Unlike dt02.net, dt04.net, dt05.net, and dt06.net this site wasn't compromised.
The review tools below do not scan hidden links, the commenters should inspect the html source to find those.
I'll vote "Positive / Neutral", for either the website, dt07.net, seems to not exist, as another MyWot user already posted, or it's just WoT that's preventing the website from loading after I said to le me go to the website. But, another reason for the choice of vote is because of not getting any negative reports from the following testers:
McAfee Threat Center,
Norton Safe Web,
Trendmicro Safety Center, http://global.sitesafety.trendmicro.com/index.php
https://www.virustotal.com, where the last analysis was performed on February 26th
Zulu URL Risk Analyzer, http://zulu.zscaler.com
The Zulu report for the analysis it just performed on dt07.net is at the following url. I don't know if the url will be good for long, but loading it in a separate tab in Firefox and then in Opera produces pages for the same report.
Trying to have VirusTotal.com do the analysis again, rather than just checking the report from an analysis someone ran last week, has an unusual effect. It causes redirection to dt07.net, rather than just scanning the website and then presenting the resulting report. The same thing happens when I try to use Comodo's tester, which used to be at http://siteinspector.comodo.com/public/tasks/new but it now redirects to the following url:
Actually, while dt07.net is loaded in both cases, this is with my main Firefox profile for which plenty of extensions/add-ons are installed and perhaps one or more of them are causing the problem; because, trying Opera, it works correctly.
Here's the link for the report of results from the Comodo analysis I just ran using Opera and it says safe, plus "No malicious activity or malware detected" and more details :
According to the following article, Comodo's website inspector can take a while to run because it performs "an in-depth real-time analysis of the site to check for any possibly malicious content":
"How to Tell If A Website Is Dangerous",
Updated 9. June 2014 - 15:34 by Chiron,
In-depth analysis is what's needed. Reputation is about opinions, whereas reports from in-depth malware analyses of websites has nothing to do with opinions or certainly isn't, shouldn't be anyway, significantly based on opinions. It should be real scanning for potential malware. AdBlock Plus can be used for blocking ads and, if not mistaken, also pop-ups.
When Virustotal and Comodo's inspector while using Firefox redirected for loading dt07.net, Firefox didn't report that the website is untrusted, so there's also this additional check, even if it's unintentional for the browser user.
So, my vote of "Positive / Neutral" really is for neutral, but MyWoT.com should split positive and neutral, or create a "Neutral", "I don't know" or "Unsure" option; separately. These votes shouldn't cause WoT to block the loading of Web domains.
And why is MyWoT.com quoting user comments when it's already clear that these are user comments, rather than content from MyWoT.com? I've never seen any other website placing quotes around a commentator's comments, except for excerpts or citations.
This site is used on http://www.conceivablytech.com/
VirusTotal said that this site didn't have any problems: http://www.virustotal.com/url-scan/report.html?id=87d1cb82e620e8d94b9e6bf9def7a5b6-1300670137