When deliberately searching for malicious sites (to trest how well NIS really works) Im finiding that Norton Site Safety is always giving me the green check mark. In fact im finding it really hard to get a site that norton thinks is unsafe...
The firefox add on Web of Trust seems to do a much better job in detecting malicious sites, some of the searches Ive done with this firefox app have given me full pages of malicious sites, with specific scorecard information and details.
Please share your experience with NIS 2010 Site Safety and WOT as Im interested to hear what people think.
Welcome to the forum. I've found Safe Web to very reliable. Allow me to explain how the process works.
FYI: I recently put up my first web site which gave me even more visibility into the process.
When a website as put up and you do a search which has this website on the results page, by default it will always be displayed with a ? next to it. The ? indicates that Norton Safe Web has not yet tested this site. It typically takes 2-3 weeks or so for a new website to be tested after which it will show either a green checkmark or will flag it as having some problem with either a yellow exclamation point or a red X.
The only time the green checkmark shows up is when Norton has actually tested the site and found it to be free of threats. So you can rest assured that any site displaying a green checkmark has been actively tested. This is not a passive activity and is not automatic.
You have to actually submit a website to Norton Safe web to get it rated, otherwise it will show a ? forever.
You can actually click on the rating symbol to bring up the Norton Safe Web report on this website.
WOT and Norton Safe Web use different basic approaches to site rating. WOT relies primarily on user input along with data from outside sources that compile lists of phishing sites, etc. Norton actually visits each site and analyzes it for malicious content.; user opinions are weighed but are not the primary determinant of a site's safety rating. Both methods have certain advantages and limitations.
In using any rating system you should always err on the side of caution. A site rated safe may be compromised at any time. Therefore, do not assume that a site with a green checkmark is always completely safe. The real value of these rating systems is in the rating of sites as unsafe. These you should know to avoid, as there is no doubt that, at least at the time of the analysis, the site was dangerous and may still be so. Likewise, user ratings that indicate that a site is bad can usually be relied upon as accurate. So use these tools to steer clear of the dangerous sites, but consider any safe rating as a general guideline, and not as a guarantee of complete safety.
That is absolutely true. The rating only guarantees the website at the moment when the testing has been completed. Any time after that the site can be compromised as you said.
Mainly I wanted to point out that the green checkmark at least indicates that it was actively tested and did not just happen automatically.
Caution is always advised and absolutely never visit a website with anything other than a green checkmark. I won't even visit a website with a ? myself.
Thanks for adding that, I was a bit remiss in not pointing out that a site can be compromised at any time.
I just have a problem with WOT. Trusting anonymous internet posters to rate a site seems like a very naive thing to do.
I certainly prefer a premier security company's testing.
I had WOT and when i realized that i could rate any site in any way i wanted with no proof supplied i was shocked! But, if one believes everything they read on the net from any source, well good luck to you.
