boards.ie - rated "Red" by McAfee Site Advisor

SeanW

Just thought you should know, if you don't already, that boards.ie just got a "Red" a.k.a. unsafe rating from McAfee Site adivsor.

That means that people who visit boards.ie and have McAfee Site Advisor on, will be warned that "When we visited this site, we found to star-adserver.com, which our analysis found to be deceptive or fradulent."

Strangely this analysis hasn't changed recently, but it seems to be only in the last day or two that it affected boards.ie's rating.

Here's the full report
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/boards.ie

r3nu4l

Here is the star-adserver.com report from McAffee site advisor.

mike65

star-adserver.com - spawn of Stan./

Mike.

regi

I'll pass this onto the appropriate authorities

Vexorg

The only reference to "adserver" I have seen has been to salesonline adserver which if memory serves is adserver.de.

Google does link salesonline and www.star-adserver.com, I will contact them tomorrow about it.

Thanks for the heads up.

Vexorg

Beaten to it. Gah

copacetic

mike65 wrote:

star-adserver.com - spawn of Stan./

Mike.

that stan guy is some crazy mf.

regi

Vexorg wrote:

Beaten to it. Gah

I was going to post a picture of a cat with maybe a caption like 'pwned' but it gets old quick

mike65

I of course meant Spawn of Stam

Mike.

Silverfish

regi wrote:

I was going to post a picture of a cat with maybe a caption like 'pwned' but it gets old quick

Pfft, cats were last week. This week, its gangsters!









I am so very, very sorry.

Steven

You have no idea how hard it is to stop myself from posting countless amusingly captioned images in this thread. I'm holding off only because I know Regi's aching for an excuse to ban me for a week or so.

Lafortezza

mr_angry

Red is dead, y'know!

cast_iron

Well I'm glad to see nothing has changed since this
It seems that even the simplest of notifications to Feedback won't be spared the usual "in joke" nonsense that is only funny too the few that respond to them.

RuggieBear

cast_iron wrote:

Well I'm glad to see nothing has changed since this
It seems that even the simplest of notifications to Feedback won't be spared the usual "in joke" nonsense that is only funny too the few that respond to them.

thread has served its purpose. it has fufilled its destiny... Admins have been informed. SeanW has provided a really useful heads up.

It seems that even the simplest of notifications to Feedback won't be spared the usual "moany fucks" nonsense...

koneko

lafortezza wrote:

This whole situation has turned his life upside down face.

Talliesin

SeanW wrote:

Just thought you should know, if you don't already, that boards.ie just got a "Red" a.k.a. unsafe rating from McAfee Site adivsor.

Oh teh noes!

And McAfee Site Advisor is so respected :rolleyes:

Talliesin

It has been pointed out to me that the above could be taken as me rolling my eyes at the OP.

I would like to make it clear that I am rolling my eyes at McAfee Site Advisor, and not at the OP.

Cloud

Coincidentally I was on a panel with the co-founder of SiteAdvisor today.

http://mit.edu/jiggity/www/chutzpah/tef/itpanelists.html

copacetic

Cloud wrote:

Coincidentally I was on a panel with the co-founder of SiteAdvisor today.

http://mit.edu/jiggity/www/chutzpah/tef/itpanelists.html

i hope you gave him a panel beating..

Vinnie69

And Ithought that Boards.ie was in the red because it had bought Boards.co.uk !:)

The_Minister

Cloud wrote:

Coincidentally I was on a panel with the co-founder of SiteAdvisor today.

Believe it or not, for a second I thought you meant The Panel on RTE:o

gandalf

Strange only happened recently, it was a green site on Siteadvisory up to 2 weeks ago (I think). I use the IP address in work and it doesn't register on Site advisor as its URL based.

I've never liked mcafee as it's resource heavy

Do a google on problems uninstalling it-anything that is that difficult to uninstall I'd class as worth avoiding to be honest.

I never managed to get it fully off this pc :mad:

DeVore

Exactly my thoughts.... I've been online since 1988 and the worst, most persistent, invasive and frustrating "virus" I've ever mistakenly installed was McAfee. Its like the clap.

DeV.

copacetic

DeVore wrote:

Exactly my thoughts.... I've been online since 1988 and the worst, most persistent, invasive and frustrating "virus" I've ever mistakenly installed was McAfee. Its like the clap.

DeV.

will take your word for it

mike65

Symantec and McAfee the market "heavy weights" that drag your PC down. The wonders of persistant marketing.

I use Solo Scan for what its worth. Light and cheap.

Mike.

oscarBravo

I use Ubuntu. What's a McAfee?

Sparky

some kind of coffee?

mike65

A bun.

Mike.

Talliesin

It's a contender with Norton for people who find that Windows runs too well for them and they want to mess it up more.

cast_iron

Well, actually, it's a program that alot of people have any problem using because not everyone is an expert in using computers. Not everyone lives half their lives on-line, so anti-virus and firewalls are not really that big a deal for most people.
For the vast majority of people, anti-viruses make very little difference ie. unless you are running a serious amount of apps, which anti-virus one uses is going to be largely irrelevant.

Personally, I would use neither Norton or McAffee (I un-installed the bundled Norton), but I don't deride those who don't necessarily know the difference, especially when most of them don't give a damn - considering most people don't live on boards!

Sparky

Norton is worse tbh.

Vexorg

cast_iron wrote:

but I don't deride those who don't necessarily know the difference, especially when most of them don't give a damn - considering most people don't live on boards!

I think the derision is of the software and not those using the software. Using Mcafee and Norton is clearly better than using no protection. Its a like a Linux/Mac/Windows "my os is better than your os debate"

V.

Shiminay

cast_iron wrote:

Well, actually, it's a program that alot of people have any problem using because not everyone is an expert in using computers. Not everyone lives half their lives on-line, so anti-virus and firewalls are not really that big a deal for most people.
For the vast majority of people, anti-viruses make very little difference ie. unless you are running a serious amount of apps, which anti-virus one uses is going to be largely irrelevant

***WARNING***
Slightly off-topic rant approaching
It needs to be a big deal for everyone, we cannot afford the luxury of not knowing anymore when computers and the internet are such a fundamental part of people's personal and business lives. There is no excuse for not knowing what a virus scanner is and how it works. There is also no excuse for not spending a half hour learning about which one is best and so on. Do you just go and buy a car cause you like red cars? No, you'll test drive, maybe read a motoring mag or read some reviews on the web. The same sort of attention to detail needs to be enforced for the internet and anyone who doesn't think this should be whipped with their mouse!

My housemate came home laughing about how someone in their section of their office brought their whole network down with a virus they brought in on a USB pen. That sort of thing should never bloody happen (and why the IT people had allowed external drives is a mystery)! I was horrified that she was laughing and asked her if she had any idea what had actually happened and was the person responsible going to be sacked. She didn't seem to think that bringing a network of that size (National College of Ireland) down was grounds for dismissal. I told her that if she introduced a virus to our home network I'd most likely break bones.

"I didn't know that if I stabbed this person in the heart they'd die!" doesn't work as a defence and neither should a lack of basic technical working knowledge of an everyday tool like a computer. It's not as if it's a difficult thing to do and it's not as if there aren't lots of tutorials available for all to see.

*** end of rant ***

Sorry, I really had to get that off my chest.

rogue-entity

DeVore wrote:

Exactly my thoughts.... I've been online since 1988 and the worst, most persistent, invasive and frustrating "virus" I've ever mistakenly installed was McAfee. Its like the clap.

DeV.

There was an internet in Ireland in 88 O_o

Agreed on the McAfee front, Norton is pretty invasive as well ¬_¬

cast_iron

Vexorg wrote:

I think the derision is of the software and not those using the software.

Perhaps I should have have quoted Talliesin in my reply, but by and large, you are probably correct.

Kharn wrote:

It needs to be a big deal for everyone, we cannot afford the luxury of not knowing anymore when computers and the internet are such a fundamental part of people's personal and business lives. There is no excuse for not knowing what a virus scanner is and how it works.

I'm not going to debate it with you, but I fundamentally disagree.
I spend alot of time online, so I realise the significance.

But I think you are deluded in thinking that everyone is in the same boat. Whilst it may well be a "fundamental part of people's personal and business lives" (mine included), don't tar everyone with the same brush. The vast majority of people don't spend hours and hours online like alot of the boards regulars, so protection isn't quite the issue for everyone.

I'm just trying to add a little perspective on the issue. That's all.

Shiminay

I'm not trying to take a swipe or get the last word in (despite not wanting to debate, I hope you reply to this), but if you drive a car, you must pass a test and posess a licence as a car is a potentially deadly weapon.

In the wrong hands, a computer is a deadly weapon too. Not knowing how to use it is irresponsible. I'm not suggesting we licence computer use or anything like that, but the need for some sort of skillz needs to be impressed upon people - computers aren't going anywhere It doesn't matter if you're online for 10 minutes or 10 hours, you're still at risk. It doesn't matter what brand of AV protection you have if you don't know how to use it and that's what I was getting at. Unless you will never, ever connect to the internet or put a disk (be it floppy, DVD or USB) in a drive you need to have a virus scanner and it needs to be kept up-to-date. Anything else is irresponsible.

pokypoky

but could someone clear up exactly why its rated red? I don't like the sound of star-adserver, I think boards is great so I'd hate for my experience of it to be tainted by harmful spyware or the like.

Some reassurance is needed for people like me I think.

DeVore

rogue-entity wrote:

There was an internet in Ireland in 88 O_o

Agreed on the McAfee front, Norton is pretty invasive as well ¬_¬

The "DeVore" account came into being on the Maths PDP-8 BSD system when I first went to college. The internet has been around for a long long time you know
Ireland was an early adopter with HEANet (might have been called something else then).

Usenet was the Boards.ie of its day (still quite popular but largely spammed out of it now )

The web arrived around 92-94 depending on where you were sitting. If it was Cern or UCC then about 92 as memory serves but HTTP is only a protocol that runs over TCP/IP, the network protocol has existed from the 60's.

I give a good talk about the history of the internet .
Have given it in DCU a few times and other places. Its disturbing how many CS students think it started with Netscape.

DeV.

r3nu4l

DeVore wrote:

Its disturbing how many CS students think it started with Netscape.

DeV.

It's also disturbing to think that there are probably a good few people reading your post saying 'What's Netscape?'

Personally, I don't deride anybody for using McAfee or Norton but I do think people should be aware that the equivalent (and hassle-free) software is available for free on the net.

Also, I do think that people who don't have anti-virus or firewalls installed are selfish as they are allowing (albeit mostly unknowingly) their machines to be hijacked and used as drones in DDOS attacks and as email spam machines Perhaps if they realised what they were doing they would be more careful.

Talliesin

cast_iron wrote:

For the vast majority of people, anti-viruses make very little difference ie. unless you are running a serious amount of apps, which anti-virus one uses is going to be largely irrelevant.

I've found quite a few less-experienced computer users using Norton or McAffee and lacking the skills to fix their machines afterwards, coming to the conclusion that anti-virus and similar software is more trouble than its worth and going on to insist upon there being on AV on their machine.

Hence which AV they use can be particularly important, if some choices can lead them to the conclusion that they're better off without.

cast_iron wrote:

Personally, I would use neither Norton or McAffee (I un-installed the bundled Norton), but I don't deride those who don't necessarily know the difference

Nor do I. I do deride those products though.

The_Minister

I have to say, on our home computer we use McAfee, and the virus-scan on my laptop is two months out of date.
We use McAfee, and so do many people, because we didn't know any better. It is a certified company, with a good reputation (IRL), and as far as we knew, it was the best. It wasn't that we were lazy, but we had no clue where to get unbiased, safe information. I would never download free anti-virus software from the internet, in case it was a trick, and the big companies put out information basically saying that its not safe.
Sometimes, obtaining the information nessacery is not easy.

r3nu4l

^Well said The_Minister
I'm always amazed that people don't know these things but then again, I spend a lot of time searching for things on the internet so I've picked up a good bit of information on the way. Not eveyone is like me, I've heard that some people actually have lives

Talliesin

The_Minister wrote:

We use McAfee, and so do many people, because we didn't know any better. It is a certified company, with a good reputation (IRL), and as far as we knew, it was the best.

Yep. No reason why you should have known better.

Comically suggesting its purpose was to mess up machines was not intended to imply that people actually installed it for that purpose (though no doubt some people have, as a prank or something, but that's a whole other thing).

The_Minister wrote:

I would never download free anti-virus software from the internet, in case it was a trick, and the big companies put out information basically saying that its not safe.

That is true if you download free copies of AV that aren't meant to be free (that is to say, warez).

oscarBravo

DeVore wrote:

If it was Cern or UCC then about 92 as memory serves...

If my memory serves, the UCC website was the sixth website to exist in the whole wide world. Go Cork!

On the subject of Norton/McAfee: as someone who runs an ISP, those packages are the bane of my bloody life. It's such a drain on resources having to handle "my broadband is down" support calls from customers whose computers have been hijacked by software that's ostensibly there to protect them. If I had my druthers, I'd give everyone a basic Ubuntu install and no root access - that'd cut down my support workload by an order of magnitude or so.

gandalf

Nice to see my sales are getting you to do a decent days work oscar

oscarBravo

You should be ashamed of yourself... can't you get a real job?

watty

Oh.. I turned down servicing a PDP8 in 1981 as I felt it was too old!

I don't use an AV on any computers at home. If a doubt arises we run www.silentrunners.org to check.

We have had computers since 1979 and online email since 1985 and WWW since 1994 or so. Never ever any worm/virus/trojan investation.

It down to a few simple rules taught to the kids also since they had their own PCs.

AV programs give a false sense of security. Far more PCs that I have manually cleaned up stuff off had AV SW than not, and AV software often seems to crash other programs.

I have used 300 baud modem to dial a Belfast X.25 PAD from Co. Clare, log on to a Server in London and send email via gateway to bitnet or even send a telex to book a hotel (They thought it "official" by Telex, someone at home can't send telex?) 1986. Running CP/80 on a PCW8256.

Usenet actually works not to badly at 300 baud. I tested HTTP, POP, SMTP, NTTP and FTP in 2005 over 300bps packet radio... Web pages with pictures REALLY SLOW... 2 hrs for a typical page. But my faked sample Newsgroups (USENET) was fine.

I have an early mozilla floppy

I still have 3", 5.25" (two kinds) and 8" drives in attic just in case I need them for something.

Why do people:
* Not realise unsolicted attachments are suspicious EVEN from someone they know?
* Not turn on file endings and learn (or a have a list of dangerous kinds? or short list of safe kinds)
* realise that ... in a file name is a VERY bad sign
* Click on "OK" on popup dialogs without reading them
* Install toolbars, cleaners, clocks, calendars etc from adverts? Most are malware and the ones that arn't (e.g. Google) can expose your PC to fresh exploits.
* Click on links in email with out looking at status bar or thinking twice?

I used to give a training course in Secure PC use to the staff before we let them use the shiny new IT system we installed for them.

-- And always installed locked down proxy based firewalls with all the web mail sites blocked and all mail via MDaemon set to "eat" all emails with excutable files...

copacetic

watty wrote:

Oh.. I turned down servicing a PDP8 in 1981 as I felt it was too old!

I don't use an AV on any computers at home. If a doubt arises we run www.silentrunners.org to check.

We have had computers since 1979 and online email since 1985 and WWW since 1994 or so. Never ever any worm/virus/trojan investation.

It down to a few simple rules taught to the kids also since they had their own PCs.

AV programs give a false sense of security. Far more PCs that I have manually cleaned up stuff off had AV SW than not, and AV software often seems to crash other programs.

I have used 300 baud modem to dial a Belfast X.25 PAD from Co. Clare, log on to a Server in London and send email via gateway to bitnet or even send a telex to book a hotel (They thought it "official" by Telex, someone at home can't send telex?) 1986. Running CP/80 on a PCW8256.

Usenet actually works not to badly at 300 baud. I tested HTTP, POP, SMTP, NTTP and FTP in 2005 over 300bps packet radio... Web pages with pictures REALLY SLOW... 2 hrs for a typical page. But my faked sample Newsgroups (USENET) was fine.

I have an early mozilla floppy

I still have 3", 5.25" (two kinds) and 8" drives in attic just in case I need them for something.

Why do people:
* Not realise unsolicted attachments are suspicious EVEN from someone they know?
* Not turn on file endings and learn (or a have a list of dangerous kinds? or short list of safe kinds)
* realise that ... in a file name is a VERY bad sign
* Click on "OK" on popup dialogs without reading them
* Install toolbars, cleaners, clocks, calendars etc from adverts? Most are malware and the ones that arn't (e.g. Google) can expose your PC to fresh exploits.
* Click on links in email with out looking at status bar or thinking twice?

I used to give a training course in Secure PC use to the staff before we let them use the shiny new IT system we installed for them.

-- And always installed locked down proxy based firewalls with all the web mail sites blocked and all mail via MDaemon set to "eat" all emails with excutable files...

like he said, have never used AV on my home PC and never had an issue.

I am worried though as apparently:

In the wrong hands, a computer is a deadly weapon too.

:eek:

Asok

daveym wrote:

like he said, have never used AV on my home PC and never had an issue.

I am worried though as apparently:

:eek:

Ya ever get hit over the head with a hard drive.....