| 6:35 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The internet - be afraid, be very afraid.
| 6:58 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
This is just pure bull, McAfee makes a living that internet users a scared, also all this uhh about spyware adware most of those are harmless and a normal user also knows these days where not to go, you can not give the search engines the ball here they just deliver search results the reast is up to the user.
| 7:25 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I tried to click to the page, and their site's apparently down.
I also noticed:
|Mr Chris Dixon, director of strategy, McAfee SiteAdvisor |
I can't help but wonder if this is a veiled effort to promote SiteAdvisor, and therefore it's maker ..?
| 7:27 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Also all this uhh about spyware adware most of those are harmless and a normal user also knows these days where not to go. |
We need to define normal user. I see many users who systems are plagued with all sorts of issues. And some of that stuff is not harmless. It can cause grave harm. So much so that IE7 comes with a phishing filter "On" by default.
| 7:54 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
of cause not all spyware adware is harmless, but thats the same case with bacteria.
| 7:58 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have compromised my safety by installing McAfffee, this is really some junk software. It tries to sell stuff to you each day by serving popups, what a crap. Finally I have removed it from my Computer to protect myself from a popup hell.
| 8:03 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
One of my sites is flagged as red because it used to link to a red site. The site I linked to was flagged as red because it had a virus in one of its downloads.
The sad thing is my site is still flagged as red even though I removed the link around 6 months ago – SiteAdvisor still hasn't picked up on that. My site has had 6 positive and 0 negative user reviews. That says something, doesn't it? I'm not all that worried though, my site still features well in the serps and traffic in general hasn't been affected by its red rating.
SiteAdvisor really owes it to webmasters to give them a chance to clean up their act if they find out there is something wrong with their site. Especially something as petty as a link to a “bad site”. I'd even be willing to pay a few bucks for a reassessment.
I'll only start taking these search engine safety reports seriously when SiteAdvisor stops flagging legitimate sites as red or yellow (my site is not alone).
| 8:14 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
McAfee AKA Mc Cr..y
SEOPTI are you sure that you 100% rem it?
Many PC tech site forums, list the numerous and endless efforts needed to eradicate it, it's like a cancer allover the PC
Long ago I was cofounder of such forum and remember the headaches member had with McAfee
| 10:25 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
henry0: It was really difficult to remove mcAfee, like a pest once installed you never get rid of it.
| 10:57 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've got McAfee firewall and virus scan installed on all my computers at home for the last three years. Not a single virus or trojan since. Makes other tools like AdAware and Spybot obsolete.
Sorry to disagree, but the stuff just plain works for me.
| 11:20 pm on Jan 28, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I use a free antivirus also never had any troubles, but we still have to have in mind they also want to make money thats why they make such a comment, which I think Google and LIVE sould ignore totaly.
| 12:36 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
1. Don't let any anti-virus program boot up with the PC, and monitor processes. They're a total system hog.
2. Get a separate PC for your kids
3. If 2., then not 1.
4. Just check your email or download folder with your anti-virus software, if you get a new file.
5. Surf with Active X and Java turned off.
6. There are other programs besides McAfee and Norton out there.
| 1:09 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I use a Mac an FF2 for most browsing, so avoid most malware worries. But I also enjoy the extra reassurance of the SiteAdvisor warnings applied next to serp listings.
McAfee are very tardy updating their 'rankings'. For example it took them six months to rank our site at all, simply because we have a mailing list (double confirm self-subscription only). They monitor to see how many emails the list delivers. So for six months they display a question mark next to your perfectly clean site, which is very off-putting.
I also know of a perfectly clean site marked as Red (Danger) due to malicious 'complaints' targeting them. Despite a deluge of genuine and positive reviews, McAfee had them red-flagged for over six months.
So SiteAdvisor loses credibility (like Wikipedia has) due to manipulation by users. Would you trust anything you read on Wikipedia? I certainly don't.)
They really need to close this hole before they can be taken seriously, but it is a useful development.
| 2:23 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I use AVG free edition. I cant stand McAfee or Norton THEY ARE SPAMWARE in my opinion!
| 11:39 am on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Excerpt from methodology:
"A red rating warns users that a site poses a security threat, including the misuse of e-mail addresses, scams, exploits, and downloads containing spy ware, aware, or other unwanted programs."
In my opinion misuse of email addresses while annoying does not rise to red level abuse and skews the entire report. I cannot find what percentage is used for email abuse but I will guess it is significant if not the most prevalent because of the ease of abuse.
The email-factor inflation of the 'red zone' could be seen as a marketing ploy nullifying this report making it just another Web2.0 Viral gimmick.
| 12:58 pm on Jan 29, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I know at least two "under the radar entities", who have an adware/spyware installation base of over 1 Mio. active users. Yet that "add on" does nothing more than redirecting clicks via affiliate schemes, these programs can be used for anything on the clients computer... I consider that a red level risk!
The sad part of it is, that both plug-ins (I looked at both deeply) are NOT recognized by McAffee, only Kapersky and Trend Micro caught the malware...
Nice, that they point out the risk - nicer would be a suite, that removes that thing :-)