6 ms·

I was the cofounder at CEO of SiteAdvisor before it was acquired by McAfee in 2006. I haven't had control over it since then and left McAfee 4 years ago but my

by cdixon 16y ago

I was the cofounder at CEO of SiteAdvisor before it was acquired by McAfee in 2006. I haven't had control over it since then and left McAfee 4 years ago but my sense is that they are trying to rate sites correctly but just understaffed/underfunded. I read the reddit article but couldn't find the URL in question. When I was running SiteAdvisor we made mistakes but were also accused of being a scam by the biggest spyware distributors etc who hated the fact that we were calling them out. So I think it's important to take it case by case.

naner 16y ago
At the very least it appears improper to apply an unsolicited security rating to sites while simultaneously selling a "hacker safe" badge. Also (sorry, I know nothing about law) doesn't this put McAfee/SiteAdvisor at risk for defamation suits?
- trotsky 16y ago
  It's solicited. By McAfee customers. They're paying for various AV services and this is one of them. The site will only be blocked for McAfee customers that (I'm assuming) have this feature turned on. Clearly they couldn't run a site operator opt-in only list of malware hosting sites... right?
  - naner 16y ago
    Clearly they couldn't run a site operator opt-in only list of malware hosting sites... right? Yes. :( I'm just having a hard time coming to terms with the possibility that your site can be improperly flagged for all McAfee users and you have virtually no recourse because they happen to be understaffed.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  I'm having flashbacks to the days when people sued the DNS blacklists, or threatened them, called them Nazis, etc. I'm not commenting on whether these services (like SiteAdvisor and the DNSBLs) are good or bad, and in what contexts. I'm just saying these arguments have been made before. And, I believe the real good guys (as much as anybody is a good guy) are the ones who want people to have the right to design their own Internet experience and possibly have help from third parties in doing so. Companies have no right to make people browse their sites, even if they've made it to the top of the googleranks by hook or crook; those users are not theirs by rights. The user owns their own eyes and time. If there is something a user might find objectionable on the site, whether it be spyware or pictures of cats, the user has a right to turn around and go elsewhere when those things appear on your site. If they want to install a tool that warns them when they're about to see a lolcat or be exposed to spyware, they should have that right and the tool vendor is definitely not in the wrong for trying to provide that service (even if they make mistakes now and then).
- nethsix 16y ago
  The warnings have been worded by their legal department to avoid litigation. A similar "blacklist" by Google (safe browsing) exists and they define what language you should use if you use their blacklist to warn users (see End-user visible warnings @ http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide.html http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide.ht...). An excerpt: These guidelines help protect both you and Google from misunderstandings by making clear that the page is not known with 100% certainty to be a phishing site or a distributor of malware, and that the warnings merely identify possible risk.
nhebb 16y ago
Several years ago my site was red flagged by SiteAdvisor because I linked to Plimus, who I used as a payment processor at the time. According to my site's review on siteadvisor.com, other "bad sites" linked to Plimus, and therefore my site also must be bad. A lot of small software companies use and link to Plimus, and it turned out those bad sites were companies that sold PC monitoring software. I think it's unethical for companies to install monitoring software on employee computers, but that's a very tenuous relationship to flag my site as bad. I wrote to SiteAdvisor and finally got the status changed about 3 weeks later. I was left with a very bad opinion of SiteAdvisor because of its guilty until proven innocent nature. The legal saying "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted" obviously didn't play into their business ethics.
- jarin 16y ago
  Google links to all kinds of bad sites. How come they haven't been blocked? Oh wait.

by cdixon 16y ago

naner 16y ago

At the very least it appears improper to apply an unsolicited security rating to sites while simultaneously selling a "hacker safe" badge. Also (sorry, I know nothing about law) doesn't this put McAfee/SiteAdvisor at risk for defamation suits?

trotsky 16y ago
It's solicited. By McAfee customers. They're paying for various AV services and this is one of them. The site will only be blocked for McAfee customers that (I'm assuming) have this feature turned on. Clearly they couldn't run a site operator opt-in only list of malware hosting sites... right?
- naner 16y ago
  Clearly they couldn't run a site operator opt-in only list of malware hosting sites... right? Yes. :( I'm just having a hard time coming to terms with the possibility that your site can be improperly flagged for all McAfee users and you have virtually no recourse because they happen to be understaffed.
SwellJoe 16y ago
I'm having flashbacks to the days when people sued the DNS blacklists, or threatened them, called them Nazis, etc. I'm not commenting on whether these services (like SiteAdvisor and the DNSBLs) are good or bad, and in what contexts. I'm just saying these arguments have been made before. And, I believe the real good guys (as much as anybody is a good guy) are the ones who want people to have the right to design their own Internet experience and possibly have help from third parties in doing so. Companies have no right to make people browse their sites, even if they've made it to the top of the googleranks by hook or crook; those users are not theirs by rights. The user owns their own eyes and time. If there is something a user might find objectionable on the site, whether it be spyware or pictures of cats, the user has a right to turn around and go elsewhere when those things appear on your site. If they want to install a tool that warns them when they're about to see a lolcat or be exposed to spyware, they should have that right and the tool vendor is definitely not in the wrong for trying to provide that service (even if they make mistakes now and then).
nethsix 16y ago
The warnings have been worded by their legal department to avoid litigation. A similar "blacklist" by Google (safe browsing) exists and they define what language you should use if you use their blacklist to warn users (see End-user visible warnings @ http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide.html http://code.google.com/apis/safebrowsing/developers_guide.ht...). An excerpt: These guidelines help protect both you and Google from misunderstandings by making clear that the page is not known with 100% certainty to be a phishing site or a distributor of malware, and that the warnings merely identify possible risk.

nhebb 16y ago

Several years ago my site was red flagged by SiteAdvisor because I linked to Plimus, who I used as a payment processor at the time. According to my site's review on siteadvisor.com, other "bad sites" linked to Plimus, and therefore my site also must be bad. A lot of small software companies use and link to Plimus, and it turned out those bad sites were companies that sold PC monitoring software. I think it's unethical for companies to install monitoring software on employee computers, but that's a very tenuous relationship to flag my site as bad. I wrote to SiteAdvisor and finally got the status changed about 3 weeks later. I was left with a very bad opinion of SiteAdvisor because of its guilty until proven innocent nature. The legal saying "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted" obviously didn't play into their business ethics.

jarin 16y ago
Google links to all kinds of bad sites. How come they haven't been blocked? Oh wait.