DNS vs linkscanners

eyeb · 23. Sep 2010, 09:13 AM

Is having both necessary? I mean using like ClearcloudDNS and WOT/Finjan addon. Aren't they all pretty much doing the same things since I don't know much about them except they are suppose to block bad sites.

Just I see DNS and addons for firefox being recommended here but wondering if using them both is needed. I know some people always want the most, but I like to go with the least and ones that I can set/forget while having peace of mind.

sorry if i've been making a lot of new threads lately but kind of curious and finally found people to talk to about this lol.

maplichen · 23. Sep 2010, 05:45 PM

I think it is a good point, much of the functionality of a linkscanner is going to overlap with a malware site blocking DNS service. I think that there is still room for both however as link scanners, more than just blocking bad websites, function as an almost educational tool helping users to develop safe browsing habits without actually censoring the web (particularly with something like linkextend which allows you to compare a variety of linkscanners). Additionally, with a linkscanner like WOT you can get a lot of very detailed information from other users about a given site before going to it. A DNS with malware blacklisting would be valuable for those times that a site's reputation may not have quite caught up with it's newfound habit of scamming users (particularly with something like AVG's linkscanner whose ratings can sometimes be very old). From what I've read, most lists used by these DNS services are constantly updated for new developments so you would be covered if using both. Just my thoughts.

eyeb · 24. Sep 2010, 09:20 AM

i thought things like finjan actually scanned the site that's linked... so it doesn't need a community response behind it.

MidnightCowboy · 24. Sep 2010, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeb

i thought things like finjan actually scanned the site that's linked... so it doesn't need a community response behind it.

This is true but I'm not exactly sure how well Finjan is being maintained. The last date on their website is from 2007, they don't list support for Windows 7 and it doesn't install into the latest version of Firefox, or at least I get an error message on my system

Maybe the Mr Tech Toolkit provides a workaround for this? If anyone knows please tell!

deya · 24. Sep 2010, 10:21 AM

I was using Finjan with Luna but it sometimes took an age to scan and rate links, slowed things down a bit when searching. One thing Finjan did that I thought was useful was that it scanned links on Twitter, which is good for those shortened URL's you come across on there. Not sure about the accuracy of the ratings, but you can say that about them all really.

There's many a link I've clicked on, with a green WOT rating, and Norton or ClearCloud have blocked it as malicious, or Finjan rated them red. Thing is, if you use any of them you may as well trust them, no point in using them otherwise. But linkscanners do seem to give out many conflicting ratings... and it still puzzles me why Facebook gets safe ratings with all the garbage you can pick up on there if you use it, it should at least be yellow. Or is that too controversial? :-)

eyeb · 24. Sep 2010, 10:22 AM

ooo i worked around the install problem for new firefox, I always do for addons that wont work.
Its easy to do too, download the .xpi file and open it in 7-zip/winrar/etc and open/edit install.rdf and set <em:maxVersion>3.0.*</em:maxVersion> to newer one. I just use <em:maxVersion>3.*</em:maxVersion> and it works until firefox 4

or easier to turn off the compatibility check but i like having it on so i manually modify the ones that don't work

I just didnt know it wasn't being supported, but it seems to scan still, i see icons next to google links lol

edit: i never really liked wot... since it's a user base rating and doesn't seem to be on anything factual :S i mean if enough people dislike seeing a pink puppy then they rate site bad and people think it's malware link

edit: now that I think about it, i've yet to see a red rating... so I'm not sure if it works. I've tried the top dangerous search terms from mcafee and still all green just now

MidnightCowboy · 24. Sep 2010, 12:15 PM

As this is now owned by M86 I've attempted to contact them for details about Finjan's support status. If I get a reply I'll post it here.

Thanks for the "fix it" details for Firefox

J_L · 25. Sep 2010, 01:05 AM

You can use DNS services on your router to protect your entire network.
Also it's harder to tamper with (ex: disable, uninstall, etc) that way.

eyeb · 25. Sep 2010, 05:10 AM

2wire router from at&t doesn't allow it so I've just set dns on my home laptops.
Plus this way I can carry it outside and still have DNS protection on another network

deya · 26. Sep 2010, 05:17 PM

I've been trying various linkscanners on a spare machine which is set to use Norton DNS. Using a website address that Norton blocks as malicious I did searches using McAfee SiteAdvisor, Web Security Guard, BrowserDefender and WOT, all gave the site link a safe [green] rating.

When using BrowserDefender it gave a green shield rating in the search results. The safety info says no exploits detected, but when I used the URL tester on the WebDefender website it contradicts itself by listing the same URL as unsafe to visit, stating browser exploits as the reason - "Our testing of this site found potentially dangerous downloads" - Norton DNS states "Drive-By Downloads" as the reason for blocking the site.

And although WOT gives the search link a green circle, the scorecard does have one red rating - "Domain listed on several blacklists, including Spacequad AntiSpam Services" - but that's dated back to 2008 and is the only comment on there.

I set the machine to use ClearCloud DNS and it doesn't block the site which, ironically, is an old safe search utility that's no longer supported or can be used.

I'm not trying to confuse everyone by posting this but it does show that there are many conflicting ratings when using linkscanners and safe DNS, and I only used one web address as example.

So going back to eyeb's original question, you'd have to say that using both is better than just using one or the other, but I think safe DNS is more reliable now because their databases are being constantly updated. Question is, which DNS is more accurate? - so then it still comes down to personal choice.

23. Sep 2010, 09:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
eyeb Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Planet X Posts: 487	DNS vs linkscanners Is having both necessary? I mean using like ClearcloudDNS and WOT/Finjan addon. Aren't they all pretty much doing the same things since I don't know much about them except they are suppose to block bad sites. Just I see DNS and addons for firefox being recommended here but wondering if using them both is needed. I know some people always want the most, but I like to go with the least and ones that I can set/forget while having peace of mind. sorry if i've been making a lot of new threads lately but kind of curious and finally found people to talk to about this lol.

23. Sep 2010, 05:45 PM	#2 (permalink)
maplichen Full Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 36	I think it is a good point, much of the functionality of a linkscanner is going to overlap with a malware site blocking DNS service. I think that there is still room for both however as link scanners, more than just blocking bad websites, function as an almost educational tool helping users to develop safe browsing habits without actually censoring the web (particularly with something like linkextend which allows you to compare a variety of linkscanners). Additionally, with a linkscanner like WOT you can get a lot of very detailed information from other users about a given site before going to it. A DNS with malware blacklisting would be valuable for those times that a site's reputation may not have quite caught up with it's newfound habit of scamming users (particularly with something like AVG's linkscanner whose ratings can sometimes be very old). From what I've read, most lists used by these DNS services are constantly updated for new developments so you would be covered if using both. Just my thoughts. __________________ The big yellow one is the sun

24. Sep 2010, 10:22 AM	#6 (permalink)
eyeb Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Planet X Posts: 487	ooo i worked around the install problem for new firefox, I always do for addons that wont work. Its easy to do too, download the .xpi file and open it in 7-zip/winrar/etc and open/edit install.rdf and set <em:maxVersion>3.0.</em:maxVersion> to newer one. I just use <em:maxVersion>3.</em:maxVersion> and it works until firefox 4 or easier to turn off the compatibility check but i like having it on so i manually modify the ones that don't work I just didnt know it wasn't being supported, but it seems to scan still, i see icons next to google links lol edit: i never really liked wot... since it's a user base rating and doesn't seem to be on anything factual :S i mean if enough people dislike seeing a pink puppy then they rate site bad and people think it's malware link edit: now that I think about it, i've yet to see a red rating... so I'm not sure if it works. I've tried the top dangerous search terms from mcafee and still all green just now Last edited by Anupam; 24. Sep 2010 at 12:03 PM. Reason: Link to modified add-on by member, removed.

24. Sep 2010, 12:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
MidnightCowboy Site Manager Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: South American Banana Republic, third bunch from the left Posts: 9,250	As this is now owned by M86 I've attempted to contact them for details about Finjan's support status. If I get a reply I'll post it here. Thanks for the "fix it" details for Firefox __________________ Knows nothing and cares even less

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24. Sep 2010, 09:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
eyeb Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Planet X Posts: 487	i thought things like finjan actually scanned the site that's linked... so it doesn't need a community response behind it.

24. Sep 2010, 10:21 AM	#5 (permalink)
deya Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: UK Posts: 528	I was using Finjan with Luna but it sometimes took an age to scan and rate links, slowed things down a bit when searching. One thing Finjan did that I thought was useful was that it scanned links on Twitter, which is good for those shortened URL's you come across on there. Not sure about the accuracy of the ratings, but you can say that about them all really. There's many a link I've clicked on, with a green WOT rating, and Norton or ClearCloud have blocked it as malicious, or Finjan rated them red. Thing is, if you use any of them you may as well trust them, no point in using them otherwise. But linkscanners do seem to give out many conflicting ratings... and it still puzzles me why Facebook gets safe ratings with all the garbage you can pick up on there if you use it, it should at least be yellow. Or is that too controversial? :-)

25. Sep 2010, 01:05 AM	#8 (permalink)
J_L Co-Author, Best Free Security List Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 1,475	You can use DNS services on your router to protect your entire network. Also it's harder to tamper with (ex: disable, uninstall, etc) that way.

25. Sep 2010, 05:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
eyeb Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Planet X Posts: 487	2wire router from at&t doesn't allow it so I've just set dns on my home laptops. Plus this way I can carry it outside and still have DNS protection on another network

26. Sep 2010, 05:17 PM	#10 (permalink)
deya Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: UK Posts: 528	I've been trying various linkscanners on a spare machine which is set to use Norton DNS. Using a website address that Norton blocks as malicious I did searches using McAfee SiteAdvisor, Web Security Guard, BrowserDefender and WOT, all gave the site link a safe [green] rating. When using BrowserDefender it gave a green shield rating in the search results. The safety info says no exploits detected, but when I used the URL tester on the WebDefender website it contradicts itself by listing the same URL as unsafe to visit, stating browser exploits as the reason - "Our testing of this site found potentially dangerous downloads" - Norton DNS states "Drive-By Downloads" as the reason for blocking the site. And although WOT gives the search link a green circle, the scorecard does have one red rating - "Domain listed on several blacklists, including Spacequad AntiSpam Services" - but that's dated back to 2008 and is the only comment on there. I set the machine to use ClearCloud DNS and it doesn't block the site which, ironically, is an old safe search utility that's no longer supported or can be used. I'm not trying to confuse everyone by posting this but it does show that there are many conflicting ratings when using linkscanners and safe DNS, and I only used one web address as example. So going back to eyeb's original question, you'd have to say that using both is better than just using one or the other, but I think safe DNS is more reliable now because their databases are being constantly updated. Question is, which DNS is more accurate? - so then it still comes down to personal choice.