On Wilders the developer himself was actively improving the program and chit-chatting away, usually a sign of no problemo.
Yes, I am sure there are a few excellent sites I did not mention, yet 99% of shareware and freeware sites have limited quality assurance capabilities, so you fall back on the handful that have an established and proven network and system. (A software-web-of-trust, if you will.) There is a network of such sites, including for-free-on-internet and most of the sites that they have on their fav page and a few others (Lifehacker, DonationCoder, Ghacks, Gizmo, Wilders etc.). The scamwares and spamwares and scarewares and other malwares are kept far away, and they run to the Google ads instead, their lifeblood. Even, unfortunately, on some of the good sites, which have not yet gotten sophisticated in blocking the junque. The worst is that the deceptive scamware ad will be tailored to be right next to the good article about a solid software -- by Google-nomics. I've worked a bit with mozillaZine and the NoScript author as a sort-of test to see if blocking is worthwhile -- however these software scamware folks are nothing if not sophisticated in chicanery -
"download this now and scan your system or there will be a new war tomorrow and your puter will be impounded !"
I wonder if WOT has a mechanism where a solid site has been subject to disrepute super-dubiously (as here) can be prevented from going blocked again without a human review of the comments and voting and the ethics and integrity issues involved ? Consultation with cotojo and others with solid knowledge and then a decision whether to let the red-line pass.
Shalom,
Steven Avery -
- on Thu 09 Apr 2009
- 09:55:57 PM UTC
Tipping the scales
I have Giveaway of the day linked on my site, and do not see any problems with it as it offers a diverse range of free products for one day only. Okay, so some I would not recommend myself, but there are enough comments on GOTD for users to make an informed decision, and as far as I am concerned the same applies to 'for-free-on-internet.com'
Finjan shows it as safe and as for the 1 adverse comment about 'tracking apps'....all I can say is that it is sour grapes as most sites use cookies which track where visitors came from, pages viewed and which page they left on, but such items are easily removed from the browser history.
The same as GOTD, there are some apps I would not recommend, but again this is user choice so I'm happy to rate it as safe.
-
- on Sun 17 Oct 2010
- 07:39:14 AM UTC
for-free-on-internet.com
Not Found http://for-free-on-internet.com/ I get WordPress may be it kill off
for free on internet.com ok & as for giveawayoftheday some software not very good but paragon-software.com for free ok by me -
- on Sun 17 Oct 2010
- 05:48:49 PM UTC
HI all I know that
HI all
As far as I I know for-free-on-theinternet.com has been defaced some months ago then taken down.
I have trried to reach it and ClearCloud DNS prevented me to reach it since potentially dangerous. -
- on Sun 17 Oct 2010
- 06:02:03 PM UTC
re: for-free-on-internet.com
The discussion took place in April 2009
This is October 2010
Why bring up an old topic? (people do not seem to pay much attention to dates ...)for-free-on-internet.com
is "dead" - it displays a WordPress installation welcome page.@ leofelix
for-free-on-internet.com sits on IP: 173.45.82.227 (canonical: e3.52.2d.static.xlhost.com)
what is so "dangerous" about that? ipVoid.com- NOTE:
I have no idea why ipVoid would reference backscatterer.org
BackScatter listings are not referenced for spam nor are they referenced for anything malicious. Read whar Backscatter is: http://spamlinks.net/prevent-secure-backscatter.ht...
Understand what backscatter.org does and let me quote why: - backscatterer.org does not list for spamming, it lists for
poor or stupid configurations that cause harm and is annoying to
innocent third parties.
People must realize that they have to reject mails to nonexisting users instead of sending bounces afterwards.
People must realize that Sender Callouts are irresponsible and selfish behavior harming the poor victims of forgeries.
People must realize that Autoresponders should not use the NULL SENDER and that they have to respond ONCE ONLY to already known contacts.
------- WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust. WOT Community - gives us security through unity. ∞
-
- on Sun 17 Oct 2010
- 06:26:47 PM UTC
@ g7w
Hi
first, I'm sorry I realized only later that is an old thread which had been bumped by another WOT memberI have scanned for-free-on-internet.com with UlrVoid as well.
And I have your same concerns
Scanning IP with: Backscatterer DETECTEDI rated it Other since ClearCloud DNS prevented me to reach that site
-
- on Sun 17 Oct 2010
- 07:03:00 PM UTC
I rated it Other since
I rated it Other since ClearCloud DNS prevented me to reach that site
Why are you rating domains you can not visit?
Backscatterer.org is not a basis for rating, as I explained in my previous post.clearclouddns.com is in Beta which means it's in "testing phase"
Maybe you should inform them of their error for blocking that domain / IP / DNS.
Or drop ClearCloud DNS services and use opendns.com or simply not use a seconday DNS service at all.------- WOT Services Ltd. - gives us safety through Web of Trust. WOT Community - gives us security through unity. ∞
-
- on Sun 17 Oct 2010
- 07:51:16 PM UTC
@ G7w
because I have visited it even if it no longer exists: I am in a LAN and not all my computers are using ClearCloud DNS or a Windows based OS.
I am aware that site has been defaced and hacked, I do not remember exactly what security forum some people already talked about this issue months ago, but I remember that many users reported that their antivirus alerted them while visiting that webpage.I simply thought it was a right thing to give an advice, since I believe that prevention is better than cure.
Post Scritpum: I know the difference among a beta, an alpha a release candidate a developer build and so on and I'm also aware that even a stable version can suffer from false positive detection.
Thank you anyway, I apprecciate your helpfulness
"for free on internet" - fin
Hi Folks,
http://for-free-on-internet.com/
For Free on Internet
is being red-flagged by WOT even thought it is a helpful and free site that is concerned with integrity issues (copyright, proper attribution, etc). And almost all of the comments are similarly favorable, making the possibility of a competitor voting often very possible.
Their software emphasizes solid, established products. In their "praise" page you can see they are friendly with a lot of good, solid techie sites.
http://for-free-on-internet.com/2008/08/i-praise-m...
We Praise Our Fav Sites
Probably the biggest problem on their site is the google ads sometimes leading to scamware, but then you would have to WOT red-flag 3/4 of the internet ! I could see a couple of minor critiques of the site, but overall I would put them in the top 1% of techie and software sites.(the sites on the praise page would comprise many of the rest of the 1%).
I am new to WOT forums, how is something like this addressed ? My spider-sense tingling says a competitor may have had a hand in the current determination by "voting early and often" - a point made by a poster in the comments.
Shalom,
Steven Avery