Web of Trust

Topic

New Reply

Just wondering if anyone else uses this FF addon? Windows Secrets often has tips about web security and avoiding sites known to push malware, I’ve found this little addon extremely useful, it even marks every link in an email as safe or not, halts your journey to a “bad” site and asks if you really want to go there and tells you why. I noticed IE 9 being touted this week as particularly safe, but I still will never really trust a MS product, not with the volume of patches they push out every month, and I find the WOT addon superior to anything MS has done. Just wondering about other experiences with it is all. :^)

Reply | Quote

Replies

Gene,

I’ve been using WOT for over a year now and I am very happy with it. I use it in both FF 5.0.1 & IE 9. YMMV. :cheers:

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Gene,

I’ve been using WOT for over a year now and I am very happy with it. I use it in both FF 5.0.1 & IE 9. YMMV. :cheers:

Well, see, I’m glad I asked, lol, as I have learned something. I didn’t know it worked with IE 9. I have been so used to looking for addons for previous versions of IE and finding 3 or 4 completely useless ones that I never bothered looking with IE 9, anything that must have an IE connection for, Windows Update for instance, I just turn a FF tab into an IE one. I will go find that and install for IE 9, it is a great tool and in my opinion makes surfing a much safer experience. I mean I use a LOT of tools and addons, but this is one that just gives you that “feel safe” state that I prefer when surfing. And I really like getting warned about the uglies in advance. :^)

Reply | Quote

WOT seems to work very well for me as well. I presently use IE9 and have used Chrome and FF in the past, all with WOT.

Reply | Quote

WOT seems to work very well for me as well. I presently use IE9 and have used Chrome and FF in the past, all with WOT.

.

I notice you are, like me, from Rochester NY. Your skills are obvious. I volunteer at the TechAge Learning Center at the JCC. Our mission is to teach seniors how to use computers.

If you are not aware of us come visit, we are open for all daily from 12 – 2 PM.

Then consider becoming one of our volunteers.

In advance, thanks for considering us.

Dave Wood Curriculum Chair TALC. Contact me at DLWood60@fastmail.fm

PS: I’m also a long time WOT user.

Reply | Quote

I agree x 2 but also utilise features of OpenDNS.

Reply | Quote

I agree x 2 but also utilise features of OpenDNS.

Like Roderunner, I use both WOT and OpenDNS (with Firefox 5 on Windows 7 Pro x64).

While I like WOT’s marking system for both search page links and email links, I’ve occasionally found myself puzzled by an “unsafe” rating–apparently some hosting sites pick up the rating because of problems with one of the subdomains, tarring all other subdomains with the same brush. This is usually happening only with minor sites, however, and only 2x-3x per year.

For those of you not familiar with OpenDNS, its primary function is to act as a faster alternative to the default DNS lookup servers (you specify OpenDNS’s servers IP addresses in the DNS page of your router’s configuration). As a side benefit, OpenDNS also maintains a set of targeted site blacklists–you configure which lists you want to apply to your local network via your control panel on the OpenDNS web site. The difference from WOT is that OpenDNS doesn’t allow the local user to override a site block, so it’s helpful to admins who want to ensure that users don’t go where they shouldn’t. The admin can whitelist sites, however, in case you want to fine tune OpenDNS’s blacklists.

As with WOT, I’ve occasionally been mystified by an OpenDNS blacklist selection. While still rare, OpenDNS blacklist selections have sometimes been much more annoying, blocking major domains. Fortunately, I’m the admin, so it’s easy enough for me to log onto OpenDNS and whitelist a site.

All in all, I like the combined protection of WOT and OpenDNS, despite the occasional “Huh?” site block.

Reply | Quote

Like most reviewer based sites (e.g. Yelp, Zagats, etc.) it’s only as good as the reviewers, but I’ve found it to be very reliable. I’ve been using it since I think it basically first came out – gosh I can’t even remember how long.

I highly recommend it. I also recommend it to my Facebook friends, especially my old high school classmates (we’re talking 1966 here people, we’re old dudes!) who seem to fall for every Virus, Phising, and LikeJacking scheme out there.

The sweet spot for me is the combo of WOT on Chrome or Firefox, with MSE, and OpenDNS, behind a good firewall, and with software checked for update levels with Secunia (all free versions). Use CCleaner too to keep the cookies under control.

That and “safe computing” practices mean that I’ve NEVER had an infection.

Regards to all.
Bill

Reply | Quote

I use it on SeaMonkey, Firefox, and K-Meleon. It’s good.

Reply | Quote

Like Roderunner, I use both WOT and OpenDNS (with Firefox 5 on Windows 7 Pro x64).

Do you use the OpenDNS Updater on any of your computers ?

Reply | Quote

Do you use the OpenDNS Updater on any of your computers ?

Yes.

Reply | Quote

I found WOT too intrusive for my liking. I’ve been running the paid version of Malware Bytes along with Microsoft Security Essentials. Malware Bytes has prevented the loading of “dangerous” web sites a couple of times and it is very unintrusive.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

I’m not sure what makes one of these apps “intrusive,” but like jwitalka I use the paid Malwarebytes along with Microsoft Security Essentials, and I’ve been mostly pleased with Malwarebytes’ actions. Occasionally, though, I wish I knew more about why it considers a site dangerous, or what on my system was trying to reach such a site.

Reply | Quote

I found WOT too intrusive for my liking. I’ve been running the paid version of Malware Bytes along with Microsoft Security Essentials. Malware Bytes has prevented the loading of “dangerous” web sites a couple of times and it is very unintrusive.

Jerry

I guess maybe I am cautious about my surfing to begin with, I’ve only ever gotten the WOT popup when selecting a link from a Google search, so a handful of times is all, what I like especially is that in an email all of the links have the WOT icon already there so I know before clicking one if it is “safe”. I use Malwarebytes too, free version, run it regularly and dumped my antivirus program Eset for MSE last winter, have both a software and hardware firewall and have never had a virus in 20 years of using pc’s. I do use a hosts file too, but forget to update it often enough… :^)

Reply | Quote

Your HOSTS file is one of the best preventers of ever going to BAD web sites.
Granted, it’s something that very few people even know about.
I install “Hosts Manager” on PC’s where users (kids) don’t know what sites to NOT visit.
It downloads the latest list of bad sites and enters those in the HOSTs file and then deleted any duplicates.
Any time you need to go to a blocked site, you can open the Hosts Manager and shut off the HOSTs file, temporarily.

Also, Spybot Search & Destroy and Spyware Blaster both download the latest list of BAD sites and pass that off to your browsers, so they know where NOT to go.

There’s many ways to keep safe from bad sites.
The best way to keep your computer safe is to never use I.E.
That’s just an accident waiting to happen, and has been for the past 16 years. (Since Windows 95)

I used Netscape till Firefox came along. I downloaded the very first Beta version of Firefox, loved it and never looked back.

When you’ve got the best, you can forget the rest! Eh?

Cheers Mates!
The Doctor

Reply | Quote

Dr Who

Thanks for the comment on Hosts manager. I provide advice to senior citizens in Bath, England. One has recently commented on the problems when the grandson messes up the PC having visited very questionable web sites. Hosts manager seems a useful first step to help manage the problem. I will experiment first.

I would welcome any guidance/cautions/caveats/etc from those with experience of Host manager

Brian

Reply | Quote

I would welcome any guidance/cautions/caveats/etc from those with experience of Host manager

Brian

I tried the hosts file from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm and as its a large file that disagrees with DNS Service when used on a pc that uses Networking, I removed it and started using OpenDNS. Its wonderful.

Reply | Quote

There’s many ways to keep safe from bad sites.
The best way to keep your computer safe is to never use I.E.

IE 8 and 9 block more bad URLs than other browsers: Internet Explorer 9 hammers rivals in download blocking test

Reply | Quote

Unfortunately between work and other activities I would not have time to devote to this endeavor. I do appreciate the invite. If things change in the future I will reconsider. Good luck, we seniors sometimes need all the help we can get.

Reply | Quote

I have used WOT for more than a year with Firefox. I really like that it tags links in Google searches, which has almost entirely prevented me from ever encountering suspicious websites. Occasionally, I have gone to a specific website referred by someone when WOT shows its ominous red message that is site has a poor reputation. If I am pretty sure of the person who referred me, I click on the link in the message that takes you to the WOT page on that site. This gives information about who rated the site that led to the warning, usually with comments about their concern. I have generally found that only 1 or 2 people had problems with a site from a trusted source, and sometimes for reasons that don’t make sense to me, so I can proceed with confidence.

Reply | Quote

Hi mart44
Use this tool to find the fastest dns server in your area, then decide on its safety features. http://namebench.en.softonic.com/

Reply | Quote

Hi mart44,
I never heard of the one in your link, maybe its not in my area.

Reply | Quote

mart44
you will find this helpful.

Reply | Quote

mart44,
If you need to add any other items other than pictures I will send it also.

Reply | Quote

Bruce, glad you pointed this out again. I felt it was important enough that I started a new thread with this info. It appears it was a repeat of another thread on a different article referencing the same report, but does not hurt to repeat it. Thanks again. :cheers: Cheers, Ted

Reply | Quote