Oct 25, 2011 2:23 PM
Volunteer Moderator Leeds, UK
No PM's please
Just what it says on the tin.
There are numerous threads about sites wrongly (or not) rated Red by SiteAdvisor, fewer about those sites which are given a Safe rating which really, really should be Red. Feel free to add your favourite example to this collection. Remember to add a link to the site so you can easily check it later to see if the rating has been changed and, if possible, a link to the site page on WOT for comparison.
SiteAdvisor is being reworked, although the details of any changes are being kept under wraps. The examples of misrating which this thread will collect should give the developers some ideas for fine-tuning the product to catch rogue sites currently given the all-clear.
I'll kick things off with one I found yesterday.
3 SiteAdvisor reviews, all negative : http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/canadianhealthcaremall.net/msgpage
Site : pharmacy scam. See http://www.cyveillanceblog.com/general-cyberintel/gmail-online-pharmacy-spam
Message was edited by: Hayton on 25/10/11 20:23:01 IST
hahaprofilesfb.com participates in a redirection chain for a Facebook scam.
Message was edited by: NotBuyingIt on 10/26/11 12:25:37 PM CDT
Not rated yet, but thought I'd put this here for the record. Reasons below.
Actual scam taking place at e.g.: itwitler.com/timed-out-session/
It's a typical typosquatted Twitter phishing site if any.
There have been several like this in the near past, e.g. the following one, which was still unrated when I made a review two days ago. Then I noticed it turned green yesterday. And today the registrar had suspended it after reporting it to them, so actually there's no hurry anymore with this one...
So, now waiting to see which will happen quicker with itwitler.com: the registrar suspending it or SiteAdvisor rating it green.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with a thread like this. It's just that because we already review these sites at SiteAdvisor, it's kind of double the work to come here to tell the same thing we already told there. There would be no need to do this if McAfee simply gave some weight to user reviews — especially in cases where they contradict with TrustedSource's ratings. There's usually some reason if that happens. And wouldn't be too hard to implement.
As it is, I don't keep a record of the sites I have noticed having a false rating, and I'm not going to go through them afterwards either. I just don't have time for that, but let's see what I'll do if and when I come across with those in the future...
Just a few occasional examples will do. It would help if the reason for putting a site on the list were obvious, as in the one I started with (the links to red sites is a visual clue).
Ok, here's another one I just reviewed a while ago:
There are hundreds of identical sites, I could gave you a list anytime. What I'm wondering is why Trustedsource usually rates them at least yellow, but then occasionally something considerably fails like here. Repeat, the sites are identical.
It would help if the reason for putting a site on the list were obvious, as in the one I started with (the links to red sites is a visual clue).
Erm... itwitler.com/timed-out-session/ isn't an obvious phishing attempt? Or what?
In the case of itwitterj.com I just wanted to make the point that McAfee rated it green after I had rated it red. Which they wouldn't have done if user ratings had even some weight.
Another funny thing is that the domain was registered only at 10/26/2011, so McAfee was actually quite quick at rating it — fortunately the registrar was almost as quick at suspending it...
Message was edited by: Nodus on 10/28/11 6:22:11 PM EDT
orangefrance.co evidently hosts several phishing scams.
Graphics added by: NotBuyingIt on 10/29/11 11:34:18 AM CDT
Not rated yet at WOT, probably because it was registered only yesterday. How come SiteAdvisor has once again been quite fast to rate it green. Usually SA rates the thousands of identical sites at least yellow, so wondering again...
Here you can see what My Canadian Pharmacy is about:
Changed the SA link to point to the page an average SA user will see by: Nodus on 11/4/11 2:21:50 PM EDT
SiteAdvisor has changed its ratings and displays a yellow caution for kariarochette.com at the moment; WOT reports very adverse ratings for the site. TrustedSource currently assigns it Medium risk for "Spam URLs".
SiteAdvisor has changed its ratings and displays a yellow caution for kariarochette.com at the moment;
Heh, first I thought someone may have been reading this thread, but then again, no: all the other ones are still unchanged...
Almost forgot about this thread...
Registered at 10/13/2011, rated by Mandrake9 and myself as red at 10/15/2011, but I don't know whether it was rated by McAfee then already, as I have most probably used the bulk reviewing tool. Came across it now because it's currently used as a redirection target for several disposable domains.