Are you a Web of Trust user?

  • Yes, I'll continue to use the add-on

    Votes: 4 4.6%
  • Yes, however after this I've uninstalled the add-on

    Votes: 33 37.9%
  • I was not a WOT user

    Votes: 50 57.5%
  • Total voters
    87
What do you mean?

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is a product owned by Malwarebytes, it isn't the only product out there which will attempt to protect the user from unsafe websites. However, WOT (Web Of Trust) is a service to help guide the user on if the website being viewed/about to be viewed is safe or not based on the user reviews/reputation. In fact, you could use both WOT and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (paid - with the real-time web blocking) at the same time without any conflicts (although after this incident I would steer clear from WOT personally, but I just said this as an example).

If I misunderstood what you meant please let me know and re-explain :)
Thank you for taking the time to reply. SuperNoob me thought this was a Malwarebytes forum. Another user clarified. So embarrassing.
 

jackuars

Level 23
Verified
I think everyone will forget about this as time goes on. Since you can never get privacy for free or paid anywhere on the Internet, it's a shame we will have to stick to this situation. I wasn't a fan of WOT in the beginning, but later on I started understanding why it's necessary for me. Since WOT is one a kind, and when you outweigh the pro's and con's , the pro's definitely outsells the con's. So I'll be keeping this extension, until it affects be "personally".

Remember, this is not the only software/extension that is facing this kind of privacy problem. If any software is giving me 100% privacy, I'll be happy to pay for it. But it'll still be a dream.
 

jackuars

Level 23
Verified
This is the latest message released by WOT to TheRegister.co.uk

We take our obligations to our users very seriously. It always has been, and remains, our intention to inform our users, clearly and accurately, as to what data we collect from them and how it is used. We never intend to collect or share data which can be used to identify our users, and we have developed extensive data cleansing techniques to ensure our users remain anonymous.

After a review of some of the information recently reported and a thorough investigation of facts and circumstances, we now believe that our data cleaning techniques may not have been sufficient to fully anonymize the browsing data WoT users shared with us. While we deployed great effort to remove any data that could be used to identify individual users, it appears that in some cases such identification remained possible, albeit for what may be a very small number of WoT users. Of course, if the data allows the identification of even a small number of WoT users, we consider that unacceptable, and we will be taking immediate measures to address this matter urgently as part of a full security assessment and review.

We hope to earn back the trust of the community by implementing a set of measures which will ensure that those who prefer not to share their data can easily choose to keep their data private while still participating in the WOT community.

Regarding the relaunch of WoT – we received a notice from the Mozilla store that they were removing our add-on from the store pending answers to certain questions. We decided to remove WoT from the other platforms at our own initiative so that we could have the time to study the feedback we have been receiving and to make appropriate changes.

We are now preparing to relaunch an updated version of WoT which will include the appropriate measures to regain the trust of our users.

So it will be back on Chrome/Firefox when they change their underlying code.
 

DardiM

Level 26
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Verified
This is the latest message released by WOT to TheRegister.co.uk

We now believe that our data cleaning techniques may not have been sufficient to fully anonymize the browsing data WoT users shared with us. While we deployed great effort to remove any data that could be used to identify individual users, it appears that in some cases such identification remained possible, albeit for what may be a very small number of WoT users. Of course, if the data allows the identification of even a small number of WoT users, we consider that unacceptable, and we will be taking immediate measures to address this matter urgently as part of a full security assessment and review.


So it will be back on Chrome/Firefox when they change their underlying code.
Hahaha, funny sentence, I laughed... They really think most people will believe the part I underlined ?

http://cdn.earthporm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/cat-thief-funny-animal-pictures-45__880.jpg
 

teAenforcer

New Member
The irony of this...

Even the post on wiki confirms they are running with their tail between their legs because they were caught out although at the end of it all, it all comes down to the user to read the policy they enforce.
Privacy Policy | WOT (Web of Trust)

Quote from...
WOT Services - Wikipedia

"German media contacted WOT with the results of the investigation prior to publication of the report. WOT chose not to comment on the findings at that time."
 
Reactions: DardiM
D

Deleted member 2913

I am not a WOT user.

Currently running Adguard Desktop And avatar cleared that WOT in Adguard is a modified version, traffic is directed to their site & they dont provide user data to WOT.
So I am using WOT in Adguard, it may be aggressive in blocking due to users rating But on average users system the aggressive WOT seems good.
 
Reactions: DardiM