- Sep 28, 2011
- 326
It's simply because Kaspersky doesn't block fake/scam shopping sites. It's not in their policy. There is nothing more to it. They are probably afraid of blocking legit shopping sites by mistake, which could cost Kaspersky money. But not blocking fake store would cost users their money.
Most other vendors are not worried of it. You just have to show them the proof that the shopping site is fake and they'll block it.
This particular site doesn't have or inject any malicious code while ordering, so it doesn't fall into Kaspersky's "Data Loss and Threats Protection" category. Vendors like Avast has very specific "Scam:Store" category, Bitdefender has "Fraud" category, most vendors would put it under "Phishing". Kaspersky doesn't have a category for scam/fake shopping websites.
View attachment 280861View attachment 280862
I agree with you. I have tried to make my case about fake shopping sites to them 4 times near the end of 2022 and all I got was similar responses to the ones I shared above. I even wrote a harsh reply to them the last time but that is something I shouldn't have done as I'm just talking to employees who are simply following their company policies.Kaspersky needs to get a better policy with fake stores sooo much of it as of lately it kinda is a security threat to the user. All the other vendors added detection but for the first time ever i see kaspersky being a slug.
Avast/avg just incorporated a fake website shield in their product not too long ago. Not sure how it works but has anyone had good luck with it?
I agree with you. I have tried to make my case about fake shopping sites to them 4 times near the end of 2022 and all I got was similar responses to the ones I shared above. I even wrote a harsh reply to them the last time but that is something I shouldn't have done as I'm just talking to employees who are simply following their company policies.
I see that @harlan4096 has written them back and waiting for a response. I think he'll receive a similar response but a change in policy would be a better outcome for Kaspersky customers.
Anyway, I've replied their last verdict, asking for some explanations, also attaching this thread.
Hello,
Dear User,
Thank you for sending a request to Kaspersky!
Please note, this site can only be blocked by a legal decision.
Best regards, Senior Web Content Analyst
39A/3 Leningradskoe Shosse, Moscow, 125212, Russia Tel./Fax: + 7 (495) 797 8700 Kaspersky Cyber Security Solutions for Home and Business | Kaspersky Securelist | Kaspersky’s threat research and reports
Kaspersky Threat Intelligence Portal - get insights about suspicious files, hashes, URLs, IP addresses or domain names
Kaspersky is already on a thin ice, they can not block something willy-nilly. These days 1 Karen complains and everyone is going nuts about it.Clearly Kaspersky needs to change it's ways/policy when all other popular AV vendors blocked it without question.
Cisco changed reputation from "Neutral" to "Untrusted".Both detect it now (check post 39 & 41). I don't know if this was due to website being reported by me & other MT members, or if it was automated. VT still doesn't have Avast/AVG detections. I checked VT scan on 9th of Jan and it had zero detections.
Edit: Wait is Fake website shield different from their usual detections?
Update: Just received an update, Cisco Talos denied changing reputation.