Grr.
I hate sensationalist, vapid news reporting like this.
First of all, it is very, very, very important to understand that
a red or yellow Site Advisor ranking does not actually necessarily mean a site is 'risky.' The yellow Site Advisor rankings can mean many, many things, some of which have nothing to do with "risk" at all.
Let me tell you a thing or two about Site Advisor.
Site Advisor lists my Web site,
www.xeromag.com, as "yellow." It says my site is "risky" because it is a source of spam, and falsely claims that when the Site Advisor automated robot "signed up" at Xeromag.com, it started receiving spam.
This is bunk, because
there is no way to "sign up" at my Web site. In February of this year, I filed a formal complaint with McAffee about my listing, and a McAffee Site Advisor employee acknowledged that the listing was incorrect and promised to correct it.
That was ten months ago. I'm still listed as "yellow."
It gets worse, too.
Sites that link to, or make reference to, "yellow" sites are ALSO listed as "dangerous." Every person who links to my Web site is listed as a "red" dangerous site. That includes my own Web sites (such as my T-shirt site villaintees.com and my other sites), and it includes every other person who links to my site. Linking to a supposed "yellow" or "red" site gets the linking site listed as being "dangerous" as well.
It seems clear that McAfee's goal is to list as many sites as possible as "bad," because that is how McAfee drums up business for their security programs. If they actually took care to list only malicious sites, such as sites with viruses and so on, then the number of "bad" sites they list would go way, way, way down.
And most sites that have viruses and other malware are only up for a few hours anyway, or days at most, and then get shut down...so it would not be possible to keep up with "bad" sites.
So we have a supposed "bad site" advisor, written for the purpose of selling products, that has no oversight and no effective way to appeal a listing, that lists sites that are harmless, and that lists sites that link to sites that are harmless, but does not and can not actually list the most harmful sites.
It's rubbish, and unfortunately, this lack of oversight and this business agenda means the operators have no motivation to make sure their listings are accurate. But people believe the listings, without actually investigating or even questioning what will put a site on this list.
I'm waiting for the first person who is falsely listed as I am and who has money to sue McAfee and bring the whole sorry, pathetic charade crashing down. If I had the money, I'd sue them myself.
