I logged on earlier today to notice mcaffee marked this website as unsafe.
Apparently the web advisor says it uses browser exploits to obtain information.
Personally, I had gotten Vundo once before from GWG. So I must ask one single question:
How friggen complicated is it for the administer to simply keep this website clean and filter ads you KNOW are unsafe?
This is one of the only few popular websites I know that deals with this crap.
And personally, I'm really damn tired of how this website constantly goes from safe to unsafe.
God forbid avast, firefox, and noscript would let me down. But there NEEDS to be more consideration for those that don't.
GWG marked as unsafe by mcaffee
1 pages • Page 1
c
I
I
Yes AceHigh, I went to McAfee's website to confirm. Thank you for the screenshot. It's all extremely unhelpful though unfortunately since there's nothing on McAfee telling me what was scanned, what was found or anything else. Just a red status. Regardless I have sent off an email asking them to retest.
I've used AVG and this website comes up clean.
With Avast this website comes up clean.
MicroTrends nothing.
Norton I get nothing as well.
I'll continue looking.
I've used AVG and this website comes up clean.
With Avast this website comes up clean.
MicroTrends nothing.
Norton I get nothing as well.
I'll continue looking.
Inde, firstly, I'd like to apoligize for my frustration earlier.
Anyways, all I can say from the standpoint I'm currently at is to wish good luck in resolving this.
It seems a lot of Guild Wars sites get hurt by a lot of attacks. Is it perhaps the same people who advirtise real trade for gold ingame, who're also the people to hack accounts?
Or, is the way we get our accounts hacked by sharing out passwords with GWG and GWG's natural vulnerability sending the attackers the passowrds, there for leading them to perhaps your game password?
Either way, I apoligize about my OP.
Anyways, all I can say from the standpoint I'm currently at is to wish good luck in resolving this.
It seems a lot of Guild Wars sites get hurt by a lot of attacks. Is it perhaps the same people who advirtise real trade for gold ingame, who're also the people to hack accounts?
Or, is the way we get our accounts hacked by sharing out passwords with GWG and GWG's natural vulnerability sending the attackers the passowrds, there for leading them to perhaps your game password?
Either way, I apoligize about my OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acehigh
Well, it's back to green status, so it's shouldn't be a problem anymore.
It's not for me.. I don't need to screenshot it, do I?
I
I
AceHigh, it takes 5-10 days for them to do a retest of this site. And since we don't know "when" they actually tested (see my above comment about how useless the information McAfee provides actually is) this could have been there for a while. I'm in communication with them by email so it's just a waiting game.
I
All right and here we go, I feel vindicated:
Quote: EWeek.com, a technology news site owned by Ziff Davis Enterprise, in February displayed an ad on its homepage masquerading as a promotion for LaCoste, the shirt maker. The retailer hadn't placed the ad -- a hacker had, to direct users to a Web site where harmful programs would be downloaded to their computers, says Stephen Wellman, director of community and content for Ziff Davis.
Similar attacks occurred across a series of News Corp.-owned sites in February, including AmericanIdol.com, FoxNews.com and IGN.com. In January, clicking on an ad on Major League Baseball's MLB.com led visitors to a site with malware.
Digital Spy, Ziff Davis, Fox and MLB all say that immediately after they detected the incidents, they isolated the ads and removed them from their sites.
Digital Spy sells the ad space on its forums section, visited by three million unique visitors a month, through a number of other companies, called ad networks. If one ad network doesn't sell the space to a marketer directly, it often will sell it to another network. The space also can be outsourced to ad exchanges, another set of companies, which hold an electronic auction for online ads.
"As that chain gets longer, it becomes more and more difficult to vet the ads to make sure there are no viruses in them," says James Welsh, co-founder of Digital Spy, owned by Hachette Filipacchi."There was a lack of scrupulous checking somewhere along that line, and an attacker seized upon this and used it as a route to inject some very nasty malware onto our site."
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=446406&Page=0 So as you can see, yes this is a very hard problem to manage. With IGN.com, FoxNews.com, AmericanIdol.com, MLB.com, DigitalSpy.co.uk, EWeek.com all had the same problem as Guru this year. Not an isolated incident and not the last any website will see unfortunately. Even the major players.
Quote: EWeek.com, a technology news site owned by Ziff Davis Enterprise, in February displayed an ad on its homepage masquerading as a promotion for LaCoste, the shirt maker. The retailer hadn't placed the ad -- a hacker had, to direct users to a Web site where harmful programs would be downloaded to their computers, says Stephen Wellman, director of community and content for Ziff Davis.
Similar attacks occurred across a series of News Corp.-owned sites in February, including AmericanIdol.com, FoxNews.com and IGN.com. In January, clicking on an ad on Major League Baseball's MLB.com led visitors to a site with malware.
Digital Spy, Ziff Davis, Fox and MLB all say that immediately after they detected the incidents, they isolated the ads and removed them from their sites.
Digital Spy sells the ad space on its forums section, visited by three million unique visitors a month, through a number of other companies, called ad networks. If one ad network doesn't sell the space to a marketer directly, it often will sell it to another network. The space also can be outsourced to ad exchanges, another set of companies, which hold an electronic auction for online ads.
"As that chain gets longer, it becomes more and more difficult to vet the ads to make sure there are no viruses in them," says James Welsh, co-founder of Digital Spy, owned by Hachette Filipacchi."There was a lack of scrupulous checking somewhere along that line, and an attacker seized upon this and used it as a route to inject some very nasty malware onto our site."
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=446406&Page=0 So as you can see, yes this is a very hard problem to manage. With IGN.com, FoxNews.com, AmericanIdol.com, MLB.com, DigitalSpy.co.uk, EWeek.com all had the same problem as Guru this year. Not an isolated incident and not the last any website will see unfortunately. Even the major players.
fenix
Major-General Awesome
Ex Talionis [Law], Trinity of the Ascended [ToA] ????????????????&#
W/
Joined Aug 2005
Personally I would start with McAfee as a problem. I wouldn't trust it with my computer security, as it is notorious for bringing up false detections, and failing to detect real viruses.
I'd definitely recommend installing Avira. Not only is it free, but it's one of the fastest anti virus programs, has a very low footprint (not much memory needed to run) and has an almost perfect detection rate. I would suggest AVG as well, but when compared to Avira it is slow and clunky and a memory hog.
If you want the best, get NOD32. There's no other option, really. NOD32 is the best anti virus there is. It also costs money. But that's up to you.
Regarding ads bringing through viruses, I've never had it happen to me personally. Then again, NOD32 detects absolutely everything anyway, so that's probably part of it.
I'd definitely recommend installing Avira. Not only is it free, but it's one of the fastest anti virus programs, has a very low footprint (not much memory needed to run) and has an almost perfect detection rate. I would suggest AVG as well, but when compared to Avira it is slow and clunky and a memory hog.
If you want the best, get NOD32. There's no other option, really. NOD32 is the best anti virus there is. It also costs money. But that's up to you.
Regarding ads bringing through viruses, I've never had it happen to me personally. Then again, NOD32 detects absolutely everything anyway, so that's probably part of it.
S
What ppl have to remember with ads is -
Its hard to weed out any bad sites until its too late.
I dont know the actual process but like Inde said about false ones - its damn hard to weed them out before the damage is done.
Yes its hard for sites like guru as they need the ads to help pay for webhosting but also consider how hard it is for the sites like Digital Spy -they get bad infected ads and it affects them as it destroys the image they have and they get less customers.
Also remember the 'Bad Ads' etc are not kept on guru`s webservers so its harder for Inde & co to detect them untill sadly its too late.
Ad sites need a new method of protection that serves both them and sites using them and a better form of punishment for the perps that try and get them online.
Its hard to weed out any bad sites until its too late.
I dont know the actual process but like Inde said about false ones - its damn hard to weed them out before the damage is done.
Yes its hard for sites like guru as they need the ads to help pay for webhosting but also consider how hard it is for the sites like Digital Spy -they get bad infected ads and it affects them as it destroys the image they have and they get less customers.
Also remember the 'Bad Ads' etc are not kept on guru`s webservers so its harder for Inde & co to detect them untill sadly its too late.
Ad sites need a new method of protection that serves both them and sites using them and a better form of punishment for the perps that try and get them online.
My McAfee has been registering GWG as unsafe for about 10 days, and has been that way solid through right now. My Firefox looks just like the screenie posted above.
I'm sympathetic to Inde that it's not his nor GWG's fault, and that McAfee needs to rescan or do whatever to reflect the site's true status.
However, my AT&T / Yahoo internet connection requires McAfee, so I don't have a choice.
I'm sympathetic to Inde that it's not his nor GWG's fault, and that McAfee needs to rescan or do whatever to reflect the site's true status.
However, my AT&T / Yahoo internet connection requires McAfee, so I don't have a choice.
I


