<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: McAfee Site Advisor Ferrets Out the Funk</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 17:21:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: rexolio</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/#comment-75283</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rexolio]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webworkerdaily.com/?p=3327#comment-75283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anyone know how long the SiteAdvisor Green, Yellow and Red icons have been included in Google Search Results (if you have SiteAdvisor installed)?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyone know how long the SiteAdvisor Green, Yellow and Red icons have been included in Google Search Results (if you have SiteAdvisor installed)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deborah</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/#comment-75282</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deborah]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webworkerdaily.com/?p=3327#comment-75282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An alternative to SA is Web of Trust. WOT is a website reputation rating system that warns Internet users about risky websites without slowing their browser down. We have hundreds of thousands of users and safety ratings of 20 million websites.

WOT gets it site reputation data from the user community in combination with trusted sources such as listings of phishing sites. Reputation data is recalculated every 30 minutes, so it&#039;s fresh and is based on standards of trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety.

WOT is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mozilla recommended add-on&lt;/a&gt; that also works with IE.

Please visit us and take a look at our &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mywot.com/en/online-threats/fraudulentsite&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;new video&lt;/a&gt; exposing bogus free scanners that frighten unwary consumers with fake warnings.

Best regards,
Deborah
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mywot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Web of Trust&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An alternative to SA is Web of Trust. WOT is a website reputation rating system that warns Internet users about risky websites without slowing their browser down. We have hundreds of thousands of users and safety ratings of 20 million websites.</p>
<p>WOT gets it site reputation data from the user community in combination with trusted sources such as listings of phishing sites. Reputation data is recalculated every 30 minutes, so it&#8217;s fresh and is based on standards of trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety.</p>
<p>WOT is a <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3456" rel="nofollow">Mozilla recommended add-on</a> that also works with IE.</p>
<p>Please visit us and take a look at our <a href="http://www.mywot.com/en/online-threats/fraudulentsite" rel="nofollow">new video</a> exposing bogus free scanners that frighten unwary consumers with fake warnings.</p>
<p>Best regards,<br />
Deborah<br />
<a href="http://www.mywot.com" rel="nofollow">Web of Trust</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mls</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/#comment-75281</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mls]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:04:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webworkerdaily.com/?p=3327#comment-75281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I concur with Samat and klz here. Considering Mozilla uses Google for their database, I doubt that I would &quot;bet&quot; that McAfee is any better. Also, having both enabled will only slow your performance.

McAfee&#039;s historic strength has been in heuristics of scanning files. I&#039;m not sure that applies so much in what is currently just a giant list of known good and bad URLs at this time; a white list and a black list if you will. Based on strengths of both companies, I would actually give the edge to Google. They&#039;re constantly crawling pages, and have a huge index to compare to. It would seem they have much more raw data at hand, and more experience with that type of data than McAfee.

As a developer, when I find a bug in a program I&#039;m testing, I tend to examine the pattern for what caused that bug, then go back and search for any other code that might match that pattern. For Google, if they find a pattern that matches a suspicious site, they can easily go back through their index/cache and flag pages for further review.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I concur with Samat and klz here. Considering Mozilla uses Google for their database, I doubt that I would &#8220;bet&#8221; that McAfee is any better. Also, having both enabled will only slow your performance.</p>
<p>McAfee&#8217;s historic strength has been in heuristics of scanning files. I&#8217;m not sure that applies so much in what is currently just a giant list of known good and bad URLs at this time; a white list and a black list if you will. Based on strengths of both companies, I would actually give the edge to Google. They&#8217;re constantly crawling pages, and have a huge index to compare to. It would seem they have much more raw data at hand, and more experience with that type of data than McAfee.</p>
<p>As a developer, when I find a bug in a program I&#8217;m testing, I tend to examine the pattern for what caused that bug, then go back and search for any other code that might match that pattern. For Google, if they find a pattern that matches a suspicious site, they can easily go back through their index/cache and flag pages for further review.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christian</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/#comment-75280</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christian]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webworkerdaily.com/?p=3327#comment-75280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have *so* many addons on my FF3 install... Just the ones I can see; Delicious (I love being able to type that without putting the .&#039;s in), Foxmarks, Firebug, Read it later, SEO toolbar (www.seobook.com), Sxipper, gmail notifier. They are the ones across the bottom anyway, we&#039;d be here all day going through the others. :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have *so* many addons on my FF3 install&#8230; Just the ones I can see; Delicious (I love being able to type that without putting the .&#8217;s in), Foxmarks, Firebug, Read it later, SEO toolbar (www.seobook.com), Sxipper, gmail notifier. They are the ones across the bottom anyway, we&#8217;d be here all day going through the others. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samat</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/#comment-75279</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Samat]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 02:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webworkerdaily.com/?p=3327#comment-75279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Firefox&#039;s phishing site database is run/maintained by Google--why would McAfee&#039;s database be better?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Firefox&#8217;s phishing site database is run/maintained by Google&#8211;why would McAfee&#8217;s database be better?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: klz</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/#comment-75278</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[klz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webworkerdaily.com/?p=3327#comment-75278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I used it for about a year on each of my computers.  I finally uninstalled it when I realized the extension was the source of extremely slow searches, and that the sites flagged were never the sites I would have chosen for my answer anyway.  Also, the site for Snopes.com always came with a warning.  Since I often must debunk urban legends in my reference job, I needed Snopes and got tired of the warning.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used it for about a year on each of my computers.  I finally uninstalled it when I realized the extension was the source of extremely slow searches, and that the sites flagged were never the sites I would have chosen for my answer anyway.  Also, the site for Snopes.com always came with a warning.  Since I often must debunk urban legends in my reference job, I needed Snopes and got tired of the warning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2008/08/13/mcafee-site-advisor-ferrets-out-the-funk/#comment-75277</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jay]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webworkerdaily.com/?p=3327#comment-75277</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve used this for ages and it&#039;s fantastic. Well, on one machine. Need to install the extension on my others...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve used this for ages and it&#8217;s fantastic. Well, on one machine. Need to install the extension on my others&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
