dangerous Web domains

Greetings from Leon Springs, Texas USofA,

I have just found some very interesting info, for me anyway, you or some of your members may know of this already, my ISP has provided this link for me to check out some of the latest Security News.


Just wondering if you are aware of this growing problem, I am sure you are, and what can be done to help in protecting us from these types of problems? I do not use any of those types of sites myself, but; there are some that do knowingly and unknowingly. Will the ‘VE’ be the best bet for this protection or will the CFP and VE in combination be even better?

TIA for reading my inquisitor poster toastie,

Don't visit these ones, they circulate on the messengers at the moment =

http ://myspace.6te.net/britneyspears/
http ://youtube.glx.nl/watchv/=LJTwgF9BSYk-youtube.com

(except if you want malware samples ;D)


Edited so as not to provide direct links

I don’t find these URL’s to be dangerous at all. What is supposted to happen? Do you need to use the insecure browser Internet Explorer? Are they really infected?


“RagWing & eXperience,”

This is just from a feature that my ISP has provided for me to watch and read about some Security issues. This module is taking some info from the AP wire, this particular one is titled,

“New report identifies dangerous Web domains (AP) - 11 hours ago
AP - When surfing the Internet for safe Web sites, not all domains are equal”

It is NOT something received by e-mail, it is a report from “McAfee” on “Mapping the Mal Web” and is from a 2 year study by McAfee. Just add the usual http:// to that link I have provided and you may read what is there.

In that report, from McAfee. there are ‘domains’ that are not ‘trust worthy’ and all should be watchful that you do not land on one. They have the ability to install “malware” on your system and loads of ‘PopUps’ from my understanding.

Being a USER only and very security minded just thought if you were not aware of this report being done by McAfee, it is not completed yet, you should know.

TIA, for reading my toasted poster,


I read a lot about security and technology for many years now. Allow me to share my views with you on this particular problem:

we all know that internet security used to be a non-issue for many years. Security on the internet wasn’t a big issue because the esthablised antimalware vendors could deal verry well with the threats at that time.

The last decade something changed: Highly talented developpers and programmers were seeing the evolution of the internet as a chance to make big money. Not the good way by selling over the internet, no!, by abusing uncountable weak points in this sophisticated global network. These internet criminals, are like the maffia, but then in virtual reality.

Back at your point of dangerous webdomains, this is a verry big problem. Not as big as the other problems, but it is an expanding problem. Dangerous webdomains are being used verry often for phising purposes and backdoor hacking. It is extremely dangerous for people who are doing businness transaction on the net. Big financial institutes are aware of this problem as well the antimalware vendors. COMODO plays a good role in this issue by providing high quality certificates and authentication, but this is not enough.

I see here a majore role for the ICANN. This organisation is responsible for toplevel domains etc.
When we talk about finding a solution for the problem when dealing with a malicious domain, the solution lies in providing a special toplevel domain for banks and other financial institutions. At this way you are almost 100% sure you are dealing with a good domain when you do financial activites on the internet.

Ofcourse there has to be more control about webdomains, because today it is far too easy to set up a malicous webdomain, because there is a lot of anonymity at the internet, this is good but trying to change this will be a great challenge cause due too privacy issues.

People today stand for a choice giving up privacy for protection, in my humble opininon I am convinced these terms are not like water and fire, but can be a good combination.

But I do see hope for the future, the upcoming IPV6 gives more control over the internet in terms of security.

But then again: I say safety is more an issue of the choices you make, not an issue of the choices others make.

This is the great part of life: Making Choices!

I hope I was helpfull for you,

I wish you a nice day!

Surfing sites with ■■■■ advertising might be unsafe.

Just a warning.


PS: Hey triple x, could you be so kind and remove that nag screen? Thanks. LOL

MorphOS REBOL & triple x,

Choices are our only FREE WILL left for us. If you make the wrong choice on WebSites to visit then either you are inundated with popups or malware. My recommendation is to stay away from them, use VE and see if we can encourage Comodo to keep it as STRONG as possible.

As just a USER and very aware of Security I for one need this to assist in protection along with CFP and Avira AntiVir well my sig will cover most of what I have and use.

Thank you for reading my Roasted Poster,

But these are just statistics, that there are more .info bad sites than .gov bad sites won’t stop me if I want to visit a good .info site. And of course there are plenty of rogues in China, Russia… You could firewall whole regions of course if you want.

But as Ragwing says, wake up and smell the coffee. Bad sites try and tell your browser to do something. The days when browsers were programmed to do everything they’re asked are gone, are you using IE 2.0 or Netscape 1.0? :wink: And the days of operating systems without user accounts and full access only are gone too, surfing without admin rights should of course be a must…

The two bad links didn’t work.

Chinese and russian sites never did me any harm. I use them quite often.

The days when browsers were programmed to do everything they're asked are gone,
Seems to me they're still very much here. Every man and his dog tries to use IE to phone home/send info in one way or another.

Of course their default out-of-the-box configuration is still somewhat the same, otherwise people would say that they don’t work. The pont is that they can be configured otherwise. And even by default they’re safer and better, for example all browsers now have popup blocker; and ActiveX was a concern for IE (even though it’s a feature with possible exploits and not a vulnerability itself, just like Javascript), but now ActiveX apps won’t run by default in IE7, you’ve got to either allow them one by one, or put sites in the trusted domains, or change the general configuration, and in the latter case IE will ask you everyday to change it back to the safe level. So it’s a good thing that browsers can be configured for better safety if you want and know how to do so, but still they can’t be too tight out of the box because most people wouldn’t be able to make them work.

As for sites, you can’t judge by countries, let alone by domain extensions. You must trust or distrust one site at a time, just like antiphishing tools such as Comodo VE do.

Going a little !ot! for this thread, but IE6 default settings are extremely poor. Not one single security update corrected them. IE7, slightly better. Funny how you tighten IE6 internet zone, install IE7, settings slackened again. (:AGY)
You don’t get prompting for downloads. They happen automatically. Doesn’t that invite drive by downloads?
There isn’t one person I know thay uses IE exclusively, that didn’t suffer some problem. from something picked up on the net.

I believe tighter setting right from the start wouldn’t have prevented anybody from using the net to it’s full.