McAfee reveals SiteAdvisor's retesting policy [Newsletter Comp Version]

If your software garbles this newsletter, read this issue at WindowsSecrets.com.

YOUR NEWSLETTER PREFERENCES Change Delivery address: sekhargreen@gmail.com Alternate address: Locale: India 713215 Reader number: 41838-13269

Home   Newsletter   Search   Reviews   Polls   Contact     This issue   Library   Upgrade   Preferences   Unsubscribe

Windows Secrets Newsletter • Issue 185 • 2009-02-19 • Circulation: over 400,000

Table of contents TOP STORY: McAfee reveals SiteAdvisor's retesting policy KNOWN ISSUES: CNN/Octoshape, SiteAdvisor stories make waves WACKY WEB WEEK: Harmless new game, or "Bambi: First Blood"? LANGALIST PLUS: Why am I locked out of the Registry? BEST SOFTWARE: Two freebies that will knock your socks off WOODY'S WINDOWS: Windows 7 moves Live Essentials to the cloud

You're receiving only our free content. Use the following link to upgrade and get our paid content immediately: More info on how to upgrade

ADS   Why is your PC so slow? In just minutes, find out why your PC is so slow. Run the free PC Pitstop Optimize 2.0 scan and receive a free custom report detailing common issues that might be keeping your PC from running at top speed. Over 100 million scans run. Scan for free now! PC Pitstop   Optimize your PC by updating your BIOS Are you looking to improve the performance of your PC? BIOSAgentPlus is a free utility that scans your PC and matches the correct Phoenix or AMI BIOS update and finds the exact driver updates for your desktop or laptop. Scan today for a free report. BIOSAgentPlus See your ad here

TOP STORY McAfee reveals SiteAdvisor's retesting policy By Brian Livingston SiteAdvisor.com, which rates Web sites on a green-yellow-red scale, is releasing details for the first time on how quickly it retests sites, after a story on the subject appeared in Windows Secrets on Feb. 12. To its credit, the site-rating service — which was acquired in 2006 by the security firm McAfee Inc. — is publishing a phone number for complaints and says it will reverse within days any genuine rating errors that are brought to its attention. The Feb. 12 article was headlined "SiteAdvisor ratings may be 1 year out-of-date." The story was written by WS contributing editor Mark Joseph Edwards, and I was credited with research assistance for interviewing McAfee representatives. The article gave as one example a site named HometownZone.com. This site, which had been legitimately rated "green," showed up in SiteAdvisor's analysis as hosting several harmless hyperlinks to "good" sites. No problem there, except that site owner Scott Thompson said he'd removed the links approximately six months earlier. The implication was that SiteAdvisor hadn't scanned the site in months, or the nonexistent links wouldn't be shown. McAfee research analyst Shane Keats was quoted in the article as saying the company wouldn't comment on how often it scans sites for spam, infected downloads, and other threats. "We've made a public decision not to tell how often we test sites," Keats said at the time. Further, Keats was quoted as saying it would be difficult for a site owner to get a rating changed in fewer days than the "probationary period" published by SiteAdvisor. These periods range from 30 to 365 days if a site is judged to have a Web exploit, 60 to 270 days if its e-mails are considered spammy, and so forth. The article asked: If a site's e-mails were erroneously scored as spammy, but the site owner protested, is it true that the site wouldn't be tested again for 60 to 270 days? "That's correct," Keats was quoted as saying. Even paying U.S. $859 per year or more to be tested daily and certified as clean by the "McAfee SECURE" program wouldn't reduce the probationary period, Keats added, after confirming this with other McAfee executives. "The probationary period is no different for a McAfee SECURE customer or a non–McAfee SECURE customer," he was quoted as saying. More precise wording in newly disclosed procedure After the article appeared, McAfee representatives contacted me, saying the article contained inaccuracies. In a subsequent telephone interview, Keats said he'd been asked not whether a site with an erroneous rating "wouldn't be tested again for 60 to 270 days" but whether it "wouldn't be out of the probationary period for 60 to 270 days." I believe the original question included the words "tested again," but that's not important now. Keats said the article had raised several questions and that McAfee had decided to review and publicly release its policies on scanning and retesting sites. I'm pleased to report that McAfee has e-mailed me a previously undisclosed set of complaint-resolution policies, and the documents reveal a great deal about the service's re-evaluation process. Keats tells me, "This is the first time, at least in some cases, that this information is going out to the public." The documents I've seen are not yet visible at McAfee.com or SiteAdvisor.com. Since I've been given them in writing, however, I trust that they'll be posted by SiteAdvisor soon. SiteAdvisor is making a public commitment to quickly change to "green" a rating that a Web site owner can prove is in error. The published probationary periods of up to 365 days do not apply before a genuine false positive can be corrected in SiteAdvisor's ratings. A site owner who is the victim of a false positive must first file a complaint using SiteAdvisor's feedback form. After that, according to the documents I've received: A review begins within "5 business days, usually less," the documents say. If a Web site owner says a downloadable file on the site should not be rated "yellow" or "red," contrary to SiteAdvisor's automated scan, the complaint is scheduled for a false-positive evaluation. "We will evaluate within 10 business days to see if we agree/disagree," McAfee says. If the complaint does not involve a false positive, such as a site that unintentionally hosted a suspicious download but no longer does, "we will evaluate within 5 business days to see if the file is still hosted." If a complaint involves a false positive, a retest/re-evaluation takes 10 business days to complete for all categories of threats. If the complaint is determined by SiteAdvisor not to involve a false positive, a retest/re-evaluation requires 60 calendar days of monitoring if a site sent e-mails considered spammy. It takes up to 5 business days for all other categories, such as infected downloads, exploit code, and links to questionable sites. If the complaint is confirmed by SiteAdvisor to be a false positive, the situation can be patched in the scanning system (so the site won't be wrongly flagged again) in "1 business day," the documents say. In addition, "There is no probation period for confirmed false positives." If a site was not the victim of a false positive, but was able to correct or remove a threat, the site will remain "in probation" and continue to bear a "yellow" or "red" rating. "First-time 'reds' will go green in as few as 10 days," the documents say. "Repeat reds will stay red for as long as 365 days." That can all add up to a lot of days for a frustrated site owner. But at least now the public can see SiteAdvisor's timetable for correcting false positives. Best of all, McAfee revealed to me a U.S. toll-free number that Web site owners can call to talk with a human being about erroneous ratings. The number — which hasn't been visible at SiteAdvisor.com but has previously been used by McAfee.com — is 1-866-622-3911. (This number is not accessible or toll-free from every country.) Keats emphasizes, "We will make it clear to site owners that this is largely a Web-based form and e-mail process." It's important that site owners feeling wrongly accused first submit a report via SiteAdvisor's feedback form. But I believe it's also essential for any system that's subject to false positives to provide live human telephone support in special cases. Information won't necessarily be up-to-date How about the example used in the article, in which SiteAdvisor claimed that a site was hosting hyperlinks that actually hadn't existed there for months? "We looked at HometownZone," Keats explained to me in an e-mail after the original article appeared. "We originally rated it in March of 2008. We recrawled it several times subsequently. Most recently, we crawled and rated it again in December of 2008. ... We didn't find any red-rated links, and we didn't find any heavier green-rated links, so we could continue to show that link analysis for up to a year." In a telephone interview, Keats indicated to me that some links could be given greater weight by SiteAdvisor's crawler and therefore be considered "heavier" than other, newer links. Hmm, old components of a site could remain in SiteAdvisor's ratings "for up to a year"? As you recall, the headline on the Feb. 12 article said data might be "1 year out-of-date." In certain cases, that's absolutely true, and I stand by the wording of the original article. Despite criticism, McAfee is proud of its rating service and wants it to be as responsive as it can be. Keats says, "Without equivocation, we can say that McAfee policy is that no site rating is a year old. Many of the sites in our database are tested at least weekly." The day the original article appeared, Keats told me that "some sites we test every day, some sites we test several times a day." When I received McAfee's newly released documents, he backed away from asserting that SiteAdvisor scans any sites that frequently, saying it was McAfee's policy to make that claim. Because SiteAdvisor's policy statements are certain to change, I've posted the company's original PDF files on dispute resolution and escalating a complaint at WindowsSecrets.com. Readers can judge for themselves whether the older documents gave much hope to site owners who were falsely accused. In my view, a rating service should reverse within hours or days, not weeks, any negative ratings that are wrong. If a threat really has been removed from a Web site, I'd like to see the site upgraded to "green" but scanned every day, instead of bearing an inaccurate rating for up to 365 days. But scanning the Web costs money, and SiteAdvisor is rating sites as frequently as it can within its budget. I hope independent test labs can soon give us objective scores for the accuracy of SiteAdvisor and all similar services. (See today's Known Issues column for alternatives.) SiteAdvisor is a "white-hat" service and I commend it for revealing some of its previously unposted policies. Help people find this article on the Web (explain): Digg Delicious Reddit StumbleUpon Other Permalink Please tell us how useful this article was to you: Poor Fair Good Great Superb   Brian Livingston is editorial director of WindowsSecrets.com and co-author of Windows Vista Secrets and 10 other books. Table of contents

ADS   Save up to 76% on quality inkjet ink We offer the sharpest prices on the Web for quality ink and laser toner. Bonus: save an extra 10% by using coupon code JJ997H. Free shipping to contiguous U.S. locations for all orders over $50. Offer expires 2/28/2009 and excludes OEM items. 4InkJets   Are your computer's drivers up-to-date? Driver Detective provides the most up-to-date drivers specific to your computer! With more than 1 million drivers, Driver Detective saves you endless hours of work and aggravation normally associated with updating drivers. Drivers HeadQuarters See your ad here

KNOWN ISSUES CNN/Octoshape, SiteAdvisor stories make waves By Dennis O'Reilly Our two most-recent Top Stories — on CNN.com's use of the Octoshape peer-to-peer service and on the reliability of McAfee's SiteAdvisor security service — generated quite a response among the media as well as from readers. As you've seen in this week's Top Story, McAfee is reacting to our report by clarifying the process used to generate and update SiteAdvisor ratings. Whenever an article receives the kind of positive response from readers that the last two Windows Secrets Top Stories garnered, we're on cloud nine. And if the stories get picked up by other news sources — as our coverage of CNN.com's use of the Octoshape peer-to-peer streaming technology and of McAfee's SiteAdvisor policies has — it's gravy. Here's a smattering of the news sources reporting on editorial director Brian Livingston's Feb. 5 Top Story on CNN.com's use of Octoshape: Broadband DSL Reports.com: Debate Springs Up Over CNN P2P Use Huffington Post: Watch CNN.com Live Video, Share Your Computer With CNN Mediabistro: What You Probably Didn't Know If You Watched the Inauguration on CNN.com Live Inside Cable News: CNN.com's Video Trojan Horse The following are some of the media reports following Mark Joseph Edwards' Feb. 12 Top Story on McAfee's SiteAdvisor security service: Safe Computing Bulletin: McAfee SiteAdvisor Ratings May Not Be a Good Guide to Website Safety Freedomlist: SiteAdvisor Plug-in for Browsers May Be Out of Date Two more free alternatives to SiteAdvisor Mark's SiteAdvisor story recommended the Web of Trust browser plug-in (more info) as an option for people who want an indication of the safety of the sites they visit. Reader George Elting points out two similar free services: "I quit using SiteAdvisor a short while after McAfee took over. I now use two free programs to do similar things. One is CallingID [more info], which tells me how honest a site is about its ownership. The other is LinkScanner Lite [more info], which scans links in Web searches and e-mail. Between the two, I feel secure." Special paid columns warned of glitches Following last week's publication, we e-mailed on Feb. 14 to paid subscribers two premium columns that we deemed too important to postpone until today. Susan Bradley's special Patch Watch column describes how to avoid a serious glitch related to the update described in Microsoft security advisory KB 960715. In the PC Tune-Up column, Mark reports on holes discovered in two popular remote-access programs, UltraVNC and TightVNC. If you're a free subscriber and you'd like to read these two stories (and all our paid content), you can do so by visiting the upgrade page and contributing whatever amount you feel it's worth. You'll then receive 12 months of our paid content and access to the full Windows Secrets archive. George will receive a gift certificate for a book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending tips we printed. Send us your tips via the Windows Secrets contact page. Help people find this article on the Web (explain): Digg Delicious Reddit StumbleUpon Other Permalink The Known Issues column brings you readers' comments on our recent articles. Dennis O'Reilly is technical editor of WindowsSecrets.com. Table of contents

WACKY WEB WEEK Harmless new game, or 'Bambi: First Blood'? By Katy Abby Computer games just aren't what they used to be. The days of playing World of Warcraft from the comfort of your computer chair are giving way to smarter, more interactive interfaces. Every day, new technological advances blur the lines between reality and fantasy, introducing gamers to a virtual experience that stretches the limits of the imagination. Check out this clip from the SimAnimals Press Demo for a startlingly apt example of this trend. (Maybe these games should come with safety equipment.) Play the video Help people find this article on the Web (explain): Digg Delicious Reddit StumbleUpon Other Permalink Table of contents

ADS   Get your message seen by 400,000 readers Does your company offer a product or service? Now you can place an ad in the Windows Secrets Newsletter and be seen by more than 400,000 active buyers of PC hardware and software. Bid as much or as little as you like to get the ideal ad placement. Windows Secrets Newsletter See your ad here

PERMALINKS Use these permalinks to share info with friends We love it when you include the links shown below in e-mails to your friends. This is better than forwarding your copy of our e-mail newsletter. (When our newsletter is forwarded, some recipients click "report as spam" and corporate filters start blocking our e-mails.) The following link includes all articles this week: http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/090219 Free content posted on Feb. 19, 2009: TOP STORY By Brian Livingston McAfee reveals SiteAdvisor's retesting policy More precise wording in newly disclosed procedure Information won't necessarily be up-to-date KNOWN ISSUES By Dennis O'Reilly CNN/Octoshape, SiteAdvisor stories make waves Two more free alternatives to SiteAdvisor Special paid columns warned of glitches WACKY WEB WEEK By Katy Abby Harmless new game, or "Bambi: First Blood"?   You get all of the following in our paid content: LANGALIST PLUS By Fred Langa Why am I locked out of the Registry? Re-enable your ability to edit the Registry What do external hard drives do best? Why can't I print without Windows running? Make programs open in maximized windows Windows product key hiding in plain site BEST SOFTWARE By Ian "Gizmo" Richards Two freebies that will knock your socks off Fast search utility piggybacks on NTFS Blink and you'll miss seeing it work Searches limited to file and folder names Tool lets you log in with a single click Part PC-based password manager, part Web app Security that's strong enough for most PC users WOODY'S WINDOWS By Woody Leonhard Windows 7 moves Live Essentials to the cloud What's "essential" about Live Essentials? Determine the Essentials that are vital for you How to install only the Essentials you want Get our paid content by making any contribution There's no fixed fee! Contribute whatever it's worth to you Readers who make a financial contribution of any amount by Feb. 25, 2009, will immediately receive the latest issue of our full, paid newsletter and 12 months of new paid content. Pay as much or as little as you like — we want as many people as possible to have this information.   A portion of your support helps children in developing countries Each month, we send a full year of sponsorship to a different child. Your contributions in February are helping us to sponsor Archana, an 8-year-old girl from a village in Nepal. Save the Children channels development aid from donors to Archana and her community. We also sponsor kids through Plan USA and other respected agencies. More info Use the link below to learn more about the benefits of becoming a paid subscriber! More info on how to upgrade Thanks in advance for your support!

Table of contents

YOUR SUBSCRIPTION The Windows Secrets Newsletter is published weekly on the 1st through 4th Thursdays of each month, plus occasional news updates. We skip an issue on the 5th Thursday of any month, the week of Thanksgiving, and the last two weeks of August and December. Windows Secrets resulted from the merger of several publications: Brian's Buzz on Windows and Woody's Windows Watch in 2004, the LangaList in 2006, and the Support Alert Newsletter in 2008. Publisher: WindowsSecrets.com LLC, Attn: #120 Editor, 1700 7th Ave., Suite 116, Seattle, WA 98101-1323 USA. Vendors, please send no unsolicited packages to this address (readers' letters are fine). Editorial Director: Brian Livingston. Senior Editor: Ian Richards. Editor-at-Large: Fred Langa. Technical Editor: Dennis O'Reilly. Program Director: Tony Johnston. Program Manager: Ryan Biesemeyer. Web Developer: Damian Wadley. Editorial Assistant: Katy Abby. Copyeditor: Roberta Scholz. Contributing Editors: Susan Bradley, Scott Dunn, Mark Joseph Edwards, Stuart J. Johnston, Woody Leonhard, Ryan Russell, Becky Waring. Trademarks: Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. The Windows Secrets series of books is published by Wiley Publishing Inc. The Windows Secrets Newsletter, WindowsSecrets.com, Support Alert, LangaList, LangaList Plus, WinFind, Security Baseline, Patch Watch, Perimeter Scan, Wacky Web Week, the Logo Design (W, S or road, and Star), and the slogan Everything Microsoft Forgot to Mention all are trademarks and service marks of WindowsSecrets.com LLC. All other marks are the trademarks or service marks of their respective owners. YOUR SUBSCRIPTION PREFERENCES (change your preferences): Delivery address: sekhargreen@gmail.com Alternate address: Country: India ZIP or postal code: 713215 Reader number: 41838-13269 Bounce count: 0 Your bounce count is the number of times your server has bounced a newsletter back to us since the last time you visited your preferences page. We cannot send newsletters to you after your bounce count reaches 3, due to ISP policies. If your bounce count is higher than 0 or blank, please visit your preferences page. This automatically resets your bounce count to 0. To change your preferences: Please visit your preferences page. To access all past issues: Please visit our past issues page. To upgrade your free subscription to paid: Please visit our upgrade page. To resend a missed newsletter to yourself: If your mail server filtered out a newsletter, you can resend the current week's issue to yourself. To do so, visit your preferences page and use the Resend link. To get subscription help by e-mail (fastest method): Visit our contact page. Subscription help by facsimile: 206-282-6312 (fax). Emergency subscription help by phone: 206-282-2536 (24 hours). HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: Anyone may subscribe to this newsletter by visiting our free signup page. WE GUARANTEE YOUR PRIVACY: 1. We will never sell, rent, or give away your address to any outside party, ever. 2. We will never send you any unrequested e-mail, besides newsletter updates. 3. All unsubscribe requests are honored immediately, period.  Privacy policy HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: To unsubscribe sekhargreen@gmail.com from the Windows Secrets Newsletter, Use this 2-click Unsubscribe link; or Send a blank e-mail to unsub@WindowsSecrets.net with leave sekhargreen@gmail.com as the Subject line; or Visit our Unsubscribe page. Copyright © 2009 by WindowsSecrets.com LLC. All rights reserved. Table of contents