1.

Solve : SiteAdvisor ratings may be 1 year out-of-date?

Answer»

Many of us remember the issues, our web site went through, regarding Site Advisor, but there is an interesting reading here: http://windowssecrets.com/comp/090212/#story1

Quote

Unfortunately, I've found that SiteAdvisor's ratings can persist for as long as one year after a site has been analyzed by its automated Web crawls. If a legitimate Web site falls victim to a false "red" rating, MCAFEE's official policy is that months can elapse before a site is evaluated again. Conversely, if bad guys create a clean site that initially wins a green rating, and then immediately start offering infected games or other downloads, it might take SiteAdvisor months to notice.

Quote
McAfee promotes a paid SERVICE to ensure that a site will be scanned for security threats on a daily basis. The site's owner must pay a fee for "McAfee SECURE certification," as described at the McAfeeSecure site.

For the smallest sites, SECURE certification costs $859 annually plus a $100 setup fee. If a site gets more than 2,000 page views per day — a tiny number for any serious e-commerce destination — the price rises.

Quote
Even paying for and passing SECURE certification, however, doesn't guarantee that a site with a false rating in SiteAdvisor will get the red flag corrected immediately.

In a telephone interview, McAfee research analyst Shane Keats explained that SECURE certification will fail — even if a site passes all the SECURE security tests — if SiteAdvisor rates the site as "red." In that case, he said, the site owner must wait for a period of time that's specified in SiteAdvisor's Site Rating Escalation Process (a PDF document).

I detail the waiting periods below, but an example will illustrate the procedure. The document says sites that request a re-evaluation are "subject to a rigid aging, or expiration, policy." Something judged to be a Web exploit may be "aged out" in 30 to 365 days, e-mails that are considered spammy in 60 to 270 days, and so forth.
They are pretty happy in the WOT forums as that article suggests using WOT because it's more accurate.

I found a new rouge last night and reported it to the WOT team. Within 20 minutes it was rated red by WOT. Site Advisor will take months to rate the site. And then they will not get it right because their scanner didn't flag the software as malicious...ahh, I remember that red CH rating... apparently they rated the while site as red because of a single download that was available, and that download wasnt even malicious anyway.

Just a bunch of embezzlers, especially if they charge to have the rating updated properly.

*in my last sentence, I had trouble spelling "embezzlers", and one of the CORRECTION options was imbeciles... needless to say I had trouble decided which one to use...*Actually, it was yellow rating Quote from: evilfantasy on February 12, 2009, 01:39:31 PM
They are pretty happy in the WOT forums as that article suggests using WOT because it's more accurate.

I found a new rouge last night and reported it to the WOT team. Within 20 minutes it was rated red by WOT. Site Advisor will take months to rate the site. And then they will not get it right because their scanner didn't flag the software as malicious...

Yea, that is why I use WOT.WOOT for WOT!WOT for WOOT!What's an IMBECILE ? ?there are various definitions, but a loose interpretation can be found in that it is a person who takes a previous post and swaps the position of the first and last words.


Discussion

No Comment Found