WOT vs Avast Online Security
- Thread starter Icy
- Start date
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
Absolutely. U can use avast browser safety with panda url & K9 ( tweak settings ). This 3 gives me a excellent free webshield/url protection then any AV/Internet security i used. K9 & panda url filter won't slow anything but if u have issue with avira browser safety then i won't recommended it coz first i feel slow down by it but now not feeling any slowdown in opera 20
Mostly k9 detects for me.Perhaps IP address was rated with MRT (mass rating tool) because pornography was detected on that server...?
Last edited:
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
How could I be wrong when I plainly said I never got to try it?
I do plan to try it soon after it has a final release, I never use Beta testing products since they are never stable and full of bugs, just because it can block malicious/phishing sites, doesn't mean it is worth using if it blocks safe sites like many others do. The only thing worse than a missed detection is false detection of something harmless like MalwareTips detected as a malware distribution site. False detections can cause users to avoid your site and cause legitimate sites to loose customers.
Enjoy!!
+1
@Icy You may to try using VirusTotal for Browsers (FF, Chrome and IE). https://www.virustotal.com/en/documentation/browser-extensions/ You can right-click on the webpage or download links and the VT extension will direct you to their results page for both site and if available the downloadable program selected.
Just another option, considering the point Littlebits made and something I agree with.
- Jul 16, 2013
- 157
Hi,
I use webutation on firefox but a webprotection is include also in my antivirus webroot^^
I use webutation on firefox but a webprotection is include also in my antivirus webroot^^
- May 11, 2013
- 1,687
+1
@Icy You may to try using VirusTotal for Browsers (FF, Chrome and IE). https://www.virustotal.com/en/documentation/browser-extensions/ You can right-click on the webpage or download links and the VT extension will direct you to their results page for both site and if available the downloadable program selected.
Now there's an idea
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
How could I be wrong when I plainly said I never got to try it?
I do plan to try it soon after it has a final release, I never use Beta testing products since they are never stable and full of bugs, just because it can block malicious/phishing sites, doesn't mean it is worth using if it blocks safe sites like many others do. The only thing worse than a missed detection is false detection of something harmless like MalwareTips detected as a malware distribution site. False detections can cause users to avoid your site and cause legitimate sites to loose customers.
Enjoy!!
Wot also have many false positives since it flag sometimes legit sites & every url protection have false positive, nothing new . I said u r somehow wrong at "newer extensions are not as good as the ones that have been developed for many years" coz ur statement is not completely true coz avira proved me in url malicious test then it's capable of url filtering, maybe it's got some false positive but don't see any bugs still. if i want to access a site which get blocked by avira browser safety then i will simply test the url in virus total & if i see it's false positive then i'll allow it .
- Jan 20, 2014
- 89
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
Interesting thing about wot - " Users who have installed the WOT add-on for Chrome and did fulfill above criteria may be asked to pay a fee, or to increase their contribution to continue using the add-on for free. Anyone with an activity score >= 500 (which equals ratings ~20 websites, for example), will be exempt from the freemium experiment."
read here -> https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/45536-WOT-freemium?comment=247794 also read peoples recent comments in
Chrome Web Store - WOT
- " Users who have installed the WOT add-on for Chrome and did fulfill above criteria may be asked to pay a fee, or to increase their contribution to continue using the add-on for free. Anyone with an activity score >= 500 (which equals ratings ~20 websites, for example), will be exempt from the freemium experiment."read here -> https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/45536-WOT-freemium?comment=247794 also read peoples recent comments in
Chrome Web Store - WOT
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Avira Browser Safety is only available by private beta testing signup, if it had all the bugs worked out then it would be made available publicly as a final release. I will stand by my statement since not one of the newer safe browsing extensions has accomplished what the older ones have already done. Only time will tell if Avira Browser Safety will be a product worth using, it is much too early to tell since it is not available to the public and doesn't even have a final release. Blocking malicious/phishing urls is just one important feature of a safe browsing extension, there are other features that are equally important. Like false detections of safe websites, doesn't slow down your browser, doesn't cause issues with your browsing experience, system resource usage, extension compatibility with other extensions, supported browsers, price (it might not be free once it goes final, I have seen many products with free beta testing versions then charge a high price for the final release), etc. With new beta testing projects you will never know what will be changed in the final release. You can not rate of product based on only one feature or almost all products would get high ratings since most will have at least one good feature. You can not predict what a new beta testing product will be like before it has a final release.
Enjoy!!
- Dec 26, 2013
- 562
- Jan 22, 2014
- 1,804
it's already available for chrome, getting good user reviews. first peeps complains that it's slows down a bit but like i said before it now don't slow down anything or any issue with browser experience, i'm using it in oprea & quit happy with that. It's ram usage is fine. Didn't find any compatibility issue with other extensions. I said i'm happy with avira browser safety extensions right now, if they make it paid like wot then i'm not gonna use it. I live in present so don't think of future alwaysAvira Browser Safety is only available by private beta testing signup, if it had all the bugs worked out then it would be made available publicly as a final release. I will stand by my statement since not one of the newer safe browsing extensions has accomplished what the older ones have already done. Only time will tell if Avira Browser Safety will be a product worth using, it is much too early to tell since it is not available to the public and doesn't even have a final release. Blocking malicious/phishing urls is just one important feature of a safe browsing extension, there are other features that are equally important. Like false detections of safe websites, doesn't slow down your browser, doesn't cause issues with your browsing experience, system resource usage, extension compatibility with other extensions, supported browsers, price (it might not be free once it goes final, I have seen many products with free beta testing versions then charge a high price for the final release), etc. With new beta testing projects you will never know what will be changed in the final release. You can not rate of product based on only one feature or almost all products would get high ratings since most will have at least one good feature. You can not predict what a new beta testing product will be like before it has a final release.
Enjoy!!
WOT ? hahahahaha such a joke... everything based on user's opinion is already a flaw...
- Jan 24, 2011
- 9,378
The main difference, as I see it, is that WOT will notify on how trustworthy a website is. So just like Avast site advisor, it will alert you when the site is malicious (containing malicious scripts, or distributing malware), but it will also notify you about its reputation among its users. Some websites are not malicious, but they aren't a good place to be on.
Let me give you an example, I'm sure you know about Combofix.. If you google Combofix you will get these results:
Please take a close look at the combofix.org domain. WOT says it's not good, while Avast says is good.
Combofix.org is not the publisher of this program, and it's not authorized to distribute it. Other sites hosting ComboFix (other than bleepingcomputer.com) are not authorized mirrors and are hosting outdated copies of ComboFix.These outdated copies can contain bugs that may render some machines unbootable, so it is not a good idea to download ComboFix from combofix.org
Again, Avast is good, however it's mostly based on website scans and less about users opinions, while WOT will take more into account its users opinions. Both have their weak points, however I really like to know the users opinion rather (because it's more useful in real life) than Avast scans.
Let me give you an example, I'm sure you know about Combofix.. If you google Combofix you will get these results:
Please take a close look at the combofix.org domain. WOT says it's not good, while Avast says is good.
Combofix.org is not the publisher of this program, and it's not authorized to distribute it. Other sites hosting ComboFix (other than bleepingcomputer.com) are not authorized mirrors and are hosting outdated copies of ComboFix.These outdated copies can contain bugs that may render some machines unbootable, so it is not a good idea to download ComboFix from combofix.org
Again, Avast is good, however it's mostly based on website scans and less about users opinions, while WOT will take more into account its users opinions. Both have their weak points, however I really like to know the users opinion rather (because it's more useful in real life) than Avast scans.
Last edited:
- Dec 4, 2013
- 2,800
I like what you said here, Jack!
- Jan 28, 2014
- 444
If I may take a conclusion here, both WOT and Avast (or others) is using different way to "judge" a website is safe or not, both have advantage and disadvantage, both sometime give false positive too, so nothing is perfect when it made by human
I heard from friend of mine, he is a programmer, he said when a software have a little bug, we call it "feature"
Thus I think it's a good idea to use both web filter like Jack did (if we don't have any problems when using it though)
Besides, the final decision is depends on us (users), web filters only help users to decide
But speaking about the vote above, I vote for WOT, since it's based on humans opinion, which is more reliable to me rather than robot/program, but of course it's not a 100% bullet proof if a site is safe or not
I heard from friend of mine, he is a programmer, he said when a software have a little bug, we call it "feature"
Thus I think it's a good idea to use both web filter like Jack did (if we don't have any problems when using it though)
Besides, the final decision is depends on us (users), web filters only help users to decide
But speaking about the vote above, I vote for WOT, since it's based on humans opinion, which is more reliable to me rather than robot/program, but of course it's not a 100% bullet proof if a site is safe or not
Last edited:
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
I would rather depend on user opinions over trusting security software vendors because they continue to keep adding adware partners and rogue developers to their whitelists, I don't know how many times I have seen rogueware go right pass security software with flying colors. WOT usually detects these when others fail. Like I said WOT is not perfect but still more dependable than the rest. The icon color on the websites are not that important, always read the commits they will give you much better details.
Thanks.
- Dec 26, 2013
- 562
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Poll
