Google’s Safe Browsing Site Status
Site Safety Details
***** Some pages on this website install malware on visitors' computers.
***** Dangerous websites have been sending visitors to this website, including: viteunerecette.ca, kleinezeitung.at, and europe1.fr.
30-day safety report for: krxd.net
Surf with caution
During the last 7 days potentially active malware was detected on a subdomain. However, no threats were detected on the main website. (updated Jan 05, 2016 GMT)
Types of Malware Found 2
NeoSploit Exploit Kit
Compromised Pages 5
JS/Worm is a malicious software that once it is executed has the capability of replicating itself and infect other files and programs. These type of malware, called Viruses, can steal hard disk space and memory that slows down or completely halts your PC. It can also corrupt or delete data, erase your hard drive, steal personal information, hijack your screen and spam your contacts to spread itself to other users. Usually, a Virus is received as an attachment on an email or instant message.
NeoSploit Exploit Kit Summary
NeoSploit Exploit Kit is a Web application that takes advantage of vulnerabilities in ActiveX and Adobe Reader in order to hack computers via malicious scripts planted on compromised websites or malicious files to remotely attack your computer. When surfing to a website with browser exploits, or when opening a malicious file typically received in an email, it may result in unwanted software (see also Trojan Horse) being downloaded to your computer. These type of threats invade a PC with the help of infected links, websites and email attachments among others.
Through the use of Ghostery, I conclude that this domain belongs to Krux Digital.
"Krux delivers a cloud-based data management platform that helps companies protect, manage, and monetize consumer data across all digital screens and sources."
About Us: https://www.krux.com/services/
Anonymous (Browser Information, Date/Time, Page Views , Serving Domains)
Pseudonymous (IP Address (EU PII))
Data is not shared with 3rd parties.
Source for my info: https://apps.ghostery.com/en/apps/krux_digital
Visiting the domain itself does not provide any information at all.
The domain is owned by web.com, which is rated as a spammer and phisher. Thus, this domain has to be considered highly suspicious, and be handled with care.
Ran into this on thesaurus.com, further research shows it to be owned by networksolutions.com who is owned by web.com.
In 3 years there has been 665 complaints filed with the BBB.org for web.com
Is absolutely disgusting and horrible in every single way. In no way do I want anything, cookie, beacon, or otherwise of theirs to interact with anything I own, E.G. my computer.
They make me physically ill.
This is a script server website. There is no advertising page at this URL, but that does not mean it is not an active website as it is serving scripts to its client's websites. My preference is to block any third party scripts that are not required to display the client's website content. I use Firefox and NoScript.
As there is no HTML webpage, this URL is not suitable for children.
On 08/10/2013, JackE1930 said:
"What, this site gets a highly negative rating based on 2 votes? If there are many more votes saying that this is a bad site, why aren't the number of votes posted to show that a lot of people have had a bad experience. In fact why isn't it required for voters to leave some kind of comment of why they voted the way they did. I'm still not finding these ratings entirely trust worthy.
Note: I tried going out to this website and found that it doesn't even exist any longer. "
JackE1930, I understand that when fellow users don't add a comment specifying their decisions those decisions can't carry nearly as much weight as when they do. I wish everyone would, every time; but, that's probably not going to happen. We can still enjoy what data we do get, for free, from our fellow WOT members, though.
As for the company's website no longer existing, and yet it's traffic-tracking software still working away on this many other websites: this raises the -biggest- alarm in my mind!
What, this site gets a highly negative rating based on 2 votes? If there are many more votes saying that this is a bad site, why aren't the number of votes posted to show that a lot of people have had a bad experience. In fact why isn't it required for voters to leave some kind of comment of why they voted the way they did. I'm still not finding these ratings entirely trust worthy.
Note: I tried going out to this website and found that it doesn't even exist any longer.